Current Events > We need the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the government

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 1:09:18 PM #51:	Sativa_Rose posted... The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians? "Persisting" throughout the years is a completely different argument from actually defeating the U.S. military. Pretty sure the goal for an actual rebellion is to overthrow the government, not just "survive" against them. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913824882] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians?</quote> "Persisting" throughout the years is a completely different argument from actually defeating the U.S. military. Pretty sure the goal for an actual rebellion is to overthrow the government, not just "survive" against them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:10:35 PM #52:	Sativa_Rose posted... The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians? bad comparison, lets look at a country like syria which actually has a dictator in place actively killing off any portion of his population that tries to rebel? --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913824962] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians?</quote> bad comparison, lets look at a country like syria which actually has a dictator in place actively killing off any portion of his population that tries to rebel?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 12/09/18 1:12:04 PM #53:	Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:913825043] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 1:12:09 PM #54:	Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913825049] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheMikh 12/09/18 1:12:15 PM #55:	Civilians need military grade weapons not just as a bulwark against government tyranny, but also to defend themselves against other civilians with military grade weapons. Remember Greenwood. --- https://imgur.com/A0TAfek <cite>TheMikh posted [p:913825056] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>Civilians need military grade weapons not just as a bulwark against government tyranny, but also to defend themselves against other civilians with military grade weapons. Remember Greenwood.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EdgeMaster 12/09/18 1:12:17 PM #56:	monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... Except there would never be a situation in which guns would no longer be prevalent in crime because the market is too saturated for a ban to be any more effective than bans on drugs and alcohol. disingenuous argument. it wouldn't change the situation over night but with laws in place limiting gun ownership it would slowly correct the situation. and unlike drugs, guns aren't an addictive substance. And unlike drugs, guns aren't a consumable substance. There are more guns than people in our country. so you severely limit their sales, prosecute anyone caught selling them without a license, and force registry of every gun found. then you put laws in place making you accountable for the crimes committed by a gun you have registered to you, so you cant privately sell it without going through a legal transfer of ownership. Resale value says hi, no one is gonna pay a decent amount for a gun with bodies on it especially if theyll be charged when they register it. This already happens and possession of an unregistered firearm is already against the law. --- If you don't have anything nice to say, say it on the internet. ****poster Extraordinaire <cite>EdgeMaster posted [p:913825061] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Except there would never be a situation in which guns would no longer be prevalent in crime because the market is too saturated for a ban to be any more effective than bans on drugs and alcohol.</quote> disingenuous argument. it wouldn't change the situation over night but with laws in place limiting gun ownership it would slowly correct the situation. and unlike drugs, guns aren't an addictive substance.</quote> And unlike drugs, guns aren't a consumable substance. There are more guns than people in our country.</quote> so you severely limit their sales, prosecute anyone caught selling them without a license, and force registry of every gun found. then you put laws in place making you accountable for the crimes committed by a gun you have registered to you, so you cant privately sell it without going through a legal transfer of ownership.</quote> Resale value says hi, no one is gonna pay a decent amount for a gun with bodies on it especially if theyll be charged when they register it. This already happens and possession of an unregistered firearm is already against the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:13:33 PM #57:	Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913825120] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 12/09/18 1:14:50 PM #58:	monkmith posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:913825195] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/09/18 1:15:01 PM #59:	Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:913825206] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 12/09/18 1:15:31 PM #60:	I think Joe Rogan put it well when referring to what the founding fathers would want. You guys didnt write any new shit? --- We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales, and sing our whaling tune. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:913825238] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>I think Joe Rogan put it well when referring to what the founding fathers would want. You guys didnt write any new shit?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/09/18 1:16:08 PM #61:	If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:913825276] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 1:17:50 PM #62:	Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913825369] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:18:17 PM #63:	EdgeMaster posted... monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... Except there would never be a situation in which guns would no longer be prevalent in crime because the market is too saturated for a ban to be any more effective than bans on drugs and alcohol. disingenuous argument. it wouldn't change the situation over night but with laws in place limiting gun ownership it would slowly correct the situation. and unlike drugs, guns aren't an addictive substance. And unlike drugs, guns aren't a consumable substance. There are more guns than people in our country. so you severely limit their sales, prosecute anyone caught selling them without a license, and force registry of every gun found. then you put laws in place making you accountable for the crimes committed by a gun you have registered to you, so you cant privately sell it without going through a legal transfer of ownership. Resale value says hi, no one is gonna pay a decent amount for a gun with bodies on it especially if theyll be charged when they register it. This already happens and possession of an unregistered firearm is already against the law. guns with body counts obviously get seized by the cops and destroyed. all that law would do is force you to think about who you're planning to privately sell your gun to. you're not going to go to a state with weak gun laws, buy a trunk full of pistols, and go back to sell to your local drug dealers if you know that those guns you just bought have a legal chain of custody that'll lead back to you if you try to sell the gun under the table. and yes, this doesn't fix the millions of guns in the wild now. but over time that number will drop as they're either picked up by cops from crime or voluntarily registered. --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913825392] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>EdgeMaster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Except there would never be a situation in which guns would no longer be prevalent in crime because the market is too saturated for a ban to be any more effective than bans on drugs and alcohol.</quote> disingenuous argument. it wouldn't change the situation over night but with laws in place limiting gun ownership it would slowly correct the situation. and unlike drugs, guns aren't an addictive substance.</quote> And unlike drugs, guns aren't a consumable substance. There are more guns than people in our country.</quote> so you severely limit their sales, prosecute anyone caught selling them without a license, and force registry of every gun found. then you put laws in place making you accountable for the crimes committed by a gun you have registered to you, so you cant privately sell it without going through a legal transfer of ownership.</quote> Resale value says hi, no one is gonna pay a decent amount for a gun with bodies on it especially if theyll be charged when they register it. This already happens and possession of an unregistered firearm is already against the law.</quote> guns with body counts obviously get seized by the cops and destroyed. all that law would do is force you to think about who you're planning to privately sell your gun to. you're not going to go to a state with weak gun laws, buy a trunk full of pistols, and go back to sell to your local drug dealers if you know that those guns you just bought have a legal chain of custody that'll lead back to you if you try to sell the gun under the table. and yes, this doesn't fix the millions of guns in the wild now. but over time that number will drop as they're either picked up by cops from crime or voluntarily registered.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VipaGTS 12/09/18 1:19:16 PM #64:	Sativa_Rose posted... If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that. I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start. --- "I devour urine just like my Portland Trailblazers, with piss poor defense." <cite>VipaGTS posted [p:913825449] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that.</quote> I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/09/18 1:19:23 PM #65:	Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you? --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:913825458] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:19:52 PM #66:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes. you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s... --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913825478] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes.</quote> you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 1:21:47 PM #67:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever. You'd probably be a bigger nuisance by hurting their economy than trying to shoot your hunting rifle at a tank. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913825580] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever.</quote> You'd probably be a bigger nuisance by hurting their economy than trying to shoot your hunting rifle at a tank.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/09/18 1:22:25 PM #68:	VipaGTS posted... Sativa_Rose posted... If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that. I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start. I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:913825604] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>VipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that.</quote> I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start.</quote> I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 1:23:55 PM #69:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever. It's like you think it's 1774 --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913825683] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever.</quote> It's like you think it's 1774</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:25:26 PM #70:	Sativa_Rose posted... VipaGTS posted... Sativa_Rose posted... If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that. I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start. I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides. very few people are making the argument that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns. there are a few, but the number is small and the NRA blows their views out of proportion for membership bucks. --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913825752] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that.</quote> I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start.</quote> I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides.</quote> very few people are making the argument that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns. there are a few, but the number is small and the NRA blows their views out of proportion for membership bucks.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 12/09/18 1:26:24 PM #71:	monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes. you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s... Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:913825798] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes.</quote> you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s...</quote> Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 1:28:32 PM #72:	Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you? You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now you're going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that? --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913825904] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you?</quote> You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now you're going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 1:28:39 PM #73:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes. you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s... Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow. I'm sure they never predicted stuff like planes, drones and nuclear strikes though. And if they did, I'm sure they'd probably be smart enough to figure out that standard rifles would do fuck-all. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913825912] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes.</quote> you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s...</quote> Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow.</quote> I'm sure they never predicted stuff like planes, drones and nuclear strikes though. And if they did, I'm sure they'd probably be smart enough to figure out that standard rifles would do fuck-all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#74	Post #74 was unavailable or deleted.
Tmaster148 12/09/18 1:30:30 PM #75:	Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you? You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that? I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:913825995] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you?</quote> You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that?</quote> I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 12/09/18 1:31:03 PM #76:	The founding fathers were 1) not a hivemind; they had a whole bunch of disagreements at the time 2) far from infallible. At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:913826032] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>The founding fathers were 1) not a hivemind; they had a whole bunch of disagreements at the time 2) far from infallible. At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 1:31:47 PM #77:	Antifar posted... At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't I mean, just look at the Trump fanbase --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913826072] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't</quote> I mean, just look at the Trump fanbase</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#78	Post #78 was unavailable or deleted.
Sativa_Rose 12/09/18 1:35:51 PM #79:	monkmith posted... Sativa_Rose posted... VipaGTS posted... Sativa_Rose posted... If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that. I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start. I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides. very few people are making the argument that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns. there are a few, but the number is small and the NRA blows their views out of proportion for membership bucks. There are a good amount of people on the left who support the idea. Maybe not banning ALL guns, but certainly repealing the Second Amendment. Like Sam Harris has pushed for this, for example. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:913826302] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>If people don't like the Second Amendment, then they can try to get rid of it. Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is that some people think the Second Amendment should be annulled just because they dislike it, even though there isn't political support to do so. This would be an incredibly dangerous move, as if the government can annul a constitutional right without going through the process to do so, who knows what rights they will go after next? Want to get rid of the Second Amendment? There's a process to do that.</quote> I mean...people are trying to go through that process. The issue is nope constitution nope! Is the counter and the process is never allowed to start.</quote> I've never heard that as a counter. We've annulled an amendment that we decided wasn't good in the past, the Eighteenth Amendment. Ultimately, the "counter" is that there are many people who like the Second Amendment, not that they think the constitution should never be changed. It's not the concept of changing the constitution in general that upsets them, it's that they don't like the specific change that has been proposed. If you do get into an argument with someone who pushes the idea that the constitution should never be changed under any circumstance, ask them if they think the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the one that instituted alcohol prohibition, should have been impossible to remove through the legal processes that the constitution provides.</quote> very few people are making the argument that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns. there are a few, but the number is small and the NRA blows their views out of proportion for membership bucks.</quote> There are a good amount of people on the left who support the idea. Maybe not banning ALL guns, but certainly repealing the Second Amendment. Like Sam Harris has pushed for this, for example.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/09/18 1:37:00 PM #80:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... monkmith posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion... You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes. you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s... Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow. before breach loaded guns, which didn't really become a thing until the 1800s, it took about 30 seconds for a skilled shooter to reload. until revolvers, which didn't get invented until the mid 1800s, you couldn't fire more then one bullet without reloading unless you carried multiple guns. you're argument boils down to 'the founding fathers could see the future!!!' when in reality most of them were farmers that moonlighted as philosophers in the local tavern... --- People die when they are killed. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:913826366] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> so muskets and mandatory military service for all? at least until there's a rebellion...</quote> You're dishonest if you think the founding fathers had no concept of the advancement of technology. They went from pikes and blades to every soldier armed with a rifle in only their parents/grandparents lifetimes.</quote> you're foolish if you think they could even picture something like a gatling gun since guns hadn't changed that much since the 1300s...</quote> Guns had changed significantly from the 1300s to the late 1700s. In particular, the rifled barrel completely changed the game, and by the revolution they were already witnessing the advent of the contained cartridge and repeating firearms. If they could understand that pikes were the primary arms of yesterday despite guns existing in that time, they could predict these advancements would become the new standard armament of tomorrow.</quote> before breach loaded guns, which didn't really become a thing until the 1800s, it took about 30 seconds for a skilled shooter to reload. until revolvers, which didn't get invented until the mid 1800s, you couldn't fire more then one bullet without reloading unless you carried multiple guns. you're argument boils down to 'the founding fathers could see the future!!!' when in reality most of them were farmers that moonlighted as philosophers in the local tavern...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Space_Man 12/09/18 1:37:05 PM #81:	The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt --- There sure are a lot of different mes just like you have a lot of different yous! I'm going outside to play now I hope all the different yous have fun too. Bye! <cite>Space_Man posted [p:913826371] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 12/09/18 1:37:12 PM #82:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever. You'd probably be a bigger nuisance by hurting their economy than trying to shoot your hunting rifle at a tank. Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. And BTW you wouldn't fight armored vehicles head on in an insurgency, if at all. Tanks are great at breaking up fortifications and fighting other armored vehicles, not so great at combating an illusive band of insurgents. Also IEDs exist. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:913826379] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Anti-gun advocates also tend to forget that a complete victory over the loyalist government forces isn't the way a revolution is considered won. Rebels win when the government backs down and concedes to their demands. All you need to be is a big enough nuisance. It's like they've never read about any insurgency ever.</quote> You'd probably be a bigger nuisance by hurting their economy than trying to shoot your hunting rifle at a tank.</quote> Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. And BTW you wouldn't fight armored vehicles head on in an insurgency, if at all. Tanks are great at breaking up fortifications and fighting other armored vehicles, not so great at combating an illusive band of insurgents. Also IEDs exist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 1:37:37 PM #83:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... Antifar posted... At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't I mean, just look at the Trump fanbase Literally a collection of cowards; that's why they like Trump so much. --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913826411] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>At any rate, guns are only a meaningful check on the government if gun owners are willing to challenge the government. Americans by and large aren't</quote> I mean, just look at the Trump fanbase</quote> Literally a collection of cowards; that's why they like Trump so much.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/09/18 1:38:03 PM #84:	Space_Man posted... The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials? --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:913826439] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Space_Man posted...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catboy0_0 12/09/18 1:39:55 PM #85:	CrimsonRage posted... DuranOfForcena posted... lmao truth it might be true that's what people fear, but it doesn't mean guns should be banned --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:913826524] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>CrimsonRage posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DuranOfForcena posted...</cite> lmao truth</quote> it might be true that's what people fear, but it doesn't mean guns should be banned</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 1:41:04 PM #86:	Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you? You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that? I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you. Why did they make the amendment process so difficult then? You keep saying it was their intention, but it doesn't really seem to be the case --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913826574] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you?</quote> You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that?</quote> I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you.</quote> Why did they make the amendment process so difficult then? You keep saying it was their intention, but it doesn't really seem to be the case</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 1:42:03 PM #87:	Tmaster148 posted... Space_Man posted... The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials? We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration. --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913826630] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Space_Man posted...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials?</quote> We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sobergermanguy 12/09/18 1:43:09 PM #88:	From what I've seen, the most hardcore 2nd amendment defenders are more likely to side with a tyrannical government against their fellow citizens --- You choc-blocked me, bro <cite>sobergermanguy posted [p:913826698] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>From what I've seen, the most hardcore 2nd amendment defenders are more likely to side with a tyrannical government against their fellow citizens</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 1:43:37 PM #89:	JacquesArch posted... Tmaster148 posted... Space_Man posted... The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials? We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration. --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913826727] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>JacquesArch posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Space_Man posted...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials?</quote> We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 1:45:54 PM #90:	Houston posted... JacquesArch posted... Tmaster148 posted... Space_Man posted... The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials? We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration. What are you laughing about? The fact that Trump is facing many criminal charges sooner than later is pretty funny, I'll give you that. --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913826840] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JacquesArch posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Space_Man posted...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials?</quote> We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration.</quote> </quote> What are you laughing about? The fact that Trump is facing many criminal charges sooner than later is pretty funny, I'll give you that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 12/09/18 1:46:16 PM #91:	Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Tmaster148 posted... Houston posted... Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended? One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation. Is that in the constitution? So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you? You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that? I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you. Why did they make the amendment process so difficult then? You keep saying it was their intention, but it doesn't really seem to be the case I've only said that one Founding Father wanted to rewrite the constitution every generation and that you only care about the intentions of the founding fathers if it's convenient for you. You don't actually care about the Founding Fathers and only want to use them for arguments about guns. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:913826863] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about we need the 2md amendment because it's what the founding fathers intended?</quote> One of the founding fathers intended we rewrite the entire constitution every generation.</quote> Is that in the constitution?</quote> So you only care about the founding father's intentions if you it works for you?</quote> You said it was one founding fathers intention. Now your going plural. If that was their collective intention, why are we not doing that?</quote> I think it's weird you only care about their intention when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to changing the constitution over time. Maybe don't prop up the founding fathers when it's convenient for you.</quote> Why did they make the amendment process so difficult then? You keep saying it was their intention, but it doesn't really seem to be the case</quote> I've only said that one Founding Father wanted to rewrite the constitution every generation and that you only care about the intentions of the founding fathers if it's convenient for you. You don't actually care about the Founding Fathers and only want to use them for arguments about guns.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 2:00:24 PM #92:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. Well, the first problem with your statement is that there wouldn't be any one, singular corrupt leadership. As another user mentioned, there's checks and balances to prevent that from being the case, and for this reason, any violent, large-scale insurgency is unnecessary. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913827630] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. </quote> Well, the first problem with your statement is that there wouldn't be any one, singular corrupt leadership. As another user mentioned, there's checks and balances to prevent that from being the case, and for this reason, any violent, large-scale insurgency is unnecessary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 12/09/18 2:01:22 PM #93:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... RoboLaserGandhi posted... Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. Well, the first problem with your statement is that there wouldn't be any one, singular corrupt leadership. As another user mentioned, there's checks and balances to prevent that from being the case, and for this reason, any violent, large-scale insurgency is unnecessary. I'll address that point later, I just want you to admit you had a monumentally stupid idea. <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:913827680] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>Define how you would "hurt their economy" as a means of ousting a corrupt leadership. Also expand on how this wouldn't be a monumentally worse situation for citizens than a corrupt government. </quote> Well, the first problem with your statement is that there wouldn't be any one, singular corrupt leadership. As another user mentioned, there's checks and balances to prevent that from being the case, and for this reason, any violent, large-scale insurgency is unnecessary.</quote> I'll address that point later, I just want you to admit you had a monumentally stupid idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anti-245 12/09/18 2:03:29 PM #94:	Wasn't the 2nd amendment introduced at the time not only for a possible tyrannical government but also to pursue settler colonialism and general white supremacy when it came to African slaves? --- Life in the DoB. <cite>Anti-245 posted [p:913827793] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>Wasn't the 2nd amendment introduced at the time not only for a possible tyrannical government but also to pursue settler colonialism and general white supremacy when it came to African slaves?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Houston 12/09/18 2:05:02 PM #95:	Tmaster148 posted... I've only said that one Founding Father wanted to rewrite the constitution every generation and that you only care about the intentions of the founding fathers if it's convenient for you. You don't actually care about the Founding Fathers and only want to use them for arguments about guns. Ok, that's fine. I care about what the constitution ended up saying. My argument was regarding the constitution and what it says. It was decided there would be a second amendment. It was also decided the constitution would be difficult to change. It's apparently what they collectively intended if that is the final written product So I have no idea really what you're going on about --- Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' <cite>Houston posted [p:913827882] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>I've only said that one Founding Father wanted to rewrite the constitution every generation and that you only care about the intentions of the founding fathers if it's convenient for you. You don't actually care about the Founding Fathers and only want to use them for arguments about guns.</quote> Ok, that's fine. I care about what the constitution ended up saying. My argument was regarding the constitution and what it says. It was decided there would be a second amendment. It was also decided the constitution would be difficult to change. It's apparently what they collectively intended if that is the final written product So I have no idea really what you're going on about</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/09/18 2:05:03 PM #96:	monkmith posted... Sativa_Rose posted... The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians? bad comparison, lets look at a country like syria which actually has a dictator in place actively killing off any portion of his population that tries to rebel? And even that has been going on for like 7 or 8 years now, and it wasn't until said dictator was able to get support from a major foreign power (Russia) that he even started turning that war around in his favor. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:913827885] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>monkmith posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>The Taliban has someone managed to persist after all these years despite not having tanks, planes, or nukes... How could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the US military not wanting to massacre massive numbers of civilians?</quote> bad comparison, lets look at a country like syria which actually has a dictator in place actively killing off any portion of his population that tries to rebel?</quote> And even that has been going on for like 7 or 8 years now, and it wasn't until said dictator was able to get support from a major foreign power (Russia) that he even started turning that war around in his favor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 2:05:48 PM #97:	Anti-245 posted... Wasn't the 2nd amendment introduced at the time not only for a possible tyrannical government but also to pursue settler colonialism and general white supremacy when it came to African slaves? Yes, it was written mostly to preserve slavery by approving armned civilian slave patrols that would go around looking and hunting for escaped slaves. --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913827916] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anti-245 posted...</cite> <quote>Wasn't the 2nd amendment introduced at the time not only for a possible tyrannical government but also to pursue settler colonialism and general white supremacy when it came to African slaves?</quote> Yes, it was written mostly to preserve slavery by approving armned civilian slave patrols that would go around looking and hunting for escaped slaves.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 12/09/18 2:06:23 PM #98:	RoboLaserGandhi posted... I'll address that point later, I just want you to admit you had a monumentally stupid idea. How is it a monumentally stupid idea? Most of the change made in the U.S. for the past 50 years has been the result of Americans, in some shape or form, stripping away economic power from the U.S. through their rights, not from armed insurgency. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:913827941] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted...</cite> <quote>I'll address that point later, I just want you to admit you had a monumentally stupid idea. </quote> How is it a monumentally stupid idea? Most of the change made in the U.S. for the past 50 years has been the result of Americans, in some shape or form, stripping away economic power from the U.S. through their rights, not from armed insurgency.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JacquesArch 12/09/18 2:07:13 PM #99:	JacquesArch posted... Houston posted... JacquesArch posted... Tmaster148 posted... Space_Man posted... The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials? We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration. What are you laughing about? The fact that Trump is facing many criminal charges sooner than later is pretty funny, I'll give you that. So @Houston, what was so funny again? Have you been paying attention to the news at all? It's pretty clear Trump is guilty of what he has been investigated for, and much more actually. --- MH IGN: Jacques Arc <cite>JacquesArch posted [p:913827982] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote><cite>JacquesArch posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Houston posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JacquesArch posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Space_Man posted...</cite> <quote>The only thing I don't get is a lot of the people crying for more gun regulations are super against Trump and the current govt</quote> Do you believe that if you are against the current admin that the only means to resolve the issue is to kill government elected officials?</quote> We have an entire system designed to eliminate the necessity for a violent overthrow of an unpopular administration, and it works. In fact, we are currently about to enter the beginning-game of removing this current administration.</quote> </quote> What are you laughing about? The fact that Trump is facing many criminal charges sooner than later is pretty funny, I'll give you that.</quote> So @Houston, what was so funny again? Have you been paying attention to the news at all? It's pretty clear Trump is guilty of what he has been investigated for, and much more actually.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Malcrasternus 12/09/18 2:09:03 PM #100:	Interesting that the folks that say there's nothing that an armed population can do, also tend to be the most vocal against current government. It's like you guys are just used to rolling over when any actual effort is required to change things. --- https://imgur.com/yNe3tUF 4/15/1951 - 3/18/2014 "But not forgotten." <cite>Malcrasternus posted [p:913828083] in We need th... [t:77285083]...</cite> <quote>Interesting that the folks that say there's nothing that an armed population can do, also tend to be the most vocal against current government. It's like you guys are just used to rolling over when any actual effort is required to change things.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > We need the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the government (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > We need the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the government