hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1080 of 1086 FirstFirst ... 80580980103010701077107810791080108110821083 ... LastLast
Results 21,581 to 21,600 of 21717

Thread: Political Shots Fired Thread

  1. #21581
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    Every civilized country ?
    Missing "United States" for that to be true.

  2. #21582
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    19,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    Every civilized country ?
    Missing "United States" for that to be true.
    No he's right..
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  3. #21583
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.


  4. #21584

    Join Date
    May 3, 2011
    Location
    on a boat
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    A critical exception has occurred. The exception is FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

  5. #21585
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,201
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    You illustrate perfectly, the issue with Americas gun stats. Most people into weapons have multiples, so those 100 odd million guns in circulation resolve back to probably 30% of the population. If the rest of us want to move the needle on that, I'm not sure it wouldn't be hard, once we break the Russian stooge NRAs inordinate political power. The gun lobby has done a good job of convincing people it's existential, but what it is is a minority of Americans holding the rest of us hostage by literally threatening everyone else with violence if we do try and enact any form of gun control. "Cold dead hands".
    meh

  6. #21586
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,965
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    Last edited by Alistair; February 5 2019 at 04:52:07 PM.


  7. #21587

    Join Date
    May 3, 2011
    Location
    on a boat
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    A critical exception has occurred. The exception is FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

  8. #21588
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,201
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    So, politically, you are holding the rest of the citizens hostage by threating them with violence, even though we can change the constitution legally, using the rules contained within?

    Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, I think we need to go back to planning to build camps to put conservative traitors in.
    meh

  9. #21589
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,965
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.

    Yes, a very fringe element would likely do something, in small numbers, and they'd be slaughtered if it came down to it.

    The rest of us would move on, adapt, and start applying under the new system. And after all, if you are law abiding, and not mentally ill, and have no criminal record......then you'd pass the test and still get to have your gun(s). No harm done. Hunters, target shooters, women who need personal protection from a stalker, etc, etc, etc, would all still have their guns. But those guns would be less mass-lethal (a good thing) with less capacity, capacity that is unneeded in any legal use of firearms.

    But if you are one of those dis-qualifiers, you should not be able to hoard guns (or own them at all) in the first place, nor are you going to be the one who rises up to fight tyranny, right?......so again, no harm done, and alot of good done.

    I'm not seeing the downside here. The U.S. is not going to collapse to "balkanization" over a change in gun rights. If you really believe that, you're going to have to explain that theory in more detail. The vast vast majority would adapt and move on.
    Last edited by Alistair; February 5 2019 at 05:12:34 PM.


  10. #21590
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    Revolutions are not made when a populace takes on and defeats the government in armed conflict. That pretty much never happens, and certainly hasn’t been the model of revolution in the modern era (say, from the English Civil War on).

    Revolutions happen when the state delegitimizates itself, and then fails to act decisively when the people decide they want something else. An alternate source of legitimacy emerges, and the old state fails to put it down, usually because it doesn’t really try or because it simply can’t get enough people to cooperate.

    Revolutionary conflict and war, where it happens, happens after the revolution itself, once the old regime is gone and disempowered, as people fight over what comes next. Usually this happens when whatever revolutionary government immediately succeeds the old regime is toppled by violence because it doesn’t know how to/doesn’t want to/doesn’t have the support to put down some secondary insurrection led by vanguardists/reactionaries/peasants/bourgeoisie/the church/whatever, and that secondary group either seizes power or secedes with territory. This fractures the military, and begins a civil war.
    Last edited by Lachesis VII; February 5 2019 at 05:16:09 PM.

  11. #21591

    Join Date
    May 3, 2011
    Location
    on a boat
    Posts
    640
    Alistar I am not ignoring you but things are picking up. Watch this spot I'll put a case out for my point later.
    A critical exception has occurred. The exception is FFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

  12. #21592
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph IX Basarab View Post
    Leftists:

    POLICE IS BAD ORANGE MAD FASCIST BAD

    Also Leftists:

    MAKE SURE BAD POLICE AND BAD ORANGE MAN ONLY ONES WITH GUNS
    you know what? take a week and learn how to post

    fuck you're a bore
    Thanks.

    Also, last I checked the left thinks that working class people should be armed, and cops shouldn’t be.



    The only people calling for gun confiscation are liberals.

    qft

  13. #21593
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    9,847
    Reading this thread I heard Folsom Prison Blurs come on. I was reading an article on gun law changes and how they went down in Australia since that seems to be the popular example, and there’s no doubt gun violence went down after the confiscation. The issue is still political but the move for gun confiscation gained zero traction in the US in New York and Commiefornia. If the way Australia did things doesn’t gain traction in the two biggest anti gun states in the Union it would cause revolt everywhere else. Simply because of political pressure the US will never be gun free. A more stringents or better policy enforcement of existing laws should be the first step towards controlling gun violence: make people lock their long guns up in safes when they’re not st home and lock up or carry their firearms when they leaves the house. Police our current policies to make sure the laws in place are enforced so you aren’t selling guns to the bipolar on meds who is a high suicide risk, etc etc.

  14. #21594

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.

  15. #21595
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    A bunch of fat old cowboys fighting off the local/State Police and a few Federal Cops, that's one thing.

    Fighting off the U.S. Military in some kind of armed rebellion, that's a whole other thing.

    Please, stop feeding the crazy and ego of the "Sovereign Citizens" with this kind of shit.


  16. #21596
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    meh

  17. #21597
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,240
    I don't suppose that the Feds intentionally didn't escalate the situation because they didn't want a blood bath. Surely they were just afraid of the rednecks.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  18. #21598
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,187
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    And what happens when/if the kid in the Apache decides to shoot at the feds instead? Or, more likely, what happens when the guy ordering the Apache can’t be 100% confident that the kid in the Apache won’t shoot at the feds? Does he still order the Apache?

  19. #21599
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SSgtSniper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I said I'd vote for/support them.

    I never said I could convince anyone here to accept them, lol.
    I would genuinely fear for your safety if you made a serious attempt.
    I'm touched, but I don't think it's all that bad. Bloomberg has been advocating for it for ages, as have a goodly number of others, and no one has assassinated any of them.

    Like I said, I just don't think (in the near term) that we're going to convince enough American voters on the issue of Gun Regulation/Limitation to get anything meaningful done.

    Honestly, I think most Americans think "doesn't effect me", thinks of the gun deaths generally as suicides i.e. their own choice, or criminals, i.e. not their problem, and doesn't care much beyond that.

    For all the talk on the issue, the average voters (in my experience) cares very little about it, and doesn't prioritize it over economics, abortion, immigration, etc.
    The other part of that equation is that gun control was originally a racist concept.

    Look, I own three weapons and I can tell you there's people around me I'm glad I'm the only one armed when they are around. But blaming gun owners who haven't done any wrong is not the way to win this.

    Start with the massive mental health issue in our country, do honest work there, and then maybe we can have other conversations. And I'll even participate.
    We can address multiple issues simultaneously.

    Respectfully, the 2nd Amendment is an entirely outdated concept. It's intent, to allow for "Revolution II: Anti-Tyrant Boogaloo" is equally outdated now.

    First, citizens cannot fight off the State. The idea is today so laughable, it's unworthy of serious discourse tbqh. The U.S. is not Afghanistan, and no amount of Sovereign Citizenlols are going to hole up in the Appalachians to fight the long war vs. the State.

    Second, not liking the outcome of Democracy is not the same as Tyranny. It's not an opt in/opt out system where you get all the good, but can opt out when society does something you don't personally approve of.

    Third, there is no modern day reason ownership of a firearm should be an inalienable right. Allowances for it as a regulated privilege is perfectly acceptable and reasonable all things considered. And as a regulated privilege, plenty of law abiding people would still get to own guns in multiples.

    End of the day, while I most certainly appreciate the "don't penalize the law abiding for the act of the law breaking" ideal, I no longer support it in the case of guns.

    It simply should not be a right any longer in my view. And I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd accordingly.
    In the hypothetical, they don't have to defeat the state. They have to hold out long enough for the desertions to begin.

    That said, if you actually want the balkanization and collapse to happen, do exactly that. Because this is one of those where even those of us in the middle will not tolerate that much of a move right now.
    I simply do not agree on this issue. I don't think anything would happen if the right were revoked in the vast majority.
    I've seen a couple of these happen. I saw a documentary about it and the amount of firepower the militias brought to that place and how they positioned themselves down on the ground i front of the gate and up on the bridge, with all sorts of assault rifles, sniper rifles and literally aiming at the feds ... I'm not sure that would be a peaceful transition.

    The actual reason for this was different, but the main argument "the gubment took away our rights!" remains. And this one didn't even involve taking away their guns.
    That's fine. If they actually shoot at the feds, we call in the Apaches.
    And what happens when/if the kid in the Apache decides to shoot at the feds instead? Or, more likely, what happens when the guy ordering the Apache can’t be 100% confident that the kid in the Apache won’t shoot at the feds? Does he still order the Apache?
    This is why soldier training has been programming people for millennia. They don't have doubts about the kid. They don't give command of that much firepower to people who they doubt. Also, A.I. piloted Apaches are clearly the superior choice, anyway.
    meh

  20. #21600
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,187
    And there’s no precedent at all in those millennia of military training for troops to ignore the chain of command or go into rebellion, or take sides in a revolution or a civil war. And certainly no elite troops, armed with whatever their era considers state of the art, have ever done this.

    Nope, none at all.

    Glad we got that sorted.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •