Second Amendment

Talk about anything and everything.

Moderators: wallace044, rtn393, Irv, cru77jones

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Nononsense » December 1, 2015, 4:41 pm

qdman wrote:Wpj, I'm done with the pissing contests.
washingtonparkjones wrote:Pissing contest?
Isa Soulstar wrote:Pissing contest.

Isa... :LOL:
User avatar
Nononsense
 
Joined: June 23, 2005, 2:52 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » December 2, 2015, 12:09 pm

qdman wrote:In Sum, armed people, with all their negative sides, are really hard to fuck with. The powerful always want to fuck with people. These are historical eternal truths. So I'd rather everyone get armed, so we can actually settle disputes with words, and not get ultimatums. Furthermore, I don't want people to accept this pov based on my arguments. really. What I want is your cooperation in ending the divisiveness, and demonstrate a logic strong enough to achieve this respect. That means when I parrot the words of Thomas Jefferson, everyone should recognize that this is a super valid point of view, not acting all aghast like there's no thought being put into these words. Even if you disagree with them. You guys are the ones who are suggesting a new way to do democracy, not me, im looking at the creator's manual. Your newness happens to be a majority but that majority means nothing in terms of your pov being correct. It couldn't mean less. So stop hiding behind the fact that there are more of you and get in the logical trenches with me. Or renounce claims to thoughtfulness.


The powerful will ALWAYS fuck with the people, and guns will do very little to quell that Q. Hard to fuck with? How did our government deal with the armed militant groups of the 1960's? Ever heard of the bloody battle of Brooklyn in 1968? No, because it never happened. Instead, these groups were defeated on a level that rendered guns useless. Government sanctioned genocide through the introduction of drugs, mass incarceration, and systemic poverty is how these groups were defeated. Divide and conquer in a sense. Arming everyone just turns America into a giant Hatfield and McCoy scenario. You're telling me that when everyone has guns then we'll all sit down and talk it out? Using that logic, the old Reagan Star Wars program should have brought the Soviet Union to the negotiation table long before they went bankrupt. Remember the movie Friday? You better, LOL! Remember the scene when Craig (Cube) is about to go blast Big Worm (maybe it was Deebo), but his father meets him at the door and changes his mind. Dad says something like, "You kids these days are afraid of an ass-whippin, everybody wants to grab a gun..." That's the problem with the average gun owner today - lead courage.

Progressive thinking is not thoughtfulness? Archaic and muddled statues from our past is what needs revisiting - especially the 2nd! Thomas Jefferson was a great mind, but there is fault in every man. Take Andrew Johnson as an example. This guy was eventually impeached for his refusal to adhere to the Civil Rights act of 1866, yet he was our Commander in Chief! The ripple effects of his decisions directly affect Americans today (see slave reparations). Our country's architects were brilliant no doubt, but their foresight was still limited - None of those guys could comprehend the nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry used today, let alone class warfare, immigration and other shit we deal with.

"...a new way to do democracy..." Well put. BTW, I have an iPhone 2 that I want to sell you because you have no need for a new one. :D Ball busting.
"Mother said render you unconscious. I'm going to render you unconscious." LL Cool J
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 1:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 2, 2015, 3:12 pm

Well let me rephrase. Self reliant people are harder to fuck with. You take away peoples ability to grow their own food, harvest natural energy and water, educate themselves, have strong emotional connections, and also defend themselves and their communities, you'll have avenues for all those soft kill methods like those you mentioned with the Black Panthers. They couldn't hold anyone accountable, and that's why they were able to be easily destroyed.

As far as the "always will" part, I need more hope then that to live my life.

also you aren't suggesting a new iPhone, it's like you're suggesting a new model of physics that Iphones are based on. I'm open to it in theory, but you can't just walk in and call the founders fundamental thoughts about democracy archaic and act as if it's adherents are kooky people based on the fact that we have new technology, anymore than quantum mechanics can say so about Newtonian physics.

To come on so uncompromisingly dogmatic makes anything you have to say in criticism of their ideas not even worth hearing, and I want it to not be that way, so that's why I said that. If you wanna define your views as progressive and mine archaic, I can't go along.

BTW are the Swiss like the Hatfield's and McCoy's? They have an assault rifle in every house.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » December 2, 2015, 5:00 pm

qdman wrote:Well let me rephrase. Self reliant people are harder to fuck with. You take away peoples ability to grow their own food, harvest natural energy and water, educate themselves, have strong emotional connections, and also defend themselves and their communities, you'll have avenues for all those soft kill methods like those you mentioned with the Black Panthers. They couldn't hold anyone accountable, and that's why they were able to be easily destroyed.

As far as the "always will" part, I need more hope then that to live my life.

also you aren't suggesting a new iPhone, it's like you're suggesting a new model of physics that Iphones are based on. I'm open to it in theory, but you can't just walk in and call the founders fundamental thoughts about democracy archaic and act as if it's adherents are kooky people based on the fact that we have new technology, anymore than quantum mechanics can say so about Newtonian physics.

To come on so uncompromisingly dogmatic makes anything you have to say in criticism of their ideas not even worth hearing, and I want it to not be that way, so that's why I said that.

BTW are the Swiss like the Hatfield's and McCoy's? They have an assault rifle in every house.


I'm really enjoying this talk with you!

The only things I know about the Swiss are time, bank accounts, knives, and cheese. Do the Swiss have to deal with cultural diversity in the way that we do? What kinds of economical barriers exist between their upper and lower classes? Is it simply too cold to start some shit in that country? How big is immigration there? In spite of my vast understanding of the Swiss :D , my gut tells me that what works there is based on a completely different set of social standards than here. We're playing cards but different games.

Okay, you forced me to use my internets on you. The first hit on Switzerland tells me that guns for the Swiss are like vodka for the Russians - natural. With exceptions of course (in 2001 some nut-job opened fire on parliament killing 14 and injuring another 14), guns work there. They even have a system for vetting ownership much like we spoke about on page 1. Good read if you care:

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

I didn't mean to come off as unrelentingly hard on our founders. I love me some knickerbockers and big-buckled shoes and old white guys making shit with hemp! I think we want the same thing Q - the brightest minds of today adding to an already brilliant blueprint that maps successful living for a nation. We should be willing to exercise our ability to amend once we've used our advanced active knowledge to adjust for our time and the (foreseeable) future. Then revisit as needed.
"Mother said render you unconscious. I'm going to render you unconscious." LL Cool J
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 1:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 3, 2015, 10:34 am

I love responsible Gun ownership, if you'd consider a rifle in every home and not for "a select few" i.e. most people unarmed, I'll happily consider various universal training programs for early age naturalization of guns like what the Swiss have, which was briefly described in the times article you posted.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 9, 2015, 5:41 pm

qdman wrote:I answered your question. No response? I'll just have to put up some pro gun quotes then.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well Ghandi pretty solidly established that guns are not needed to fight oppression.
Awesome quotes and nice theories. Time to move past words and test whether those theories have any validity.
I answered you as well - show me an example of the theories working out. When has an armed populace ever resisted oppression and protected democracy from autocratic takeover? I'll wait.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 9, 2015, 6:06 pm

qdman wrote:im looking at the creator's manual. Your newness happens to be a majority but that majority means nothing in terms of your pov being correct. It couldn't mean less. So stop hiding behind the fact that there are more of you and get in the logical trenches with me. Or renounce claims to thoughtfulness.

Then try answering the original question, which was a premise entirely constructed on logic. You claim you are using the manual. How so?

Are you claiming the right to bear arms is unlimited in the manual, understanding that arms means much more than guns? If people can be banned from having rocket launchers, where do you see a special right to have guns?

Logic your way through that using the text of the manual.

I don't know why you think the "gun owners are hard to fuck with" has any logical validity when the police and certainly the govt are equipped at such a superior level that the only thing "hard" about fucking with them is bad press. Not like its difficult to call a drone strike on a guy with an AR-15. Logically speaking, he's easy to fuck with from a remote trailer where a guy with a joystick can drop ordinance on his head. If I thought that govt. oppression is avoided by gun ownership, there would be a legitimate debate about whether lots of guns in society is are worth the violence they cause, but this idea that guns would allow resistance is a delusion.

That's really the point of debate. Its not whether an 18th century populace could conduct an armed resistance - its whether a 20th century population could do so. There is no way to logically construct a theory that people armed with guns could resist oppression from a government armed with tanks.

Do dictators confiscate guns? Of course. Does that mean an unarmed populace inevitable falls into dictatorship, or that it is even a more likely event? You've provided no argument to believe that it is so. In fact, your statement that dictators take guns logically assumes there was an armed population there in the first place - an armed population that apparently failed to resist a totalitarian takeover. These are not examples of a unarmed populace falling into oppression. They are examples of an armed populace being disarmed. So, logically speaking, your examples demonstrate that a populace armed with guns has historically been unable to resist.

There are lots and lots of example of democracies that are not degenerating into totalitarian oppression despite the absence of an armed populace. In fact, all of them are less armed than us. That would tend to indicate that what we do is not a necessary foundation of democracy.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 10, 2015, 5:16 pm

The original question being when in history did guns make the difference? In other words some correletion and causation, okay, how about the american revolution? Intolerable acts, followed by resistance (by armed populace), followed by a beatdown from a superior English military, but culminating in the french involvement and ultimate american victory.

Other than that I've been repeating; we don't need guns to fight wars, it's to fight being passively controlled. We need guns to not be helpless, in the event that godforbid we should disobey this behemoth oppressor. Sure they could always just wipe us all out, but that's not ideal for them. All tyrants of history want the same thing. Obedient workers. We have choices to the extent to which we are supplying our own food, water, health care, energy, organization, and of course protection through arms.

And every single country in the world is being oppressed today, globally. The US dollar is an example of overt global oppression.

And...drum roll please....If the government has the right to purchase a rocket launcher, a-bomb, weather manipulation device, alien space death star, then so. do. I. Thank you.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 11, 2015, 1:23 pm

qdman wrote:The original question being when in history did guns make the difference? In other words some correletion and causation, okay, how about the american revolution? Intolerable acts, followed by resistance (by armed populace), followed by a beatdown from a superior English military, but culminating in the french involvement and ultimate american victory.


Since I pointed out that the relevant issue is not whether an 18th century population could do it, its whether a 20th century population could - How about an example from the last century?

Also, this is not actually an example of an armed populace defending democracy from a totalitarian shift by its own government. It was the over through of a colonial autocratic government to establish a democracy. I can't think of a single example of a democracy, once established, descending into totalitarian rule. There may be some, but I can't think of one except maybe Egypt recently and the democracy period was kinda dubious and really short lived.

we don't need guns to fight wars, it's to fight being passively controlled. We need guns to not be helpless, in the event that godforbid we should disobey this behemoth oppressor. Sure they could always just wipe us all out, but that's not ideal for them. All tyrants of history want the same thing. Obedient workers. We have choices to the extent to which we are supplying our own food, water, health care, energy, organization, and of course protection through arms.


This is all just philosophy. Does this mean anything in practical terms? It would be helpful to have an example of a circumstance where "protection through arms" resists this oppression you feel. Or an example of a person with a gun using it to combat this "passive control." In practical terms, the government exercises power via laws which are enforced against gun owners to the same extent as everyone else - and if you resist with a gun there is almost 0 chance of you ending up alive and free.

I like philosophy, but at some point you have to put theories to the test. The fact that the earth was flat was an evident truth for a long ass time. Ideas that sound really good turn out to be flat wrong. I think this is the root of current political divisiveness - people get enamored with their own idea of what is logical and right without ever stopping to ask themselves "how would I prove in practical terms whether my really good idea is true?"

If the government has the right to purchase a rocket launcher, a-bomb, weather manipulation device, alien space death star, then so. do. I. Thank you.

I appreciate the honest answer. I think the idea of private ownership of WMDs is looney, but with the assumption of an individual right you stuck to the logical end of the language of the manual.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 11, 2015, 4:09 pm

Well, what you are basically saying with this whole point of when did a 20th century resist oppression is we are without options in general against oppression, and to get those options is on one hand looney and the other hypocritical. The political instruments are controlled, that's how we always end up choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich-especially this year. So between that and the fact that you don't recognize the economic crisis we are in, and now you're saying we don't need guns to fight oppression, or can't fight oppression at all, I just have a problem with that.

We are approaching an absolutely monster economic crisis, as well as an environmental crisis but leave that off for now. It has already come years ago in fact, the central banks have been doping the system by loaning massive amounts of money into existence. The system is now beyond being "addicted" to these injections of cash. There is also a quintillion (1,000 trillion) dollars in derivatives, and the banks have agreed that a banks obligations to paying derivatives are of higher priority then paying peoples checking accounts. A moment is going to come when the banksters (who own the democratic and republican parties) try to (in general) leave the people holding the bag for all this debt and financial disease, and in that moment I think having guns, versus not having them, will make too large a difference to allow them to be taken away.

PS what's really looney is that we're into the business of killing so deep, that A-bombs even exist. cue sad violin.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 13, 2015, 9:08 pm

Your assumption that an example would occur if the "guns resist problems principle was accurate" is fallacious.

We aren't living in a laboratory, this is the fallacious assumption occurring across the soft sciences.

These things run axiomatically, not empirically. You can't talk about any singular systems in nature as if they represent data held to the standard of scientific method, because the complexity of these entities makes them inherently unpredictable. Economic/political ecology is one such system. You have principles of how they function, and that is all. This theory can be disproved by naming a system in nature that humanity has been able to understand all working parts of, to the degree to which we understand something we make ourselves, such as a car.

That's a major component of the thesis of Austrian Economics which I've subscribed to for years now, the organizing principal of which is that every individual acts in what they believe is their own best interest. Other axiomatic conclusions follow and this creates a network of principles, which don't give you the answers but also don't lead you astray. Philosophy is all we have in some sectors of analysis, and it's better than a fallacious empiricism. You have no proof that after the guns are "taken" the people won't be taken advantage of, and I wouldn't ask because it'd be dishonest of me. I'm not calling you dishonest, but I think you're wrong to demand proof over simple and sound logic when no proof really exists about any claims either of us make.

So I'll ask you again directly, how does one fight oppression? Certainly not through elections, and not through violence, and not through the media, so how?

As stated above, it's going to be hard for you to answer this in a way that satisfies me, because you don't believe in oppression as far as I'm concerned. But here's a short list of issues i'm very concerned about which I consider "oppression".

The degrading soil profile inexorably connected to the many many evils of modern agriculture.

The credit expansions which chronically and intentionally outpace economic expansion, leading to gross instability.

The corporate subversion of free speech through owning the media. The every now and then bipartisan attempts to censor the free internet in the name of fighting "terrorism".

The constant illegal wars and regime changes in the third world which create instability and terrorism, which is leveraged into more illegal wars and regime change.

The playing off of left against right, men against women, white against non white, rich against poor, creating a dysfunctional democracy where every statement is viewed not dispassionately, but through the me vs you lens.

How would you resist, justify, or deny these assertions?
,
My solution includes personal protection, as well as personal education and resource acquisition (sustainable food, water, energy). In general self reliance is the holistic panacea I recommend and live by. To talk about one element without the rest is not addressing what I say. It's not just about guns, but it certainly includes guns. Our strength as individuals is being all spread out and self reliant. It's like nonviolent guerrilla warfare. Strong I's make a strong We.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » December 14, 2015, 2:32 pm

The most effective weapons against government oppression in today's society:

- Mass protest
- Mass boycott
- Foreign media reporting
- Social media
- Military-led coup (see Panama) - However, this would involve a fracturing of government infrastructure.

When these things have failed THEN guns will matter (because society will be fucked at large).
"Mother said render you unconscious. I'm going to render you unconscious." LL Cool J
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 1:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 21, 2015, 8:08 pm

Wow. So you have absolved yourself of any need to compare your theories to reality because its all unproveable? I'm not really interested in arguing religion, so if that's where you are at then let's not do this again.

Of course social science does not involve the direct kind of causation you find in a simple mechanical system. That hardly means that there's no such thing as empirical evidence. Take austrian economics for instance. The theories advocates have been predicting run away inflation for what 50-100 years now without any of these predictions coming true. In empirical terms, that would be considered proof that the theory is bullshit, but your hardly the first person to preach that the end is near every day while watching it repeatedly not happen.

qdman wrote:So I'll ask you again directly, how does one fight oppression? Certainly not through elections, and not through violence, and not through the media, so how?


What I said was - no established democracy has ever descended into totalitarian rule, and you've haven't identified a single example. So, your rejection of elections as the means of obtaining change really has zero basis. Elections and political movements have been highly effective in bringing about some pretty radical changes to undo historic oppression. Marriage equality is a great example. Women's issue, civil rights, environmental laws, on and on with the changes brought about through legal channels.
As stated above, it's going to be hard for you to answer this in a way that satisfies me, because you don't believe in oppression as far as I'm concerned. But here's a short list of issues i'm very concerned about which I consider "oppression".

This is why your stuff is just self-righteous emoting. If I don't agree with your definition of oppression, I don't "believe in" it? Again, not here to argue over belief systems. Don't really give a rats ass what people believe. People believe stupid stuff. All I care about is what you can demonstrate. Demonstrate to me that there's a real risk of some takeover that can be fought with guns and I will take you seriously. Otherwise, line up with the other paranoids.

Your list -

The degrading soil profile inexorably connected to the many many evils of modern agriculture.

So, you're going to shoot Monsanto? I think this is a huge problem. Calling it "oppression" serves no useful end IMO and I generally despise that kind of distortion of language b/c communication is impossible without defined terms. Nonetheless, I agree with you that this is a huge problem. However, there is no revolutionary way to address it. Guns are useless. Political action is the only prospect for solutions.
The credit expansions which chronically and intentionally outpace economic expansion, leading to gross instability.

Again, calling this oppression serves no purpose. Again, you can't shoot it. As to the assertion itself - there's some merit to the idea that cheap credit has negative effects, but what exactly is "instability?" When did we have some baseline of "stability" that you are using as a comparative? The last 70 years have been some of the most stable in history in many ways.
The corporate subversion of free speech through owning the media. The every now and then bipartisan attempts to censor the free internet in the name of fighting "terrorism".

So this applies to guns how? I admit that if you shoot someone you can get yourself heard in the media. That's certainly one way of getting your own megaphone before you are killed or thrown in prison forever.

The constant illegal wars and regime changes in the third world which create instability and terrorism, which is leveraged into more illegal wars and regime change.

...and US domestic gun ownership combats this? Just as an aside, I'd love to know what a legal war looks like.

The playing off of left against right, men against women, white against non white, rich against poor, creating a dysfunctional democracy where every statement is viewed not dispassionately, but through the me vs you lens
.
...and you want to throw readily available guns for all into that?!?!!?! Sounds to me like a formula for keeping everyone in fear, which is actually IMO the most likely route to some totalitarian takeover. Pump guns into the system to an insane level until people will do anything for safety.

In sum, I'm not denying the existence of issues - I'm saying that your pro-gun position isn't in furtherance of a solution on any of them. Just sound and fury signifying nada. Bunch of stuff you are pissed about and owning a gun makes you feel better, less helpless, more empowered but none of these issues you are concerned about justify your deadly little security blanket. The fact that it is effective at providing psychological comfort doesn't mean that its a good tool to actually accomplish your goals.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 21, 2015, 11:03 pm

Your responses to the various issues I raised were awful. It's not all or even mostly about guns, I was just asking how you'd solve those problems if not by promoting all around self reliance including providing your own protection (in the context of why I don't believe in people collecting up all the guns). It's too bad, I was hoping you'd say something about the shit I actually said. Obviously you aren't engaged at all with this dialogue, but for now I'll humor you and keep it going.

There is no "proof" to be had on either side of this gun issue, or the economic stuff. None. It comes down to the principals you believe in and the soundness of the logic surrounding that belief. Data is good, but it's for telling the stories that back up and demonstrate principles. That doesn't equate to a disconnect with reality in fact quite the opposite, it's stuff like the idea of a mathematical model of an economy that behaved just like you want, that is disconnected from reality.

Austrian economic predictions do not occur in a vacuum, that's the point. Just because the governments and Central Banks have gone the opposite course away from what is right and allowed the various cans to be compiled and bounced around into one big nebulous can being kicked down the road, doesn't mean these methods and beliefs have been proven right, just the opposite. 2008 already showed that if you disrupt the expansion of credit even a wiggle, the whole system comes crashing down. Here's some data for you.

Image

That's a near perfect exponential curve with r^2 in a .99 range and that little wiggle, that single moment where credit wasn't expanding at a constant exponential rate, was nearly the death of the whole system. So there's "proof" the Austrians are correct, though in keeping it's not really proven, just an outline laid out for why that point of view is rock solid.

PS: lol @ "marriage equality" as example of change, can't believe you actually said that. We're talking about who controls the money supply here, why we go to war and set regime changes in various countries, not who can make a sissy in the ladies toilet.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 23, 2015, 5:51 pm

qdman wrote: It's not all or even mostly about guns,

Check the thread title. This was a discussion about guns. Your effort to switch topics when your "logic" was getting demolished didn't interest me.

Glad to see you admit that you select data to fit your preconceived ideas that you think is logical. Turning confirmation bias into a philosophy..... :?

I will stick with attempting to figure out which ideas actually work. Not what is merely "logical," and like I said, I could care less about peoples beliefs. Logic dictated that the earth was flat for the first 4000 years of history. Of course it was flat - you could see it with your own eyes and if it wasn't people would fall off. Totally logical nearly universal belief that was dead wrong. Logic is a whore. It can be made to go along with a wide variety of positions. Reality doesn't give a fuck about what's logical. The only issue is what has been demonstrated to work. Keyensian economics has been demonstrably working for 80 years. Before supply side and hard money schools ascended, the US economy dominated the world using Keyensian approach.

In January 2011 you predicted a collapse within two years. http://forums.nykfp.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32821&p=607911&hilit=godot#p608943 Five years later and the economy has only improved. Your predictions are dead wrong but you are more convinced than ever that you are right. I know your not Republican, but this disregard for evidence and rational deductions from evidence is a rot that makes Trump and Co. possible. Can't be called a liar if there are no objective facts.

We shouldn't do this again. I have no issue with disagreement, but arguing is pointless if all we are discussing is beliefs.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » December 23, 2015, 6:01 pm

qdman wrote:PS: lol @ "marriage equality" as example of change, can't believe you actually said that. We're talking about who controls the money supply here, why we go to war and set regime changes in various countries, not who can make a sissy in the ladies toilet.

Just caught this. We were talking about oppression and how it is effectively opposed.

I don't believe in oppression, but equal rights for gay couples is about going to the bathroom?!?!? That's fucked up. In addition to the tortured expansion of the word "oppression" to fit your consequential chain, you also want to narrow the definition to exclude issues of equal rights which is direct oppression? AND YOUR LAUGHING ABOUT THIS!!!! Glad to know that equal rights for gay couples is a joke to you. Its not to me. Say shit like that in front of me and I'm taking a swing no matter how big the guy is.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 12:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 23, 2015, 6:32 pm

Sorry to offend you PC bro. Better you're taking the swing then Caitlin Jenner, she's a beast.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Re: Second Amendment

Postby dcapodic » January 2, 2016, 7:19 pm

http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/01/police-in-this-major-city-admit-its-lost-to-muslim-immigrants/

Do Obama and his acolytes want to see what’s happening in European cities replicated on our streets in America a la Dearborn Michigan? Does Obama want Sharia-patrolled areas and the inability of American citizens to defend themselves?

This isn’t conspiracy theory but logical and reasonable inquiries to be made based on the actions of Obama and his minions. How can it be that President Obama’s policy response to the Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino is gun control — which he has stated he will do by executive order upon his return on Monday.

We now know Obama will unleash the power and resources of the National Security Agency (NSA) against ordinary American citizens deemed a “compelling national security purpose.” In other words, Obama will unleash the power of government to crush the American people standing in the way of his agenda. It has already happened with the IRS. But the objective of the latest NSA incident was to enable Obama to support the number one state sponsor of Islamic terror, Iran. So one can only deduce that Obama will arm Islamists and disarm Americans, all the while flooding more displaced persons from Islamist operating areas into the United States.


A different perspective but kinda on point to the discussion.
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 10:38 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby cragganmor » February 23, 2016, 11:19 pm

any arguments that you had about responsible gun ownership went out the window when those asshats with long guns (i.e. assault weapons) occupied the malheur game preserve in oregon. in theory, they are honorable patriots fighting an unjust tyranny. in reality, they're bigoted, sexually repressed, self-righteous trailer trash trying to go out in a blaze of glory to give meaning to otherwise empty lives. btw, how is it that a bunch of white folks carrying ar-15's and sometimes pointing them at federal officers generates a yawn from law enforcement while unarmed minorities get shot/killed?

i have nothing against the average citizen having a gun to protect themself and family. but using the 2nd amendment to support gun trafficking, allowing citizens to build personal arsenals, like the ones seen in occupations in oregon and nevada (both led by the bundy family) is wrong; someone mentioned the swiss model, well that follows our 2nd amendment precisely since military service is mandatory and each soldier keeps their rifle in the rare event of an invasion of their small nation - they illustrate the dictum of a "well-organized militia".

we have a body of law distorted by the gun industry that promotes the widespread purchase of firearms with as few restrictions as possible; no developed nation has our level of gun violence, not even close. we have a political lobby led by wayne lapierre who said "our founding fathers understood that the people with guns make the rules". funny, but i always thought that was elected lawmakers at the muni, state and federal level made the laws, but wayne has little need for democracy unless it provides him a convenient legal defense for conducting business.
User avatar
cragganmor
 
Joined: December 7, 2003, 8:35 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » February 24, 2016, 9:15 am

1250 gold coins and 1x life for Cragg! :clap:

The militarization of America's police forces is also evidence of industry gone smooth fucking roughshod on this country. Consider this:

When the federal government decides to fund a program, you either use all of the monies allotted or you get your budget cut the next time you re-up. Simple shit - I give my kid 5 bucks for lunch, he eats he lives. Next year the cost may go up but the need to eat has been well established. When Company A tells the government that they can equip police forces and build prisons, their budget proposal is based on the established need, as well as projected increases (more crime). They will provide the government with the data that justifies their sustained existence (and funding). As long as Company A shows data supporting a need for enFORCEment (with a little help from the media scaring old white ladies into thinking that all black men want those cakes), the government will pay for more guns and tanks and body armor and boots and nightsticks and cool hats and force fields and shit. As long as Company A can provide data that shows no vacancies in prison, then more prisons will be built. Okay, the cycle is running and more federal dollars are being wasted/misdirected.

Now why in the sake of fuck would Company A be interested in crime prevention, expanded Police and Correctional Officer training, and community relations training? That would be like the Trojan Condom factory shooting every guy in the dick! Prevention damages profit.

So, the police force and prison systems are filled with a lot of former military types. As a former one, I can tell you that the ONLY translatable skill-set for a grunt in this scenario is his discipline and his trigger finger. He is void of the ability to engage people in few other ways than lethal force. Cragg, I believe that little or no backlash comes from an untrained cop shooting black and brown people (white too, they just have to be poor) because we are conditioned to accept this. Now when the media puts a bunch of John Waynes on TV it actually freezes the knee-jerk reaction from police. It's a blatant lack of training from "ordinary" circumstances that forces a standby until the political and business ramifications can be clarified.

Until the country's best interests are placed above special interest, we are all a bunch of men with shot off dicks. Follow the trail of money that has been spent on "The War on Drugs". These are the folks helping to destroy my country.
"Mother said render you unconscious. I'm going to render you unconscious." LL Cool J
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 1:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

PreviousNext

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests