qdman wrote:Wpj, I'm done with the pissing contests.
washingtonparkjones wrote:Pissing contest?
Isa Soulstar wrote:Pissing contest.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
qdman wrote: It's not all or even mostly about guns,
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests