|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 10:57:41 GMT -5
By his logic, MLK Jr. was a communist. Then again, that wouldn't make him different than the FBI (or was it CIA) of the 60s that literally tried to blackmail MLK Jr. into not accepting the Nobel Peace prize. They tried to black mail him into killing himself.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:12:51 GMT -5
its how science is spit out for internet arguments and shitty news articles but they dont have particularly high standard when it comes to that sort of thing and i mean its not like medical research typically has totally unanimous results anyway if just for ethical reasons. like what do you do, get a bunch of twin babies and vaccinate half of them? Climate science does though. That sh it is actually happening. What does science have to say about the fact that over billions of years the Earth's weather has changed many times? I believe in climate change, because ice ages and shit, but I don't buy all the BS that people are causing some cataclysmic weather event in the near future. The Earth has been warming since we've had the ability to keep track, sometime in the 1850s. Fucking trains and all their coal burning. We get so many point and counter points on this issue. I read that Antarctic ice had never covered more area than this year. Then you read some really ridiculous shit like climate change is contributing to terrorism. I like George Carlin's take on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:27:32 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Iceland has had 1 fatal shooting by police on record. They also have no right to own a gun, all gun ownership requires government approval with a valid reason to own a gun (self defense doesn't count), and all gun owners have mandatory training. But it's not a gun issue. They also have a population density that's roughly half that of Wyoming. Their population is over 90% Icelandic, and 85% Christian. Welcome to the world of comparing small european countries to the third most populous, and arguably most diverse, country on the planet. Don't make these comparisons anymore. They contribute nothing and still don't answer the question of "are we willing to kill our own citizens to take their guns?" And the following question...What happens when we (current gov) lose? Because they (current gov) would. They have zero chance against even a small % of the US population that would undoubtedly not comply. They can't even beat a few thousand terrorist dirt farmers in any "stan" country, let alone a country full of patriot ex-soldiers, trained law enforcement (many of which would not comply with any Unconstitutional confiscation order) and the millions and millions of guns owners out there that would revolt. Its a great utopian liberal thought, but they are so ignorant about how it would all go down, its laughable.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:39:47 GMT -5
Regarding the gun debate, a few things: 1) There is absolutely no reason that the government shouldn't at least research gun violence, but unfortunately the NRA lobbied to get a law passed banning the CDC from doing any research on gun violence. 2) I always hear Vermont brought up due to being a state with a statistically lower rate of gun violence in spite having lax gun control laws. That's the exception though, not the rule. Every other state with lax gun control laws has more gun violence. Yes, a lot of the cities that have strict gun control laws have more violence, but with the way federal law currently is getting a gun outside your area of residence is extremely easy, making any attempts by individual states and cities to enact gun control ultimately useless. For gun control to work it needs to be at the federal level. 3) For those who like the idea of having a gun for self defense, keep in mind that statistically you are more likely to accidentally harm someone innocent with your gun than to successfully protect yourself with a gun. You sir are misinformed. 1. Not true. John Boehner and the rest of the Senate were not about to let Obama's anti-gun appointees use tax payer dollars to provide unbiased research, who's sole purpose is to forward the anti-gun agenda. Also, like John said..."guns are not a disease." 2. Its the opposite. Please read something that isn't a leftist liberal rag, owned by Mr. Anti-gun Bloomberg. Any data can be cherry picked to show biased information. 3. More lies. Show me where crimes that are stopped with guns is accurately tracked? No, can't? Then take this statistic and shove it. Here is a nice piece that shows how the anti-gun agenda manipulates the shit out of "data". Its all lies folks.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:42:24 GMT -5
only if you include suicide in that statistic, whichis a separate issue. The link between gun availability and suicide rates is well established. Don't pretend it's a separate issue for a minute. Highly misinformed. Ask Japan and Korea about that. While guns make suicide more convenient, the unavailability of them doesn't stop people from OD'ing, jumping off high places, hanging, wrist cutting or carbon monoxiding themselves. Again, this video covers this fairly well.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:45:29 GMT -5
I predict this election will have record low turnout. I don't think moderate Republicans are going to be able to vote for Trump and they won't bring themselves to vote for Hillary do I think they'll stay home. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries are smashing records for turnouts.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:53:38 GMT -5
We tried Jaedrik's form of government once. And then we climbed down from the trees and invented fire and figured out something much better. It doesn't even go back that far. As a country, we started out with something similar to what Jaedrik believes. Slowly but surely, though, we been removing people's right to cheat, scam, and exploit each other through government regulation. Literally every right you have as a worker or as a customer is there because people used to be exploited for profit. We used to use child labor in factories because their hands were small enough to fit inside the machines. We used to not list all of the ingredients on the packaging of food, and there used to be no regulation on what was put in that food. We had price fixing and monopolies. Workers would be exploited until they organized and demanded better conditions, and then they would be fired and replaced with people from the bread lines and poor houses who were willing to work in terrible conditions for unfair wages. We used not to have 9-5 workdays and weekends. We used not to have a minimum wage. We used to have slaves. Anyone who suggests the free market can regulate itself needs a history lesson. But short of that, I'll provide a couple examples of government regulation helping you in your day to day life. 1. I went to a gas station today and bought 10 gallons of gasoline for $1.95 a gallon. That's pretty cheap gas compared to a year ago, and that's because of lower oil prices and competition in the market. If you think what's happening with oil isn't on purpose, you need to do some further research. Its extremely Geo-political. Russia. How else are we going to bankrupt them again? By taking away what got them back in the game. The US is cashing in the favor the Saudi's owe us for looking the other way on everything they do, that we punish/ed other countries for. 9/11, humanitarian issues, the further supporting of terrorism, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 30, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
Sorry, haven't been on in months. Just spent the past hour or so catching up on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 30, 2016 12:34:40 GMT -5
I predict this election will have record low turnout. I don't think moderate Republicans are going to be able to vote for Trump and they won't bring themselves to vote for Hillary do I think they'll stay home. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries are smashing records for turnouts. That's cuz it's an exciting primary, and turnout was never good for those, so those were easy records to break. I think the election will be a lot less exciting than the last two, especially when polling numbers start to surface.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 30, 2016 15:53:03 GMT -5
We get so many point and counter points on this issue. I read that Antarctic ice had never covered more area than this year. Sea ice* There was more sea ice but substantially less glacial ice. Glacial ice is what you see when you look at Antarctica, sea ice is the free floating ice that surrounds it. More sea ice is a direct result of global warming because there is more moisture in the air to precipitate. It'd be like if Florida vanished but Mrytle Beach had more sand than normal.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 30, 2016 17:23:29 GMT -5
What does science have to say about the fact that over billions of years the Earth's weather has changed many times? I believe in climate change, because ice ages and shit, but I don't buy all the BS that people are causing some cataclysmic weather event in the near future. The Earth has been warming since we've had the ability to keep track, sometime in the 1850s. Foxtroting trains and all their coal burning. Well, it is one of two things. Either the earth is warmer because of man caused climate change, or the sun is outputting more causing normal climate change. And we know that the sun isn't outputting more, so... And the following question...What happens when we (current gov) lose? Because they (current gov) would. They have zero chance against even a small % of the US population that would undoubtedly not comply. They can't even beat a few thousand terrorist dirt farmers in any "stan" country, let alone a country full of patriot ex-soldiers, trained law enforcement (many of which would not comply with any Unconstitutional confiscation order) and the millions and millions of guns owners out there that would revolt. Its a great utopian liberal thought, but they are so ignorant about how it would all go down, its laughable. The assumption that it is unconstitutional is the first problem. Sure, you're right that we can't just take guns right now. There is mass paranoia in the minds of many gun owners right now. Look back to 1999 and most people who owned a gun did so for hunting. Now more people own a gun for "protection". But to say that we can't do so because it is unconstitutional is wrong. The entire interpretation of the 2nd amendment hangs on a comma. And now that Scalia isn't on the supreme court, that interpretation could swap back to the other. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries are smashing records for turnouts. The people turning out to vote for Trump don't vote normally, and during the primaries you have normal republican voters plus the new Trump voters coming out to vote. In a general election, Trump isn't going to bring in a chunk of those normal republican voters. They'll stay home instead.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 30, 2016 18:59:10 GMT -5
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.
Trump is attracting people who don't normally vote. He isn't attracting the normal republicans who greatly oppose him running in their party. They feel he is stealing their nomination from them. When November comes, those normal republicans will still refuse to support Trump. He still gets his people who don't normally vote, but he won't have many of the people who do normally vote.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Mar 31, 2016 15:01:44 GMT -5
And the following question...What happens when we (current gov) lose? Because they (current gov) would. They have zero chance against even a small % of the US population that would undoubtedly not comply. They can't even beat a few thousand terrorist dirt farmers in any "stan" country, let alone a country full of patriot ex-soldiers, trained law enforcement (many of which would not comply with any Unconstitutional confiscation order) and the millions and millions of guns owners out there that would revolt. Its a great utopian liberal thought, but they are so ignorant about how it would all go down, its laughable. The assumption that it is unconstitutional is the first problem. Sure, you're right that we can't just take guns right now. There is mass paranoia in the minds of many gun owners right now. Look back to 1999 and most people who owned a gun did so for hunting. Now more people own a gun for "protection". But to say that we can't do so because it is unconstitutional is wrong. The entire interpretation of the 2nd amendment hangs on a comma. And now that Scalia isn't on the supreme court, that interpretation could swap back to the other. Even if a leftist Judge hits the bench and the SCOTUS decides to re-look at Heller, and they change the "interpretation" of the 2A, guess who doesn't comply? Tens of millions of people. Its beyond clear what the framers wanted, meant and wrote. Especially when you read the Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, etc. Its the gun grabbers that want to ignore all of the facts and the history and try and interpret a sentence like it was the 1st time anyone ever read it. Try and revise the 2A so that Americans can be disarmed and there will be bloodshed. Its all but guaranteed. There are a lot of "cold dead hands" type people. Gun sales have never been higher. Does anyone really buy that the American consensus on guns is anywhere close to being up for a disarmament?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 31, 2016 15:37:07 GMT -5
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Scalia's interpretation of the amendment says that the bold part there effectively can be ignored, it doesn't mean anything. If he is right, why did they include the first part of it at all?
The other side of the argument is that his is indeed about "A well regulated Militia" not having it's right to bear arms infringed.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Apr 1, 2016 6:50:42 GMT -5
The militia is made up of the people of the free state who gather and take up arms when they need to defend themselves. The two are one in the same. If the right of being armed on the individual level is taken from the people, then they can not make an effective militia to combat foreign invaders nor a domestic threat.
It's a little wordy because it wants to point out the most important reason why people need guns (a nation of people who are able to fight for themselves will suffer neither the oppression of an invader nor a corrupt local government), but I've always seen it to be very very clear, no "interpretation" needed.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Apr 1, 2016 10:52:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Apr 1, 2016 13:35:02 GMT -5
Uh, a religious exemption clause would indeed refer to individuals. In fact that's written directly in the selective service "conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles. [...] Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be."
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Apr 1, 2016 13:40:10 GMT -5
If the first part is talking about individuals is what I meant by that. Of course the clause itself would be referring to individuals.
Regardless, the point is that there isn't a single way to interpret the amendment.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Apr 1, 2016 14:17:15 GMT -5
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Apr 1, 2016 15:08:57 GMT -5
Finding fault with what's written based on grammar and spelling when it was written over 200 years ago, and knowing that such rules evolve over time, detracting from the document for that lone reason is silly. I'd stray away from making reasoned arguments on just that merit alone.
At the end of the day, save for the remote possibility sovereign government happened to fail financially and not militarily, it doesn't matter if we're allowed to be an armed militia. Do you really think that if the United States government called our hands, and enacted marshal law or decided to pursue ethnic genocide or something similar, we would be able to do anything about it? The odds become longer with each passing year. Even if we're allowed to buy absolutely anything the police and/or the military are allowed to have (we're not), you cannot compete with the government on funding a war, financially or militarily. At the end of the day, we cannot escape dependency of the system. If we didn't have it, we would be enslaved by foreign government. Even if we were to decide to organically grow our own military, our own vision of government, we're still dependent on material supplies from enemy territory. It would also be a bit awkward to fight a war against the local government by purchasing things with their own federal reserve notes. Invasion by a foreign military just so happens to be the only scenario where it might matter whether we're armed or not. We'll at least have the illusion of being able to fight for our lives.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Apr 1, 2016 17:44:11 GMT -5
Finding fault with what's written based on grammar and spelling when it was written over 200 years ago, and knowing that such rules evolve over time, detracting from the document for that lone reason is silly. I'd stray away from making reasoned arguments on just that merit alone. At the end of the day, save for the remote possibility sovereign government happened to fail financially and not militarily, it doesn't matter if we're allowed to be an armed militia. Do you really think that if the United States government called our hands, and enacted marshal law or decided to pursue ethnic genocide or something similar, we would be able to do anything about it? The odds become longer with each passing year. Even if we're allowed to buy absolutely anything the police and/or the military are allowed to have (we're not), you cannot compete with the government on funding a war, financially or militarily. At the end of the day, we cannot escape dependency of the system. If we didn't have it, we would be enslaved by foreign government. Even if we were to decide to organically grow our own military, our own vision of government, we're still dependent on material supplies from enemy territory. It would also be a bit awkward to fight a war against the local government by purchasing things with their own federal reserve notes. Invasion by a foreign military just so happens to be the only scenario where it might matter whether we're armed or not. We'll at least have the illusion of being able to fight for our lives. Ehh, that doesn't really make sense until the government has an army of kill droids. As long as the "let's all commit genocide" or "we're going to confiscate ALL the guns" order is being given to American citizens there's going to be serious push back. The police and other law enforcement agencies may have an "us vs them" attitude, but not to the extent that they consider themselves pawns of the government. The same goes for all branches of the military. The minute you start ordering soldiers to massacre american citizens you're going to run into problems.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Apr 1, 2016 21:49:03 GMT -5
i have the right to bear mousey! Not for long rodent.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Apr 2, 2016 2:55:57 GMT -5
I want to see Trump take a stance on outer-space COD
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Apr 2, 2016 11:43:33 GMT -5
No you don't. He'd love it, probably base some unrealistic space defense system on it. Star Wars 2: Electric Bugaloo, it'll be yuge
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Apr 2, 2016 11:56:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 13:24:15 GMT -5
... you cannot compete with the government on funding a war, financially or militarily. I'd beg to differ. An overview of military history shows that defensive guerrilla tactics match up well against standing armies.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Apr 4, 2016 13:48:05 GMT -5
Honestly I don't like arguing guns through the second amendment lens. Too many interpretations and hypotheticals. And honestly if you're using the second amendment either for or against gun ownership you're doing something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 10:26:32 GMT -5
More evidence that Hillary is literally Satan: wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333"With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch . . ." And, yes, I'm kidding. Though, what the hell, sacrificing to Moloch? Honestly I don't like arguing guns through the second amendment lens. Too many interpretations and hypotheticals. And honestly if you're using the second amendment either for or against gun ownership you're doing something wrong. Right, and nobody really should. It is wise to question the wisdom of the elders. However, if you go back and read the ratifying conventions, which is where it is understood the consent of the people derive from, you'll see there's nearly one, universal, and obvious way they took it to mean. There's no real question about that stuff. I think all this hooplah about interpretation and hypotheticals are just people who want to pay lip service to the constitution but who don't, or don't want to, believe that it really means what it means. I'd rather be honest and say that it's not a sacred document. Muh constitution is not an argument to the strength of its amendments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 22:20:52 GMT -5
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Apr 10, 2016 23:41:49 GMT -5
It's a real shtstorm in that side of the political sphere today, that's for sure. It should be pointed out though the decision to withdraw from the nomination process took place last August. Speculation is they did that because the state never votes for the establishment candidate. The political elite most certainly aren't making any efforts to hide the gamesmanship that's going on.
|
|