Jump to content

American Swindle

banned
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

Everything posted by American Swindle

  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/#574c6ba5101d What about this is not bipartisan?
  2. All of Congress usually votes to increase spending, it's a bipartisan deal. Trump sucks because he signs the spending bills that lead to rampant waste of our tax dollars. I'm sure a lot of those 15K hammers will be put on order shortly lulz
  3. The answer may be no, but it boils down to the right to defend's one self against a tyrannical government. Do they have the right to or not? It's really simple. Also, an armed population of informed citizens is a lot harder to control than an unarmed population. If we set the precedent in the US now, then what happens when a tyrant in the White House makes law abiding citizens criminals overnight with the stroke of a pen? Then, let's say this tyrant is colluding with a foreign nation to do so. Sounds crazy, but a lot on this board consider the current sitting president a treasonous Russian sympathizer that colluded to overthrow our election. So again, incrementally allowing the government to restrict what types of firearms law abiding citizens can own allows for a slippery slope toward total disarmament. And in the end, how does any of this address the crux of the issue: factors that contribute to the mental health of humans that decide to go on these mass shooting sprees. Also, research shows that the deaths associated with these shootings goes exponentially down when the shooters are met with violent force in the shortest amount of time possible. Thus, it would only benefit society to have more armed, law abiding citizens to quickly react with violent force rather than waiting 3-12 minutes for police to respond.
  4. No no no, not writing rules. We have a rule, it's the 2nd fucking Amendment. All I'm saying is that if we allow the State (local, state or federal) to restrict what types of firearms law-abiding citizens can possess, then it will increase the likelihood toward a path of total disarmament. Hitler did this to the Jews. That did not turn out so well.
  5. The point is they ended up thwarting federal encroachments and were well armed and fought for what they believed to be constitutionally protected rights. Here's a definition. I can concede that perhaps the Bundy Ranchers were not technically a militia. Do we really need to argue wheter or not the Bundy Standoff was between the Feds and a group of armed civilians that were, in their minds, fighting against federal tyranny? And here's a thought for consideration: if the Federal government is to have such morally bankrupt military personnel that are willing to drone bomb ("Follow orders") armed law-abiding citizens(as Hawndoh mentioned) for standing up for the Constitution , then why does it seem like many are so willing to let them grow in size, scope and power and regulate our right to defend ourselves? The irony in this is that the folks "following orders" swear an oath to the Constitution and yet, they incrementally encroach upon it year after year.
  6. Like the Bundy Ranch Militia? I don't recall the feds wiping them out.... If a militia has the moral high ground against government tyranny, you think that every military man and woman are just gonna "follow orders?"
  7. **A question/Trigger warning** A lot of folks think the CIA/Govt was responsible for MLK Jr.'s assassination. If this is true, which I think it is likely, then would they be more fearful and less deterred by an armed civilian population or a disarmed one?
  8. If an active shooter starts going ape shit, then i'll be nestled behind the choad you're referring to no homo.
  9. Dave went for it and I think it paid off for him and comedians in general. What really hit for me given the current hysteria was his bit on gun control, especially the line that went something like this, "black people need to all become legal concealed carriers of firearms......that'll get guns banned real quick!" Also, him dunking on government programs to train kids what to do during mass shootings had me in stitches. "Where do we go when the shooting starts?/shooter takes notes"
  10. Trump, if you’re on here this man has a message for you regarding China:
  11. He's a neo-con and is for red flag gun laws, what's not to love?
  12. Anyone ever get the feeling all this perpetual fan flaming of division is all by design? 22 trillion in debt, Constitutional Rights eroding, civil asset forfeiture, Constant Failures in government with little or no accountability, perpetual war and collateral damage (your tax dollars go to drones that kill innocent people,) support of regimes such as SA that kill dissidents, a never ending, all expansive government that is stealing everyone's future from them, a Federal apparatus that enables an environment to allow one of the most evil pedophiles to commit suicide and an immoral monetary system that is holding the house of cards together and stealing your life. And yet, we are conditioned to think this same inept federal apparatus that is fucking everyone is to be the savior for the very ills they create. Why is that? Also, why is it that all we hear about nowadays is all white men are racists? Over and over and over again. America was founded on racism. Over and over again. Let's revisit 1619 and make sure everyone knows this is when slavery was started in America. If you don't agree with someone? You're a racist. Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! (I control v'd those ;O) Our overlords are laughing all the way to the bank. As sunshine pumping as it may sound, I'm hoping we can rally on the common ground of the ideas that motivate the folks in Hong Kong protest their regime: Liberty, the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and self-government. The way I see it, secession seems like the best route to go. Anyway, I don't post much, because it's just the same ole "your team did this, my team did this and we are better because of this blah fucking blah," but I really truly believe we have to remember the ideas of the Founders and why even Frederick Douglas (an abolitionist) commended those principles even though slavery still existed at the time and was counter to what the Bill of Rights stood for. That's it. Now continue your pissing matches on shit meant to distract you from the invisible dick of the government.
  13. I suppose not many conservative politicians, but definitely numerous conservatives...
  14. He'll talk to anyone from any political ideology. The refreshing thing is he'll press where he is informed and throw out the disclaimer that he's not informed on a particular subject a guess is touching on and encourage them to expand on it to learn more about their positions. The moment he asked Bari Weiss to clarify her the statement referring to Tulsi Gabbard as an "Assad Toady" is a perfect example of him pressing for clarification.
  15. infringe definition is - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. How to use infringe in a sentence: The government shall make no law that infringes upon the 1st or 2nd amendment.
  16. You still can't deny history or the slippery slope example of the abridgment of 1A rights in the UK from the example I gave after they implemented strict gun control. And your Apache Helicopter example can arguably used as the same reason people should be armed. It's literally why the 2nd amendment was so important to the founders. I'm still against any infringement on the 2A and can acknowledge you aren't. And guess what? It's ok.
  17. I'm coming from a Constitutionally grounded position which is simply neither the 1A nor 2A shall be infringed upon so my opinion on whether one is more or less regulated vs the other matters not. Just cut to the chase and get to the gotcha moment!
  18. I would argue Claymore mines do not have human discretion when it comes to the intent of the intruder on the property they are rigged on. From an anarchists' lens, I think it could be argued that notifying intruders with signage of Claymore mines would be allowed. Radical? Yes, but I think the argument could be made. If we boil down the argument, it sounds like many don't want civilians having a certain magazine capacity but simultaneously want to allow humans in the police force to use guns with the same capacity they want to ban to protect us. Are we ready to go down that slippery slope of trusting the State NOT to further infringe on the 2A? As it's been said, "Once they take the 2nd, then it's only a matter of time they take away the 1st." You see it in the UK now, people are literally going to jail over abusive tweets. And history has already shown that once a country is disarmed, civil liberties and life are subsequently eroded.
  19. I know it's difficult for many to look at things this way shortly after the wake of such atrocities, but I think Massie makes a great point here. In the end, one inherently has the right to protect themselves and their property from the threat of violence and force.
  20. Mandating a minimum wage will not work and will only hurt low-skilled, low-income and young workers. It will also lead to shit like this:
  21. Meh..Tim Pool actually has a lot of credibility in my opinion. So much, he was invited on Rogan to Question Jack and his Lawyer representing Twitter regarding censorship. But then again, I like Rogan and sure the olds on the board do not think Rogan is a credible medium for information or news (which I disagree with.)
  22. Ok, cool. I leave the gotchas to DD.
×
×
  • Create New...