HOME | DD
Balddog4 — 2nd Amendment
Published: 2012-12-24 17:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6851; Favourites: 121; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
I love this Amendment. In fact I love all of the amendments. However, I love this one because it allows us to own weapons that the government have. So I can buy a tank if I want and the government can't do anything about it. Because the 2nd amendment states that I can. Now I would love to own guns, for one reason only; To protect my family. Other than that, I wouldn't use guns for any other purpose. I might go hunting, but that depends.But I support the 2nd amendment 100% and I hate gun bans. Because if everyone is armed and allowed to carry assult weapons around where ever they go, then people wouldn't go out and shoot other people. Because then they might get shot themselves. That's why gin bans DO NOT WORK! Because all they do is allow lawless people to do whatever they want. So that is why we can not allow gun bans.
Related content
Comments: 391
Yeah, that does makes a lot more sense.
l̶e̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not the only cause but there is a problem that is more deeper.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with you in believing that ceasing recognition of shooters would be a big step forward. And you're right, it's not recognition alone, but if we can prevent even just one shooting, it should be prevented.
s
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bullying is one cause
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Definitely. Also a lack of fun or spirit in schools is a factor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel like a world like this is what leads to a lot of school shootings:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE4oz2…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The news again promoting shootings with the parkland shooting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe if we make schools fun, we'd have less school shootings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah but we still going to have copycats
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We can't really ever put an end to violence;
but maybe the European way is working better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Here's the thing: It says the right to bear guns shall not be infringed upon, and also for the reason of a militia.
We don't need a militia, and gun control doesn't necessarily infringe upon it. Which means people are using the 2nd Amendment entirely wrong.
Also, the idea of guns preventing shootings only works in everyone has them. They don't. Which means that idea is flawed.
Not saying guns should be banned, but at least harder to get. Criminals would still do their damnedest, but unstable noncriminals wouldn't. Which, in the end, would save lives, without really doing that much in terms of responsible people having guns.
👍: 1 ⏩: 4
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you saying we Don't need Militias shows how foolish and blind you really are
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
last I checked Gun Control and Gun Confiscation was used to disarm good Citizens and them Slaughter them afterwords and the death toll is well within the Millions bub
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're capitalization is a crime against the English language, I must point out. But nitpicking aside:
"Death toll is well within the Millions bub" refers to... ? At least point to some specific event that you think justifies saying this. Anyways, as for the other comment:
Yeah. We don't need militias. We have a volunteer based military, the most powerful military in the world. The military isn't going to just blindly follow a tyrant or dictator, and if they did, militias aren't going to do much considering they'd be up against a well-supplied, trained, massive military. A military with tanks, armored personnel carriers, an air force with fighters, bombers, and unmanned drones, missiles, actual military bases, etc.
The only way we'd have to rely entirely or mostly on militias was if the majority of our volunteer-based military were to defect, including ever states' national guards, as well as the police and all of the state defense forces, which are also all volunteer-based.
If all of those armed forces were to defect, then we'd be left with only militias, no actual military force or even just a trained force (like the police). But, in that case, the people would be up against the most powerful military in the world, which would be a whole lot better trained, well-supplied, and well armed. And it would also be on its home turf (not half way around the world like the current wars the US army is involved in) and would likely have a large chunk of the population on its side anyways since the itself military didn't defect.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
and you know Nothing of Sun Tzu's Art of War Know it all
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
if you knew any History you know that our well trained Military struggled against the Viet Cong and NV Soldiers and it's clear you never heard of 4th Generation Warfare and I am pretty sure Militias are bound to have SEALs Rangers and Raiders in their Ranks so your clearly Underestimating the American Patriots just as the Brits did in the 1770's
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, this wouldn't be a war on foreign land halfway around the world. It wouldn't be the US army fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan or a destabilized Iraq of the jungles of Vietnam. They're fighting in the US, which the US Army would have pretty detailed information on (I can only imagine). The US is the Army's home turf.
Now, I'm not saying a well-trained army is invincible. But when you are better trained, better supplied, better equipped, and probably have better information, it's hard to lose unless you're being led by someone incompetent and are up against a very competent leader.
Also, SEALs and Raiders are a part of the military, not militias. Again, the USA has a volunteer based army. They'd likely defect in most cases due to, you know, voluntarily fighting for the USA. If the government becomes tyrannical, the army will likely defect or split. If they don't defect, then there's probably no need for a militias, and if they do defect totally, there's no need for a militia because the government has no military force.
And if there's a split between the military, then you still have an organized military force to join. Again, you seem to think that militias will somehow be able to stop the US military. But the military would defect if there was a reason to need militias, or, if they didn't defect, they would crush the militias because, again, better supplied, more organized, and equipped with tanks, an air force with manned and unmanned bombers, a navy, military bases, rockets, anti-tank weapons, etc. etc. etc.
My point is, you can't win unless the military defects or splits, and if that's the case, then you don't need militias because there's an actual military force to join.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
you think better weapons and gear win wars then your stupid and I meant Former SEALs Rangers and Raiders will most likely be in Militias and you saying we don't need Militias is no different then saying we don't need the 2nd Amendment either the typical comment of a Leftist Socialist Pig like you I will never give up my guns to a bunch of Baby Murdering DemonRat Fucks and If I am not Mistaking one of the Democrat candidates threaten to Nuke and Jail gun owners who refuse to be disarmed and you need people with guns to disarm people with guns don't you so that is nothing short of totalitarianism you scum bag and Lets not forget Beto's remark on AR15s and AK47s and I don't fall for your bullshit on that because after you get those shotguns and rifles are next hell Joe Biben wants to ban handguns to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
like I said you know nothing of 4th Generation Warfare even the U.S. Military struggles with it but your just a Typical Leftist telling me to just Roll over and become a Slave to the Globalists NWO so fuck you I will never live on my knees like a Pathetic Slave like you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're a fine troll... At least I hope that's what you are. If not, then I pity your existence.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You are ignorant on the Fact that gun control and gun confiscation has been used in order to Commit Genocide you idiot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, at this point, it's pretty obvious you're just being a troll. And if you're not, you're doing a very bad job at seeming genuine and rational.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you really Are ignorant it's clear you ignore the Histories of Countries that did use Gun Control and Gun Confiscation to commit Genocide and the number of People Murdered after they were disarmed is in the 100 millions you fool here are Countries that did disarm and Committed Genocide.
Turkey During the Armenian genocide
The Soviet Union
Nazi Germany
China under Mao Zedong
Cambodia under Pol Pot
Uganda Under Idia Admin
Rwanda Under the Hutu Regime
And the List goes on I ain't being a Troll you Ignorant Know it All I'm telling you the Dead Serious Truth and if you can't realize that then you are Blind Fool that puts too much Trust in the Government the 2nd Amendment will never be outdated and your Country Disarmed you of all your guns and you Brag that you weren't under the same Horror these Nations went through but I say to you Not Yet your Country hasn't gone Tyrannical but then again you said you lived in the UK and if I am not Mistaking your Country has had some Bloodthirsty Tyrants in your country's history and that was when UK citizens couldn't have Swords for defense if it happen once in your Country it will happen again which you and some of your fellow countrymen are going to let happen again due to you giving up your means to defend yourself against Tyranny.
this isn't Trolling or Cyberbullying it's the Dead Serious Truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And you are so wrong it is not even funny.
A militia is made up of everyday people that can be called upon at a moment's notice to fight. A militia or military is vital to our defense. If you make guns harder to get,you make the criminals' job easier. Think of it,if you were a criminal what would you target: A neighborhood where you are likely to be shot at or a neighborhood where the risk is lower?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but, again, when do we need a militia? As you said "a militia or a military is vital to our defense". We have police, a military, plenty of paramilitary organizations, state guards, and the national guard.
We don't need a militia.
Secondly, I'm not saying they should be impossible to get. But you should at least need to make sure this person isn't someone who would use it for killing. Or is unstable. Which I noted in my last comment. You see, if you make it more difficult to get guns (i.e. give it just the basic regulation that most gun owners think is basic common sense), then unstable people won't be able to get one, and then use it regrettably. There are people who end up killing because they were unstable and still got a gun. I'm not saying its gotta be super impossible to get guns, but at least have some regulation. Many gun owners agree that the kind of regulation (most) liberals/democrats are trying to pass is fair and necessary, but it's fear mongering that leads to this sort of hard line between it either being mostly unregulated, or nearly impossible to get guns. It doesn't need to be like that though.
Lastly, yes. I, as a criminal er.... hypothetically, would target somewhere more peaceful, with less crime. Problem is, not regulating guns won't solve that. There will still be pacifistic areas where people trust their community and non-violent crimes mainly occur. They still won't have guns, and it would be easier to target them. And even if lots of people had guns, a gun is still just a *bang* away from killing you. If you don't have anyone around, it doesn't matter. The criminal likely wouldn't hesitate to kill you if you tried to pull a gun out against him.
My point is simple:
Gun regulation can still curb the number of criminals or unstable people with guns while still allowing the "good guys" to have guns. Not regulating guns won't solve anything however, as guns would still be easy to get, there would still be people without guns, and the amendment most people would justify them with would be pretty much invalid if it weren't for the fact that the second part of it is completely ignored from a legal stand point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My my,you have been busy.
First,let me point out what a militia is again. A militia is a group of everyday people that can be called upon at a moment's notice. The militia is the basis of the National Guard. And the Guard is the bulk of our military's strength.
Now I am not against regulation. I am against stupid and excessive regulation. Every time there is a tragedy,the liberal idiots cry out for more regulations. We have plenty of regulation in place,more rules are not needed and are frankly a waste of time and resources. Take Detroit for example. They have some of the strictest gun laws out there and as a result,they have had the infamous honor of being named "Murder Capital Of The World" on more than one occasion. Gun laws work when they are followed and used correctly.
As for the national tragedies that happened,some of them could have been prevented if law enforcement actually did their jobs. The FBI had notice of them and deemed them not a threat. We all know what happened next. As for defense,I like to be proactive,not reactive. Many have the mentality of just call the cops when someone tries to rob or shoot you. There are many flaws with that.
1. What makes you think that if you call the police they will arrive in time?
2. What is to stop an attacker while you made the call?
3. Are you actually going to take that chance with your loved ones? Are you not willing to raise arms against those that would bring you harm? If someone threatened my family with death,they just signed their own death certificate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, there is a difference between a militia and the National Guard, at least in the modern sense. The National Guard is indeed a militia, just like the State Guards, but they are apart of the reserves. They are dually apart of state and federal militaries. Our army is volunteer-only, and the national and state guards are militias. That's why it doesn't matter whether or not we can form a milita. We already have one in every state, and some have two (the state guard). The militia is something integrated into our nation. It isn't just something like the Minute Men, this is like the Continental Army. We don't need a group that can band together at a moment's notice. We need something well-regulated (as the 2nd Amendment says), and that's exactly what the National Guard is. Adding gun regulation won't destroy that.
Next, not everyone wants absurd regulation. Only the people who yell the loudest. Even still, both sides agree more could be done. Maybe mandate background checks on all guns, on private sales, and make criminal and mental health records more accessible while also lengthening the 3-day time limit. You know, make it so we can actually check people properly.
Fun Fact: There's a higher percentage of prohibited people in background checks taking more than 24 hours. So, it's odd that there is such a short limit on background checks since its more likely to be a prohibited person.
In Detroit's defence, rules get made for a reason. Even if they aren't entirely effective, these laws are probably preventing further violence at least some what.
As for the police thing, I see your point. But again, I'm not saying you need to make it so you can't get guns. I'm saying it just needs to be a process that can accurately assess the risk of the individual without the person defaulting. If you still want a gun, you can still get a gun. It might take a little longer, but oh well.
And, again, guns only work if you shoot first. If they have the upperhand, you're the one whose going to get shot. You may have a gun, but a gun to the head is worth 2 drawer.
Also, that "guns to stop guns" method only works if most everyone has them. Again, many people see them as what they are (killing devices) and thus don't want a part of it, because they think the risk of it just being around out weighs the protection it provides. Or, some people just won't see a need.
Like you said, a criminal is more likely to go for a less gun-filled (or in some cases, gun-happy) neighborhood. So, in the end, all you've done is pushed the crime to another neighborhood.
Don't be like Superman ("Overthere needs to solves overthere's problems")
Be like Superman (Protector of all people)
A gun can protect you and your family, and maybe those in your vicinity, but it doesn't solve the problem. It just makes it move away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The military is volunteer nowadays,but in the early days it was a conscription. If you got your notice to serve,you had one of four choices. Serve,get a classification declaring you unfit or unable to serve,pay someone in your place,or dodge the draft. Again,you fail to see the point about the militia,it is made up of everyday people. Hence the right to bear arms.
Everyone nowadays wants absurd regulations. From Commiefornia with their ridiculous magazine limits and laws,to New York where you either have to be a person that is super pure or super connected. Both sides agree that something has to be done. But it is not ban weapons. All that does is render everyday people powerless. Criminals love new gun laws. Democrats love new gun laws for another reason. It is far easier to control people when they are unarmed. We do not need new gun laws,we need to use the ones we have. Laws only work for law-biding citizens. The liberals want to adopt gun laws like Europe and Japan and Australia. That is fine if you want sheep and have people that are not criminals. That will not work in the US. We have too many people from different backgrounds and a lot of them would blow your head off for the smallest thing. We need a system similar to Switzerland. Every male is required to serve in the military. And they are required to keep their service weapon even after separation. Now,they have a culture of weaponry and it is taught to people to have respect for a weapon. We need more education with weapons,not more laws.
You cannot save everyone. The first rule of war is "There will always be casualties." But if everyone was armed,and had the proper knowledge and mindset,you can make criminals run scared. Even Superman cannot save everyone. Self-reliance is what we need.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The right to bear arms isn't going to be taken away from our national guard. Which, again, isn't really a militia, it's basically just reserves that can be called by either the state or federal government.
I get the point, but I always saw the militia in the Constitution more being something that would be able to destroy the government should they become to corrupt. Kinda like a coupe. It works for you until you don't work for it. Also, the right to bear arms can still be regulated and not be infringed upon. Having a safe society where people can live free of fear comes before your right to bear arms, so if some regulation is required, it should happen. You still can bear arms, just so long as you don't try to murder people or are unstable.
Again, not promoting total ban. I know it would never work. Did you not read that I just wanted better background checks and background checks on all purchases along with enough time to perform them so that we can keep guns out of people's hands they shouldn't be in.
If you aren't a criminal, or mentally unstable, you could still get a gun. It might take a little longer, and maybe you can't have more than 10 rounds ready at once. (Honestly, I don't see a problem with that. If you are just a civilian with a gun, you won't need 10 bullets unless you're in a Hollywood shootout.)
Europe, Japan, and Australia all have systems that work. It's like why Democrats want healthcare like Europe, Japan, and Canada. It works. Well. Very well.
As for the Switzerland thing, I see your viewpoint, but that just means everyone is armed, which means its much easier to be dangerous.
Why? Because, again, not everyone wants to be armed. But all the wrong people do want to be armed, which makes it extra easy for them to get armed. And if they get assault weapons, which is very possible in America, you suddenly have trained, well armed individuals who can band together to do real damage very easily.
Also, Switzerland has like 4 Million men total. From Babies to Old Men. We'd have too many people serving because we have an absolutely massive population of 318 Million.
Anyways, before I hit submit, I'd like to remind you:
1) Quit bringing up weapons bans. I have already specifically said I don't want that.
2) As I said, not everyone wants extreme bans. It's just the people on the extreme ends are always the loudest.
3) The rules of war shouldn't be applying to self-defense in times peace. Yes, there will be tragedies, but it shouldn't be from people dealing with their own protection rather than trying to solve the larger issue.
4) *snorts* Well, actually, Superman has been able to go many times lightspeed, tow planets, survived punches many times stronger than a supernova, can see and hear pretty much anything, even in space, and has a bundle of powers that can accomplish many things. But this is just me being a nerd.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have to have checks and balances. Our Founding Fathers knew this and created the 2nd Amendment for that. If a government abuses its power,it needs to be destroyed. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I agree we need a common sense approach to gun control. The problem is very few possess it. So it is passed by the idiots that were elected. What is so wrong with enforcing the laws we have now?
Europe,Japan,and Australia basically advocate no guns for defense. I personally have a problem with that. What is going to stop people from doing damage? An armed citizen is an empowered citizen. Their health care systems are also vastly different. Japan I believe you pay a bit every month for it and it works. The reason it failed in America because it was written by an asshole,pushed through by an egomaniac,and is out of control. The only saving grace is that you cannot go to jail for not having it. I like the idea of national health care,but not this system and you should not be forced to get it.
1. I apologize if I sounded that way.
2. I disagree,most seem to want it and it causes a backlash. Want proof? When CA passed their 10 round magazine for an AR law,do you know what happened? People flooded CA gun shops to get them. If anything stuff like that does not work.
3. There are no rules to a fight or defending yourself or your home. Why should the good people be forced to fight with a restricted rule set?
4. But even he cannot save everyone or stop every little thing.
I am reminded of the episode of Futurama when Bender meets God. You have to have a light touch like a bank robber or a pickpocket. If you do nothing,people lose faith. If you do too much,people become dependent. If you do it just right,people will wonder if you exist at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. Exactly. However, my point is, the entirety of our armed forces is volunteer only. They *are* that militia. The military wouldn't stand for some crazy corruption.
I wouldn't say its that few people have commons sense. It's just, as I've said, the most extreme are the loudest. The NRA is one the most anti-regulation places around. And yet, most people in it think we need stricter laws. Common sense laws. Yet the few at the top who are either corrupt or approaching the alt-right are the ones on top (Mainly the corrupt though. Power corrupt, but big bucks corrupt absolutely) and thus the have the megaphone. Similarly, the most outspoken pro-regulators are generally the toughest on guns. Why? Well, quite simply, most any debate that starts out small will slowly snowball as one side ups their rhetoric to spread their influence and tip people to their side, so the other side does it in response. Now, we have a solution in the middle (well, slightly left of the middle, if we use our current laws as the midpoint), but both sides have turned into pulling machines no longer able to cooperate.
I honestly don't see the big deal about Obamacare. Lots of people like it, even more if you count the people who like its twin, the ACA. What's that Stan? The ACA is just another colloquialism forthe same bill Obamacare is one for? Stop being silly Stan. The ACA is a miracle while Obamacare is a disaster.
Satire of the idiots in America aside, it has done a lot of good, even if people don't know it yet. Could it be better? Yes. But the fact is, it was meant to be universal healthcare, but it just couldn't be in America.
Why? Because we have asinine laws that create circumstances different from Japan, or Canada, or Aussie land. hey can negotiate with health care companies, while we can't. Then have nationally run prisons while we have many privately run prisons. hey have laws regulating guns in a culture that is less violent, while we have corruption at the top of a comparatively violent culture.
Which brings me to what I forgot to put in my last comment:
My high school Spanish teacher shared with our class her thoughts on the mentality of America, and that was that she thought we never really gave up our rebellious "Wild West" sort of nature. Born from a few bringing about Revolution, we fought against natives couldn't agree with ourselves, broke in half and taped ourselves back together and expanded westward, heading into adventure searching for wealth just like our forefathers. Our country was built on people looking to make a buck, and our Union is less of a singular or even federal nation, and closer to the EU with some more power given to the "umbrella government". We've never agreed. We were the people who held onto slavery the longest (well, not the longest, but longer than the Euro powers), looked down on immigrants and our neighbors, and used the vast resources in our western edges to expand and expand trying to make a buck or make a new community for ourselves in this young land.
We have always been violent. Greedy. Divided. We honestly have had less of a development as a country than the powers of Europe. They formed kingdoms, expanded their lands, but they were a constant. The French had the Brits across the channel, the Germans to the west, and various Spanish kingdoms to the south, with Italians south east. You have well established kingdoms that developed a society and built up all nations to stand among the rest. The US, by contrast, was the misfits coming across, followed by people looking for a quick buck, and then finally family's formed. We settled in. But we saw the west as nothing more than savage lands to be conquered and civilized. As such, we built up our own societies, each rivaling the others, only uniting for our own benefit. We were the wild part of the world, the one Britain never could control, leading to us having this sort of superiority complex as we were unmatched. Unrivaled. Built by ruffians, rejects, or people uninvested in the good of society.
Aside from the founding fathers and their like minded contemporaries, this new world was one to be shaped by themselves, not by everyone as whole. And so, the Americas were forged by the people who shouldn't be in charge, because they were the only ones there.
Instead of being equals to the UK, we instead were the colony that the UK couldn't control, so we ended up breaking off as we built a society mostly from scratch at a time when societies already exist en mass. We had guns, production, resource cultivation, and yet we didn't really have the foundations of a society like the countries of Europe or the Natives or Africans or Asians. We were a society built by people rejecting laws and rules and codes despite being a society that was diplomatic, orderly, and "civilized".
PS: Modern Superman could mop up the Earth's crime in a day. He could solve all the world's problems without just pushing them to the side. But, that's irrelevant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Corruption exists everywhere,friend. Whether it be some acne scarred assistant manager at a fast food place to the highest levels of government. The military has had their own traitors and corrupt people. We have our own traitor,PFC Bradley Manning,now Chelsea Manning. It leaked tons of sensitive data to Wikileaks and Obama commuted its sentence to 7 years. It was to serve 35 years. Thanks Obama. It even got the government to pay for hormone therapy when I think the only therapy Manning needs is a bullet in the skull.
Look around you. You have people that possess little sense and little brains,they have to use the smartphones for things they should know. It used to be you could buy a firearm with little trouble if you were a sensible adult. And most people knew the common sense things with guns. Assume it is loaded,do not point it at people,lock it up when not in use,etc. We have seemed to forgotten that. Education should be required to purchase a firearm. As in,you are to be taught how to safely use a weapon before you buy it.
Obamacare and the ACA are one in the same. The idea is good,health care for all citizens. But it is the execution and the management that really screwed up. Now their basic package is $6500 a year. I want you to think about that. That is a lot of money to cough up a year. That is money that could be used for education,necessities,transportation,etc. It needs to be scrapped and done again,but with more options.
We Americans have had to do everything ourselves. Did any of your "enlightened" nations offer to help? No. They wanted it for themselves. Now,before you think I am being a self righteous tool,ask yourself this...Did any of the "enlightened" nations have indigenous populations? How were they treated? And what became of them? I know we have done horrible things,and we cannot take it back. But progress comes from sacrifice. The only thing we can do is move forward and try to do right by them now.
Europe was into their kingdoms phase and tried to control everyone. We Americans are some of the ones that told them that we will decide our own fates. I think we have done very well for ourselves in 240 years. There are countries that are far older that have not done nearly as well. That is a testament to our ingenuity,our will,and our abilities. Are we perfect? No. But when you consider that an immigrant can come here and make something of themselves that they could not do in their homeland speaks well of us. Every group will face prejudice. That is just human nature. But if you endure and try to make something of yourself,in time you will be rewarded.
When the Irish first came here after the potato blight in the 1840s and 1850s,they were shunned by everyone. A common sign would hang in a store window "Help Wanted-Irish need not apply". The paddywagon,was named after picking up Irish-Americans. But they did not whine or demand things. They picked themselves up,dusted themselves off,and worked their asses off in jobs no one wanted. They became respected members of society in time.
America was not founded by the elites. They were the ones content to sit in England and send others to do the dirty work. But out of their struggle came a country that in the course of 240 years that would be a superpower.
P.S. Sure Superman can do that,he does not have to obey laws. We do.
P.S.S. Thank you for the chat,it is rare to find someone on here to do this with. Even if we agree to disagree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It. Its. It.
*Use of it x 5*
*Reputation -5* x5
Reputation -25.
Honestly, don't use "it". Either use he or she. It is for objects or animals (that we don't know the sex of). Or at least use they. Erroneous as it may be, at least the connotation isn't dehumanizing.
Anyways, I see what you mean. Corruption can exist in the military. But did you notice what you just said? The guy went against the government. The volunteers of the army will serve the US so long as they see it as the right thing to do. Or use it to get on the inside. Either way, they won't be the people who will enforce violation of rights.
I can see what you mean by the fact that we need to educate people. Even still, there are far too many deaths that are intentional, ones that aren't just accidents. Educating about gun use will curb some deaths, but even still, we still are some what of a violent culture in some cases.
I disagree. I know that some people have had to pay more, which is expected when trying to get everyone healthcare, even those who can't afford it normally. However, adding more options isn't the problem. It's the ways we have to get healthcare to everyone. We don't negotiate with companies, they negotiate with us. The private companies are the ones with the leverage, which is a lot when your life can depend on what they have. They are out for a profit, and people's health is worth a lot. Japan, Canada, and other universal health care nations have the government be the ones who are the ones with leverage because their laws make it so that's how it works. It's competitive. Here, the companies are ones who are really in charge.
Now, to the good part:
No, the "enlightened nations" (I didn't refer to them as such because just like every other word, it doesn't quite fit what I'm trying to say) didn't help. Mostly because we were this colony that rebelled and broke off. The UK certainly didn't want to help traitors, and Spain had its own empire, which while awful with it early enslavement of Natives and harsh conditions for natives later on, at least integrated them in, and was busy trying to keep its colonies under control. But the French and Dutch didn't have this superior mindset. I mean, they did. But they didn't try to take the land. That would come later as war if they wanted to, they just wanted the good stuff. The other empires of Europe treated the natives better. They stopped slavery sooner. They gave women suffrage sooner. The populations of Europe had started out with Rome as the first great one, a sort of baseline. From there, conquest began as people were made vassals or territories conquered. But as equals. Sorta, because obviously the other guys lost, but you get the point. The USA conquered the west looking down on everyone else not because of the level of their civilization but because they were different.
I would like to disagree. The UK was a republic/monarchy. It wasn't trying to control but instead create a stronger nation. France had ups and downs with its absolute monarchy, but it mostly went well, with Louis XIV being a popular one who brought France into a bit of a golden age. His successors also where trying to make something stronger, not subservient. To say America was trying to forge its own path is accurate, but so was every other nation. Quite simply, the elite in America wanted this (as I will explain later). We weren't much different from other places except we were slightly less violent when there was a transition of power between people of different heritage.
As for nations not having done as well, most of them didn't have the advantages we did. We had technology developed over hundreds of years and diseases that wiped out anyone around us. We took land and built ourselves up. We used the best technology to fuel ourselves, and then we faced down Mexico and invaded them. And thus Manifest Destiny was true. We now spanned coast to coast thanks to wondeful advantages opening us up to massive amounts of resources and opportunities.
And yes, the Irish dusted themselves off. Because they still got labor. They came here because we were growing, there were jobs, while Ireland was bleeding out due to starvation. They took jobs to survive. They didn't have much choice.
Back to American Elites. The South was largely loyalist. The Mid-Atlantic was. Canada was. But New England, by far the most developed area, wasn't. Mainly Boston. What first made us mad? Stamp tax. Which affected mainly the educated and wealthy, not the average man. So, those guys got everyone whipped up that they could, and that's what started the down turn. As the UK cracked down on New England, it made other people angry, eventually leading to revolution. It basically started with Boston and spread. But, even still, it was more or less only affecting Boston and New England.
And, these elites were mad because the motherland was trying to get money back that they had spent fighting the French in the Americas.
PS: My point with Supes was that you shouldn't be like the Superman from the story where he walked across the country, and gave the advice of protecting yourself and no one else despite being able to do more to solve the problem. Instead be like Supes normally is.
PSS: It has been pleasant. Usually this doesn't go nearly as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry,but when you get the government to pay for you to be a freakshow for being a traitor,you are not human. You are a thing that needs to be put out of its misery. Now,if people want to do this in their private lives,without impacting anyone,fine.
That is anyone. Anyone will be loyal as long as it suits them. Just remember this about loyalty. Blind loyalty is the most dangerous form of loyalty.
You did not hear about this stuff 50 or 60 years ago. It used to be you could buy a weapon,if you were a sane adult,because more than likely you were not going to do anything stupid with it. More than likely you bought a pellet gun to teach your kid to shoot,chase vermin off your property,go plinking (shooting at cans),or you bought a shotgun for hunting or protection or just to do some shooting (at targets). Hell,they used to sell them in mail order catalogs. I admit,we have lost common sense and replaced it with a willingness to pick up a gun.
I used to get bullied in school,and I admit,I wanted to shoot people,but I also knew that once I did that,I cannot take it back. Kids are too willing to pick up a gun to settle things. Too scared to use their fists. Too scared to take an ass kicking. But the thing is,even if you got your ass kicked,as long as you were willing to fight and fight clean,you got respect.
Obamacare is broken,plain and simple. Now,yes,if they had gotten large health care companies into this,they would be forced to compete to see who could offer the best. You have to remember,Obamacare was written by an asshole,who through his own admission,wrote it so the average person could not understand it. And he was paid $450,000,I believe to do it. Obamacare was a mess from beginning to end. Now,if they did healthcare more like Japan or Canada,it might be more feasible. Health care does not do any good,if people cannot afford it. I hope Trump fixes this,now that Obama is gone. The biggest issue I have with it is that people were scared into getting it.
We broke off because they were abusing their power. They reaped what they sowed. And it was a bitter harvest indeed for them. You can only push someone so far before they want to either get away from you or teach you a lesson. All of Europe was in a land grab race at the time. They wanted to expand their empire. I am going disagree,the Europeans were complete assholes to anyone that they came across. All they wanted was the land,materials,and slaves. Now,in the late 19th and early 20th centuries they wanted territories. They gave nations a degree of autonomy. But all major decisions were made by the Europeans. Like I said earlier,yes,we were harsh about treatment of natives. But we cannot undo the past. All we can do is learn from that and try to do better.
Most nations did not have our land wealth,I will grant you that. But at the same time,they could have done the same things that we did. We learned how to do things on our own. It is like apartheid in South Africa. Now if a few of the Africans had a brain,and realized they outnumbered the whites by a huge margin,they could have taken back their country sooner.
Again please see what I said about abusing power. When you exert your will upon something and they have had enough,they will rise up and people will see that.
P.S. You can only rely on yourself when it all comes down to something. You cannot rely on miracles on in our case a super powered alien. Being able to care for yourself and help yourself is far better than waiting for a handout. I think that is what he was trying to do. It is like the old saying,"Give a man a fish,you feed him for a day,teach a man to fish,you feed him for a lifetime."
P.S.S. Indeed it has been pleasant and civil,I have gotten into my fair share of arguments on here and it usually does not take long before discussion turns to name calling,insults,and threats. Think the 38th Parallel of Korea,oftentimes called the least successful talks. They argued over every little thing. Like on the N. Korean platform they wanted a 3 unit high platform so they could look the Americans in the eye. On the S. Korean platform it is 2 units high.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the problem with guns is that there just isn't enough regulation. Yes, we seem to have become more willing to use guns (possibly just because that's the sort of culture), but I don't think we can just fix that with education about guns. Reinforcing that fact that it kills won't make people stop when they choose to use it. We are just more willing. Perhaps because we've made soldiers out to be heroes rather than public servants, and how we make tons of actual "heroes" or protagonists be criminals. America has endlessly romanticized guns and killing (and of course, poverty can make people be less... cooperative with society, depending on the person) And so, I think we need to be able to regulate them more. Not necessarily more strictly, but more. Being able to take the time needed to check the buyer out. Make sure they can't get it without being background checked. Make sure we have access to mental health records or criminal records so that someone who shouldn't have it doesn't.
We have a system in place. But, in the current culture of America, we don't have enough hesitancy. And therefore, all the flaws in the system are getting shown, and rather than fixing those holes, we instead have an argument as to whether we should build a new boat, or burn the old one down and let the people get across the river the way they want. The answer is, we just need to add some additional specifications to the process to make it better at keeping unstable people or violent people from getting guns.
Our culture can't be immediately changed, but our laws can. And since I believe our culture is just gun, that can't be changed overnight, while laws can be made or amended.
I mean, isn't the government supposed to protect people? Shouldn't that mean that they should at least tighten up the current process to better keep guns from reaching dangerous individuals?
Also, I feel like today, we don't fight. Sticks and stones stopped being acceptable, so we used words. And as it becomes easier to bully people online, that is, from a distance, fighting becomes less of a solution because there never is the chance. Also, if you get beat up, you'd probably just be a pussy, or a bitch.
We haven't gotten tougher, just meaner.
It's true Obamacare has been somewhat disfunctional, but it's saved people's lives. And, honestly, it would be better, but Republicans apparently don't like Mitt Romney. What's that? They don't like Obama? But Romney did the idea and in same ways did the very things the Republicans blocked. What do you meant they just really hate Obama?
As you can tell, people saying Obamacare gets on my nerves. Mainly because it's not Obamacare that's bad. It's the Republicans who fought tooth and nail despite it being within their ranks. I'm sure Obama would've liked to make it like CAN or JP, and at the very least, RomneyCare. But instead, it could never be what it truly needed to be, and our Congress never tried to fix it, because then O-bama would have given something truly historic (I mean, the ACA already was, but in a different way).
Let me stop you right there. If we look back at the history of the revolution, it really shouldn't have happened. The South was really happy. Georgia and the Carolinas (named after royal family members) were doing great. So was Virginia. New York. Pennsylvania. New Jersey (one of the best colonies, worst states). In fact, it wasn't even until the Sugar Act that anyone got mad. After the 7 Years' War (which lasted 9 years in the Americas, but only 7 in Europe) had helped protect the colonies from New France after we pissed off New France by trying to take the Ohio Valley. The Brits help us and then proceed to keep the status quo by keeping us from going west into the new territory (because there are Natives).
Well, this pissed some people off, and some just ignored George's Proclamation Line of 1763 and went west. Next, we had a depression, which people then blamed on the Sugar Act. In an effort to raise funds after the war and pay for troops to protect the colonies from Natives (mainly the dumbasses who ignore the Line and went west of the Appala, the Empire passed an act that actually halved the molasses tax created years before, but increased measures to collect it. All they did was cut our taxes while making sure they get collected to help pay for the war we had caused in our greed.
Then we had the Stamp Act, which was mainly despised by the people who used lots of paper, go figure, and thus didn't really hurt most of the colonists. Instead, it was more the fact that a tax was being directly levied on us, when we had no one in Parliament, though at this point, Parliament did still treat us like subjects and seemed to be acting in our best interest, similar to how British subjects in the British Isles were being represented even though they couldn't vote due to not owning land.
After this, they repealed the Stamp Act. YAY!
Later, we get the Townshed Acts, the first of which led to taxing goods that colonists needed to get from GB. Because screw you colonies, we tried being nice, now you no longer have a choice.
Then they made it so the governor's and other officers in colonial governing were being paid by the Crown, meaning they would be loyal to the law of the Empire, not to the colonists giving him his pay check. Honestly, not a bad decision. I'd rather have the a higher level pay someone than someone of the same level. Keeps the government from bending to do what their colleagues want rather than what they should.
Eventually we get the Boston "Massacre", which had people harassing soldiers and telling them to at fire and throwing "snowballs" which quite likely were chunks of ice. A few people died, and it became a horrific slaughter in the eyes of some.
And then it all fell quickly. The Patriots tossed lots of tea into the harbor, costing tons of money. Britain said "YOU MOTHER FUCKERS!" and decided that Boston had gone from toeing the line to jumping across it, and then everything spiraled out of control. As expected, since New England had mainly been religious rejects, meaning the already were alienated by England/the UK.
Honestly, the government had just been trying to do what it should, and the colonists just didn't want to pay taxes despite causing a literal war and angering Natives. The Brits wanted to protect their colonial brethren, but the colonists, despite really somewhat needing it, didn't want it, and they wanted to blame their own economic depression on the UK, when in fact it had been their war that had depressed their economy. We really started it, and in an effort to be a government for the empire, they retaliated. New England shoved, Britain shoved shoved, New England shoved again, Britain shoved back, and suddenly New England had convinced the rest of the colonies that it was too late to fix things up with Britain and that they had already destroyed their relationship for everyone.
As for South Africa:
I feel like part of it was the fact that the whites were in power, which means they probably had the guns and the money and the factories and the military. Sure, numbers matter, but guns matter more. Blacks may have outnumbered white 3 to 1, but I bet they could've put a gun in every hand while the blacks would've been struggling to get guns for a rebellion.
PS: Eh, but he's Superman. He could live for like forever and then no one would have to fish except him. Besides, my point is is that a society should work together to protect itself, not just have individuals protect individuals.
PSS: I'm pretty sure they also tried to one up their flags until it got a point that they were literally to big to be displayed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We do not need more regulation,just enforce what we have now and if someone is considered a threat,make the FBI do their damn job. They dropped the ball several times and that resulted in mass shootings. We need more common sense and education. Now people are already subject to a background check when they buy a gun,and usually that is enough. I think we see the shootings and forget one common thing: For every violent act with a gun,there are millions of legal gun owners that did nothing wrong. Guns should not be demonized nor romanticized. They are a tool,nothing more. They serve both hero and villain alike. It is up to the person to use it the right way.
In today's world it is cyber-bullying. Words on a screen. Now,granted,words can hit harder than a fist. But at the same time,if you stand up to them,even if you lose,you are respected. You were willing to take that chance. But it usually goes school chatter,online chatter,straight to gun. I agree that kids can be some of the cruelest beings to walk the earth at times. Why can't we settle things with fists anymore?
Obamacare and the ACA are one in the same. It may have started with good intentions,but you know what they say. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It was written by an asshole who did not care about the American people. Now,yes,people could have tried harder to change it,but I think it was just politics that got in the way of it all. I admit,Obamacare may have done some good,but I think it needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. It needs to be built in stone,not in sand. Sometimes things must be destroyed to make them better.
They misused their power,plain and simple. They treated us like dirt and we showed them what we thought of them. Now,granted,the South would probably be more pro-England than most of the US at the time,but at the same time,we wanted to decide our own destiny,own our fate. I remember reading that England was cheering when the American Civil War broke out. They thought after that,we would beg to be taken back. There is a saying that I love. "I would rather die on my feet,than live on my knees." I know that the early American government was repeating the very same mistakes that England made. I personally am glad I am not part of England,they cannot even play nice with the EU. Now,that whole Brexit thing was a huge mess and in some ways a scapegoat.
As for South Africa,it was probably closer to 100 to 1. Now,what England did there was wrong as hell. (Kinda seems like they were the problem for most of the world at the time. But they have proven to be good allies in times of war.) But if the blacks have looked at it logically,they outnumbered the whites but a huge margin. They could have easily taken back their homes,despite the fact that they would be outmatched. But they would also be stuck in their ways,not knowing how to make things better for themselves.
P.S. Yes,he is Superman,but even he cannot stop every bad thing from happening. I think he was just preaching that you have to take care of yourself and your community.
P.S.S. Kind of like the Korean flag war. South Korea builds a 323 ft. flagpole with a 287 lb. flag. North Korea responds with a 525 ft. flagpole with a 595 lb. flag.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_D…
It always boils down to a dick measuring contest,lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, I'm not really saying we need more regulation, nor more enforcement. Just tweaking the laws so that they work. They are still enforced, its just when there isn't enough time, limited access to info, and a fairly easy way around the enforcement, it isn't effective. It doesn't need to be more enforced, nor increased, just enhanced and broadened.
The thing with cyber-bullying is it can be anonymous. You can never really stand up to them. And if it is physical, then sure, you might get some "cred" for standing up, but most likely a loss just means you got the crap beat out of you. It may make the other guy less likable, but it probably won't make you seem any better. And, as to why we don't settle things with fists is because it is teaching that violence is the answer. I mean, really. If your way of dealing with school is to fight people, then your way to deal with people later is fighting or violence. We do what we know works until it doesn't. That's why we try to teach early not to do that. We live in an organized society. The less violence, the better. To a point, anyways.
And yes, I agree: Obamacare/ACA/PPACA needs to be built better. It needs to be a steel tower, not a sand castle. Problem is, trying to get that is hard. Even now, when the conversation isn't "Should everyone have healthcare?" to "What healthcare should everybody have?", you can see that law makers are trying to get rid of that steel tower and replace it with a regular rock. Stronger than sand, but pointless. Notice how we never seem to get any replacements shown even though Congress says that they have one? Well, it's because they don't want the sand castle. They want something permanently worthless. The best we could do is the sand castle.
Again, didn't really misuse their power. I mean, later on, yes. Only because we said "Fuck you Britain!" If you look, up until the 1770's, there weren't talks of Revolution. Even then, it only was in Boston and New England. After that, Britain slowly made itself and enemy to New England that other colonies slowly started turning on it. But really, they were just trying to treat us like subjects: Protected by British troops and taxed in return. We started a war (Seven Years' War) and then we didn't want to get a tax increase to help pay it back. And the problem was mainly in New England. Everyone else would've been mostly happy, because while the tax enforcements and additions came during a depression (which we caused), no one was hurt worse than New England. They got pissed, so GB reworked their strategy, and then when they started making it so that the colonies were more apart of the empire, we said fuck them, even though we wanted to be treated like British citizens and as equals.
And, I don't know if that fact about the UK cheering is true. If anything, they'd be cheering for the Union, because we'd finally be getting rid of slavery. We'd stop being so backwards. Also, the North didn't really do much bad. Yes, tariffs pissed off the South, but it was because they relied on a slowly becoming outdated system (slavery), which they could only keep because they treated as non-people except when they wanted to.
I mean, honestly, let's look at the Civil War too. We compromised to split Louisiana Purchase North and South. We kept the balance of slave and free. But the South increasingly despised the North, to the point that SC tried to nullify federal laws, something that goes against the very Constitution. Eventually, the South wanted more slave states and territories to keep themselves in power. Which they somewhat succeeded at because they treated slaves as property, meaning they were protected by the 5th Amendment, but also as 3/5ths of a person, bolstering their population. Do you see the problem? The South was clinging onto a hypocritical and contradictory system, while being borderline treasonous in some cases. Their clinging to this one system was what caused the tensions.
And then, they came to head when they decided Lincoln wasn't their president. Similar to some people rejecting Trump. Except SC proceeded to secede, and get violent with anything federally supported.
The Revolutionary War and Civil War were both started by the person in the wrong. In the Civil War, the Union won, destroyed the immoral system that was slavery, and sorta restored order. But, in the R. War, we won, despite being in the wrong, and then proceeded to go on a rampage as we headed west.
As for Brexit:
Eh. I doubt anything will actually happen. They just wanted to make a show to get certain things changed. A protest of sorts. I think they'd be better rulers, at least for North America. We were British citizens. (As opposed to other colonies that were more oppressed, which were usually more Native majority areas).
Maybe early on, it was so different. But, in 1904 (a time in which South Africa was "independent"), it was really 1:3, or 1:4 if we count Whites vs. Black AND multiracial and Asians.
Problem was the same as when the Europeans expanded:
Technology. The Scramble for Africa started because of Leopold the Asshole of Belgium. But it was able to happen because of steamboats and Maxim Guns, the first machine guns. Europeans could mow Natives down like crazed US forces in an Afghan village (Don't look at me like that. You know there had to have been at least one instance of that happening). Later on, when the Whites were on top, they may have been outnumbered, but they had guns. They had resources. They had less people.
Whites could supply everyone, while the rest would be poorly equipped. A gun in everyhand can turn the tide of a battle. Machineguns revolutionized war. It made WWI as a slaughter for both sides. If just one side had them, well... it wouldn't turn out well.
PS: I mean, again, he can (at least on Earth). And, I get the message, but it was so out of character. He stopped some crime, and then proceeded to ignore another neighborhood. I know, you shouldn't rely on others, but you also shouldn't leave others out to dry. That's kinda why we invented society. To work together.
PPS: Yeah. I remember seeing a video about the flags. It was hilarious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My,my,you have been busy.
Just enforce the laws we already have,that is all that needs to be done. Of course,I still favor education of a firearm. When you beat into the heads of people that a gun does not discriminate,does not know the difference between friend or foe,and that gun should only be used for target practice,ridding your yard of pests,legal hunting,or God forbid,self defense,you will have a much better world.
I am just saying if words fail,then go to an organized fight. You should never use fists if you can walk or talk your way out. And at least with a fist fight,no one is stabbed or shot and it is kept to the combatants in an organized fight. You have a ref to ensure it and maybe a couple of SRO's (school resource officers standing by with tasers if they do not keep it clean.
That is because Obama forced the sand castle of Obamacare though,he used his power of Executive Order to ram it though,make it law and force people to suffer. I agree,universal health care would be nice,but I see you points. How are we to pay for it? What should it include? How should it be implemented? And now,Trump has the unenviable task of trying to replace Obamacare with something more sound,but at the same time,protecting everyone that was either scared into it or duped into it.
No one starts off as a tyrant or evil at first. Just like many Emperors of Rome,they tried to win public favor with more public amenities and arenas. As time passed,they saw that all that really did was create debt and forecast the fall of Rome. But as I have told you,absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone could fall victim to it,even the most innocent and pure hearted of us can fall into that seductive trap. England started flexing its authority and we came to despise it. The problem would have spread elsewhere given enough time. The reason it was kept mostly to the New England area is because that was basically were the populace and power was. I think we saw England for what they were and we wanted no part of it. Now the Tories,they were loyal to England and I believe they were allowed to go safely to English ships to go back. As for the British soldiers,that is why we have the 3rd Amendment. Many of their soldiers were forced into our homes.
The Civil War was about ideology. The North did increasingly push their views on the South. And forced tariffs onto them. But the South saw slavery as a necessary evil and a sort of civilizing mechanism. I do not agree with slavery at all. Just as I do not agree with a Government that constantly rams its way into our daily lives and has nothing better to do and fails on numerous occasions to protect us when they had warning. But the war had to come out,sometimes the only way to resolve an issue is to fight it out. And let us not forget that General Lee willingly surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. He saw that he had lost,there was no way to win and he wanted to spare his troops. And Lincoln was determined to make it a friendly matter. "The rebels are our countrymen again." Until John Wilkes Booth stuck his nose into it and shot Lincoln. Then came the occupations and the harsh treatment.
As for Trump,I think that is about crybabies and professional protestors convincing the weak willed to riot. We are supposed to be the UNITED States of America. No matter who is in charge,we are supposed to work together. And he has only been on the job a week.
I know,anything can be misused. The Maxim gun was supposed to end warfare,not expand it. Same for the submarine. It was to end naval warfare,not expand it. Hence the origin of the phrase,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am sure Alexander Bell will be in that category to a degree. And let us talk of the blacks and multiracials vs whites for a second. I guess you did not know that around that same period was the battle between Mexico and France. Or as you know it,Cinco de Mayo. It was a battle of 6,000 French troops vs a smaller number of poorly armed Mexicans. The French at the time were considered the superior military and yet they were beaten. Although,the Mexican victory was short lived,it proved one thing. It may look good on paper,but not in real life.
P.S. I am glad you get it. Superman was invented to be an ideal. To be a role model. To be something to strive to be,better than you were yesterday. You have to remember,Superman was tinkered with so many times it is unreal. Just like Wolverine's healing factor was supposed to be just for minor injuries that heal faster than normal and near the end he could be at ground zero of a nuke blast and he won't die.
P.S.S. It just shows how ridiculous people can be at times. Both sides keep an "ideal village" near the border to show how nice life is. Of course it is just for show.
P.S.S.S. I hope I have not been rude or mean at any time. I do enjoy the conversation and it forces me to slow down and think. There are not many opportunities for that on here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still think they need some tweaking. Not saying the process should be any different, but the process should be able to access all the info it needs, criminal and mental health, be able to take the time necessary to confirm whether or not the person should or shouldn't be allowed to buy the gun, and also should apply to private gun sales.
Same background check process, except not being hindered by itself. And applying to all sales. You can enforce laws all you want, but if the laws are hindered by built in guidelines or time constraints, it doesn't really matter.
I just don't think we see fights as "professional" anymore. Once upon a time, fights were great. Now, you win and you get cred. You lose, and you get beat up. Confronting does little if you can't do something to your opponent.
Executive Order to ram it through? Umm.... He can't do that. Like, that's not how Executive Orders work. Unless you can show otherwise, the "worst" he did was he used an EO to amend the law (sorta) to reaffirm it wouldn't support abortion or something like that.
Again, ti started in New England because they were the pissy jerks who both did and did not want to be apart of the Empire. They wanted to be in the UK (not England, but UK), but they didn't want to pay taxes. They first were angered by the Sugar act which lowered a tax but increased enforcement (all in all, it was actually a good thing if it weren't for the fact that it hurt smuggling). This was on top of already paying less taxes than Brits in Britain. They also didn't want to have tax increases as part of raising revenues after the war they caused.
So, to recap:
We caused a war, after which they didn't like to have to actually pay their taxes, because they were being horribly overtaxed (which I suppose means GB itself was just a shriveled up corpse), and so they slowly ticked off Britain.
If you look, secession from the UK wasn't something they talked about until the Revolution neared, and it took Lexington and Concord (AKA the shot heard round the world) for the South and Mid-Atlantic to finally be persuaded to switch sides.
They revolution really happened because the colonies were used to paying very few taxes, and people wanted their illegal businesses to stay. And slowly GB was provoked further and further against Boston (an example being the Boston "Massacre") and made bigger and bigger strides to get them to stop being pricks, and it eventually led to the colonies finally tipping into a half-civil war, half-rebellion.
We caused problems for GB, we refused modest tax measures (mainly NE and specifically Boston) and we kept poking the bull in the eye. Most of what UK did as reactionary to the colonies being dicks.
Also, check yourself:
New England wasn't the most populace. VA and PA both had more people than Mass., the most populated NE colony. And then NC and Maryland both had more than Conn., the second most populated NE colony. And the other two (NH and RI) had just over 120K people together. Meaning they only place 9th if merged together.
Force tariffs? That's how the nation worked. Federal laws went for EVERYONE.
Secondly, "necessary evil"? AHAHAHA! Oh boy.
They didn't see ti as a "necessary evil". They saw it as just and divinely given. The South thought it was better than the North, do you think they thought anything at all of these africans they had enslaved? No. They thought of them as useful work animals.
As for Lee: I do have to applaud him. I believe he had once said something along the lines that he could drag the war on forever if he were to make it a full on guerilla war. Then again, he did also have great terms of surrender handed to him.
The reason why we have protests is because he was outnumbered in the popular vote by nearly 3 million. On top of that, he has had a history of some racism, he has been highly Islamiphobic, there was that bus tape where he basically said he could force himself on women and they wouldn't retaliate, literally called CNN fake news (biased, yes, though Fox News is no better) which seems like the foundations of making laws limiting the press, and has said that those 3 Million votes were illegal.
Perhaps the most damning is the claim of 3 Million Illegal Votes, something that would be ENTIRELY UNPRECEDENTED and ridiculously insane. He is whining that people liked Hillary more, so he decided to just say that he actually won because Hillary's votes were fake.
Like, that's not a strike against just 3 Million people. No, its a strike against every Hillary voter. There's not 3 Million specific fake votes. Just 3 Million of those votes were fake. And so literally anyone could be those 3 Million "fake" votes.
It's his attempt at delegitimaztion of the opponent. Literally saying that they are fake or that the eople are on his side when his side is the minority in the federal election.
Habitual lies and declarations of his nigh infallibility. (Also, he won't release his tax returns, which he has given pitiful, worthless excuses that give no real reason. Even many republicans want to see them, it just didn't stop them from voting Hillary)
Anyways, going into this Maxim Gun paragraph:
1) I don't know why you think weapons would be created to end warfare
2) Weren't you just saying that Africans should've revolted thanks to numbers?
3) The French didn't have machineguns. Being better equipped is one thing, but the Africans both would be under equipped and against Machineguns. WWI was a War of Inches because of Machineguns. Except in this case, only one side would have them, so it'd just be Europeans mowing down Africans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know what was the first things the communists did when they took over Russia? Gun control and that's what Hillary, Obama, Bernie and other leftists are trying to do so that they a better chance to control us all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And also gives the opportunity for murders to kill. Granted taking away guns will only leave us defenseless
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If someone REALLY wants to kill another person (or a group) They WILL find a way to do it. Wether it's with an illegal gun, a pipe gun made from toiletry, a box cutter or a shiv made from a TOOTH BRUSH or any other weapon they're going to do it. They don't care about the people who would be affected by the sieszure of guns; the ones who follow the law. It'd only give them more incentive to find new and inventive ways to end another person's life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If I wanted to kill someone, I'd want to feel myself doing it. I wouldn't wanna just pull a dinky little trigger--I'd wanna axe that person into a bloody mess, cause if I were to commit murder, I'd need a really good reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's why I said "granted Taking guns away will only leave us defenseless"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Giving aggressive ignorant emotionally fuelled idiots (i.e. most humans) easy access to guns is still a bad idea.
95% of humanity really shouldn't be trusted with guns in my opinion.
It is far easier for criminals to get access to guns in America, yet in places and countries with gun bans, there are far far fewer shootings. Lawless people will have a tougher time having access to guns if there are gun bans, and are more likely to get caught and arrested before they can even commit a crime as they'll be seeking to obtain firearms.
Gun crimes usually happen in places where others don't have immediate access to guns, like for example, school shootings, or individual targets in private or secluded places. And even police can't be trusted with guns, especially if they're corrupt or racist (or both).
But I guess each to their own. I can see why you would support something that enables you to protect yourself and your family too. It's a risky amendment, as it means you can both be able to protect yourself and your family, but also to live in a more dangerous climate of fear too where if someone is too drunk, angry, delusional, desperate etc, you could get shot.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
That is because they were bred to think gun bans make them safe. Do you want to know where every male has a gun and there is almost no gun crime? Switzerland. One reason that Hilter did not attack Switzerland: He knew every male there was armed and will use their arms against him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>