Jump to content
Skans

Is The Right To Own Modern Firearms Effective For Safeguarding Against A Rogue, Tyrannical Regime?

Recommended Posts

Watch the series "Waco" on Netflix to see how the Branch Davidians fared against the bungling ATF and FBI.

They had modern and perhaps even illegal modern weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KneeJerk said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

 

 

When the Wild West died.

 

Dem assembly and Dem Senate.

 

More emotional baggage doesn't help make your point.

 

Marxism will never be popular.

 

 

kj

 

 

 

 

 

Republican governor.  NRA and conservative approval.  

 

Marxism will never be popular but its solutions  have been adopted by Trump.  Furthermore, Marx was financed by his  Republican pals on Wall Street:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no! They will mow you down. Don't ever  think they wont. All the fire arms in the world will not save you. The only thing a person could hope for? Is this. the local law enforcement wont play. maybe they will maybe they wont. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Watch the series "Waco" on Netflix to see how the Branch Davidians fared against the bungling ATF and FBI.

They had modern and perhaps even illegal modern weapons.

 

A better choice is "Rules of Engagement: Waco".  A factual account of what happened, and the horror of what the government is willing to do against its own people.

 

6 hours ago, SootedUpCyndi said:

no! They will mow you down. Don't ever  think they wont. All the fire arms in the world will not save you. The only thing a person could hope for? Is this. the local law enforcement wont play. maybe they will maybe they wont. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Yeah... no.  This is a position based in fear and not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spartan said:

 

A better choice is "Rules of Engagement: Waco".  A factual account of what happened, and the horror of what the government is willing to do against its own people.

 

 

Democrat National Socialism - requires Obedience to "The State."

 

That's why it is a Cancer to Liberty.

 

And why we have the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Democrat National Socialism - requires Obedience to "The State."

 

That's why it is a Cancer to Liberty.

 

And why we have the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

 

 

Republican National Socialism:  https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

 

Yes it is a cancer to liberty and one financed by Wall Street Republicans, especially Prescott Bush.

 

 

 

Like many I also approve of the Second Amendment especially on this instance where the Black Panthers were armed against government tyranny:

 

 

NBPP2-640x330-e1459817230928.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 3:18 PM, Blue Devil said:

 

So you are positing a hypothetical, that The Military and Police are with the Rouge Government, like Democrat National Socialist Venezuela, North Korea, or Iran.

 

Regardless - Big and Small have differing successful strategies.

Old Native American adage: A lone running man can cut many throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 5:29 PM, Skans said:

How long did the Revolutionary War last?

July 4, 1776 (Declaration of Independence sent to the printer) to October 19. 1782 (Lord Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown, VA).

The War lasted SIX years and EIghty-Two Days,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2020 at 9:27 AM, manhattantransfer said:

 

 

 

 

Republican National Socialism:  https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

 

Yes it is a cancer to liberty and one financed by Wall Street Republicans, especially Prescott Bush.

 

 

 

Like many I also approve of the Second Amendment especially on this instance where the Black Panthers were armed against government tyranny:

 

 

NBPP2-640x330-e1459817230928.jpg

 

Some Americans are still angry at the Democrats for keeping their ancestors as Slaves.

 

They are still fightin' against the Democrat National Socialist Plantation.

 

Republicans - freed them once, and then gave them Civil Rights and guns.

 

Then the Democrat National Socialists gave them other people's Liberty and wealth for free, and re-enslaved them.

 

You would think shooting Democrat National Socialists would be a Sport with them by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben Franklin!

 

Thank you for creating universal health care which is condemned by so many right wing delusionals today.  And thanks for showing it was the Republicans who financed National Socialists in Germany (that's why it's no surprise American Nazis love the Republican party today).

 

As for the Dems holding slaves, so did some Republicans.  Funny thing is, they all claimed to be Christian.  Thus, it was Christianity rather than party affiliation that was the real problem.  Interestingly, Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act while Republicans condemned it. Isn't it strange how people change with the times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 11:39 AM, Skans said:

In this Debate Question, present arguments for or against whether many citizens armed with Modern Firearms is an effective means for safeguarding against a rogue, tyrannical regime?  Please consider the following matters:

 

1.  How do you define "Modern Firearms"?

2.  In what manner can an armed population use modern firearms to effectively fight a Rogue Regime.  Or, do you consider such an uprising doomed to failure.

3.  By "rogue regime" I mean one that may have come into power legitimately, but at some point in time is far from that type of government as contemplated our Constitution.

 

I will be interested to see how those here handle this debate and support their positions.

 Not sure what the purpose of defining "Modern Firearms" would be in this discussion.   What would need to be better defined is "Rogue Regime".  Not that I dispute your definition, but it needs to be extended.  How would a regime become rogue in this country?

 

I think we now have the closest we will ever come to a Rogue Regime.  We have a President who has acted unlawfully, and because of bureaucratic red tape.  Especially in the Judicial power who can't come up with resolutions fast enough.    So anybody who wants to defend the Constitution just gives up.   Red tape wins!

 

Anyway... to stay on topic, I don't think there will ever even be an attempt by the armed population to use any type of firearms to defend the Constitution.   If any group of people or states ever decided to rise against a federal government, at a minimum half the people and the states will oppose them.   That's a tie.   The difference will be who controls the armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, manhattantransfer said:

Hi Ben Franklin!

 

Thank you for creating universal health care which is condemned by so many right wing delusionals today.  And thanks for showing it was the Republicans who financed National Socialists in Germany (that's why it's no surprise American Nazis love the Republican party today).

 

As for the Dems holding slaves, so did some Republicans.  Funny thing is, they all claimed to be Christian.  Thus, it was Christianity rather than party affiliation that was the real problem.  Interestingly, Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act while Republicans condemned it. Isn't it strange how people change with the times. 

 

Do you have ANY support for these outlandish contentions?

 

If so, provide them.

 

“...I am for doing good to the poor, but... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed... that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

 

- Benjamin Franklin -

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RichardFeynmanLives said:

 Not sure what the purpose of defining "Modern Firearms" would be in this discussion. 

The way I would define it (you may choose to come up with your own definition) would be semi-auto and full-auto, magazine fed one-man operated firearms with optics like Eotech, or other quality glass optics and sights.

 

 

Quote

 What would need to be better defined is "Rogue Regime".   Not that I dispute your definition, but it needs to be extended.

You take a stab at this.  I want to hear how each individual would define a Rogue Regime - I'm sure everyone's opinion will be different, but they may converge.

 

Quote

  How would a regime become rogue in this country?

In my opinion, by doing what they are doing right now - using "executive orders" to declare things which are constitutionally protected to be unlawful. 

 

Quote

I think we now have the closest we will ever come to a Rogue Regime.

At the state level, I would agree.  Far too many governors making emergency orders which fly in the face of our Constitution and their State Constitutions.

 

Quote

We have a President who has acted unlawfully

What is your basis for declaring this?  The Democrats have attempted to impeach him since he first took office.  They have expended hundreds of millions of dollars investigating everything he did.  Yet, Trump has not been charged with or convicted of any crime.

 

Quote

Anyway... to stay on topic, I don't think there will ever even be an attempt by the armed population to use any type of firearms to defend the Constitution.   

I think an armed revolution is possible.  But, I would bet before that were to happen, the government(s) would go into full-on gun confiscation mode.

 

Quote

If any group of people or states ever decided to rise against a federal government, at a minimum half the people and the states will oppose them.

At this time I would say this is a fair statement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Do you have ANY support for these outlandish contentions?

 

If so, provide them.

 

“...I am for doing good to the poor, but... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed... that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

 

- Benjamin Franklin -

 

 

 

I have already done so. See:

 

 

 

 

See also my sig which shows the book and author which proves Wall Street Republicans financed Hitler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skans said:

The way I would define it (you may choose to come up with your own definition) would be semi-auto and full-auto, magazine fed one-man operated firearms with optics like Eotech, or other quality glass optics and sights.

 

 

You take a stab at this.  I want to hear how each individual would define a Rogue Regime - I'm sure everyone's opinion will be different, but they may converge.

 

In my opinion, by doing what they are doing right now - using "executive orders" to declare things which are constitutionally protected to be unlawful. 

I completely agree that they would be rogue by doing what they are doing now in an abusive way.   And shielding themselves from intervention by the other powers.   The current regime, I believe, has reached the threshold..   Regardless of this characterization, the problem is that half the country agrees with the current regime.  So it will only be a "rogue regime" to half the people (broadly speaking)   So, in theory,  that could create a civil war.  But I don't think that's what you were referring to.

 

 

Quote

 

At the state level, I would agree.  Far too many governors making emergency orders which fly in the face of our Constitution and their State Constitutions.

We are in a health crisis.    Governors making emergency orders are upholding the Constitution.   I don't believe we create "a more perfect union" by not doing whatever it takes to keep "we the people" alive.   Quite the contrary governors who are not making emergency orders.

 

 

Quote

 

What is your basis for declaring this?  The Democrats have attempted to impeach him since he first took office.  They have expended hundreds of millions of dollars investigating everything he did.  Yet, Trump has not been charged with or convicted of any crime.

I'm sure you know that impeachment is not a criminal process.   This Department of Justice has decided (correctly or incorrectly) that Trump cannot be charged with a crime while he is President.   But his proven crimes are many.   By "proven" I don't mean in court, of course.  I mean they have been proven to the expectation of any reasonable person who views the facts objectively.   The Mueller report depicts  many prosecutable crimes that meet all judicial requirements to imprison Trump for decades.   Especially obstruction of justice.   Very likely others that are currently "redacted".   Lawsuits are under way that might (or maybe not) be resolved before the elections.

 

 

Quote

 

I think an armed revolution is possible.  But, I would bet before that were to happen, the government(s) would go into full-on gun confiscation mode.

 

At this time I would say this is a fair statement.

 

 

I'll be honest.  If it were up to me, I'd outlaw all possession of firearms (with a few proper exceptions) But to accomplish this, there is no need for any government to go under full-on gun confiscation mode.   Because I don't think that's possible and I'd be extremely suspicious of a government even attempting to do anything like that.   I would oppose such policy.    There are other ways....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 12:31 AM, Skans said:

I disagree.  My reasons for this are as follows:

1.  Our military consists of our mothers, fathers, sons, brothers and sisters. 

2.  Our U.S. military personnel are not brain-washed robots and they do not surrender all independent moral judgment when they enlist.  Their obligation to obey the orders of their superiors does not include orders that are illegal.

3.  Our U.S. military personnel are all required to take the Oath of Enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

In other words, the US is not China and our servicemembers know this.  While modern firearms owned by hundreds of thousands of individuals may not destroy the full force of a modern army deployed to exterminate its citizens, such firearms could be a crucial element of leading a resistance which would eventually include factions of the military itself.

 

 

I know I'm late to join this and I haven't read all of the replies in this thread, but here goes:

 

1. America is very divided, and divisions can be aggravated with propaganda. Even on this forum you will see a lot of partisan dehumanization taking place. You won't turn against your family, but the people on this board would definitely turn against the dehumanized libruls and probably kill them if they were convinced that they had become a threat. And I don't think it would take much to convince them of that. People have justified genocides in this exact way-- convince your soldiers that their enemies are less than human, and that they have hurt you or are a threat to what you care most about. It could even be something like 'freedom' (whatever that means to the individual is probably irrelevant).

 

2. They would believe that the killing is moral. The media would ensure that they did. The tyrant would reward their violence as heroism, and a necessity for protecting the 'purity' of their nation. 

 

3. This is pretty meaningless. Truth, justice, freedom, etc... all of these things are relative and again, the tyrannical government would manipulate them into believing their actions were good.

 

Have you been to China? I personally know a lieutenant in the CCP army and he's not some mindless robot, he's just a normal human being-- friendly, helpful, personable. But get him talking about his country, his way of life, and what his enemies want to do to it and you can tell he would do whatever he could to protect this idea of China from anyone who would threaten it. It's the same shit as the people on this forum with their American flags and historical quotes from American icons and the 'try to take my guns and I'll fucking kill you' stuff. The tyrant's media will do the same thing to everyone else... there will be people who want to kill for their country, people who support the killing, people who tolerate it because they think it's a necessary evil, people who hate it but know if they speak up the nationalistic killing machine will turn against them.

 

It really isn't hard to push a country towards tyranny... all you need to do is convince them they're doing the right thing. FFS there's a guy here whose sig pic reads 'I have killed communists... you are a disturbed person'. He's basically already there... all he needs is someone to tell him that so and so is a communist and it's now socially acceptable to kill that person. 

 

And I really don't think that the kinds of weapons people are legally allowed to own would ever be able to resist a drone attack. They're up so high and have such precise aim that they can kill you without you ever even knowing they're there. The government would have access to these, as well as biological weapons, psychological weapons, extensive surveillance... if the US falls into tyranny it will be a nightmare that won't end until it burns itself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

 

I know I'm late to join this and I haven't read all of the replies in this thread, but here goes:

 

1. America is very divided, and divisions can be aggravated with propaganda. Even on this forum you will see a lot of partisan dehumanization taking place. You won't turn against your family, but the people on this board would definitely turn against the dehumanized libruls and probably kill them if they were convinced that they had become a threat. And I don't think it would take much to convince them of that. People have justified genocides in this exact way-- convince your soldiers that their enemies are less than human, and that they have hurt you or are a threat to what you care most about. It could even be something like 'freedom' (whatever that means to the individual is probably irrelevant).

 

2. They would believe that the killing is moral. The media would ensure that they did. The tyrant would reward their violence as heroism, and a necessity for protecting the 'purity' of their nation. 

 

3. This is pretty meaningless. Truth, justice, freedom, etc... all of these things are relative and again, the tyrannical government would manipulate them into believing their actions were good.

 

Have you been to China? I personally know a lieutenant in the CCP army and he's not some mindless robot, he's just a normal human being-- friendly, helpful, personable. But get him talking about his country, his way of life, and what his enemies want to do to it and you can tell he would do whatever he could to protect this idea of China from anyone who would threaten it. It's the same shit as the people on this forum with their American flags and historical quotes from American icons and the 'try to take my guns and I'll fucking kill you' stuff. The tyrant's media will do the same thing to everyone else... there will be people who want to kill for their country, people who support the killing, people who tolerate it because they think it's a necessary evil, people who hate it but know if they speak up the nationalistic killing machine will turn against them.

 

It really isn't hard to push a country towards tyranny... all you need to do is convince them they're doing the right thing. FFS there's a guy here whose sig pic reads 'I have killed communists... you are a disturbed person'. He's basically already there... all he needs is someone to tell him that so and so is a communist and it's now socially acceptable to kill that person. 

 

And I really don't think that the kinds of weapons people are legally allowed to own would ever be able to resist a drone attack. They're up so high and have such precise aim that they can kill you without you ever even knowing they're there. The government would have access to these, as well as biological weapons, psychological weapons, extensive surveillance... if the US falls into tyranny it will be a nightmare that won't end until it burns itself out.

I still believe that, even with the access certain military would have to superior weaponry, the fact that 150 million Americans are well armed is a big logistical problem for a government determined to eradicate its own people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Skans said:

I still believe that, even with the access certain military would have to superior weaponry, the fact that 150 million Americans are well armed is a big logistical problem for a government determined to eradicate its own people.

 

Well, it depends.

 

The slide into tyranny isn't necessarily sudden and chances are some or even most of those well-armed Americans would probably be on the dictator's side. Obviously armed battles in the streets would be a serious disruption but it would also legitimize efforts to squash the revolt using increasingly brutal means, and prove useful for propaganda purposes. Obviously I'm not an expert in armed revolts but it's a given that the rebels would need to be very organized to mount an even halfway effective resistance and even then they would be faced with the fact that they will eventually lose, and that if it continued to grow more destructive, the rebellion could also invite foreign intervention, probably from China or Russia.

 

It was an act of violence that made Hitler a dictator and justified the opening of the concentration camps. Tyrannical governments generally don't want to eradicate the majority of their people, just the minority that resist... and when examples were made of people who resisted, the majority would probably grow.

 

I can also imagine a scenario where Trump legitimately loses the election, refuses to leave office, has Fox and Breitbart spread stories about how the election was rigged, how the deep state is involved, how the Democrats and liberals have finally destroyed democracy, and how now is the time to reach for your guns and kill them all... and their audiences would probably do it. In this case the well armed populace is also a catalyst for tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 7:46 AM, Toldya said:

 

The slide into tyranny isn't necessarily sudden and chances are some or even most of those well-armed Americans would probably be on the dictator's side.

 

I'm going to start by pointing out that I spent most of my life as a registered Democrat and even now consider my core beliefs to be more "liberal" as some would define them.  One area where I differed from many of my Democratic friends and cohorts was in my belief that the Right to Bear Arms was every bit as important as the right to Free Speech.  I felt they complimented and supported each other and both were core civil liberties deserving of being defended.  As time went on, the Democratic party became less and less representative of my beliefs, and ultimately I changed my voter registration to Independent because, as others have more eloquently put it: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me."

 

As time has gone on, especially over the course of the past year and the events that have transpired, I have watched politicians of the Democratic party pursuing ever more totalitarian agendas.  Most Americans who today are "well-armed" are overwhelmingly conservative or independent voters; it is the rare Democrat these days who stays with the party despite believing in the right to be armed.  They are people who are independent by nature, and most are perfectly willing to condemn even Republicans who espouse unconstitutional actions; unlike many Democrats, who seem to invest their entire sense of Self into being a Democrat and recoil in horror at any insinuation the Party is less than perfect.

 

I believe that in the event of the rise of a genuine dictator it would be the well-armed Americans who would rise to resist him; regardless of their own partisan biases.

 

On 5/7/2020 at 7:46 AM, Toldya said:

Obviously armed battles in the streets would be a serious disruption but it would also legitimize efforts to squash the revolt using increasingly brutal means, and prove useful for propaganda purposes. Obviously I'm not an expert in armed revolts but it's a given that the rebels would need to be very organized to mount an even halfway effective resistance and even then they would be faced with the fact that they will eventually lose, and that if it continued to grow more destructive, the rebellion could also invite foreign intervention, probably from China or Russia.

 

There is a concept most people today are unaware of; that is the concept of Asymmetrical Warfare.  The "rebels", as you call them, would avoid such stand-up fights and instead engage in hit-and-run engagements against high-value soft targets.  Smaller cells would be the core of such a resistance, and very hard to isolate and weed out of the populace.  Thinking that "rebels" would consider it a "fact" that they would "eventually lose" is misguided thinking IMHO; because such "rebels" would be unlikely to rise up if they saw no hope whatsoever of success.  As for foreign intervention, most other nations perceive Americans as gun crazy savages and they recognize they would face heavy casualties in any attempt to suppress an American insurrection, and I believe they would reject any involvement.

 

On 5/7/2020 at 7:46 AM, Toldya said:

It was an act of violence that made Hitler a dictator and justified the opening of the concentration camps. Tyrannical governments generally don't want to eradicate the majority of their people, just the minority that resist... and when examples were made of people who resisted, the majority would probably grow.

 

Violence is a tool of tyranny as well; the Reichstag fire that cemented Hitler's power was a False Flag operation.

 

On 5/7/2020 at 7:46 AM, Toldya said:

I can also imagine a scenario where Trump legitimately loses the election, refuses to leave office, has Fox and Breitbart spread stories about how the election was rigged, how the deep state is involved, how the Democrats and liberals have finally destroyed democracy, and how now is the time to reach for your guns and kill them all... and their audiences would probably do it. In this case the well armed populace is also a catalyst for tyranny.

 

Or a scenario where Trump legitimately wins the election but is forced out by claims by CNN and Occupy Democrats about how the election was rigged, or the Electoral College was rigged, or whatever.  Either way I have come to believe that the Democrats are more of a problem than Donald Trump will ever be, and I say that as someone who detests Trump.

 

Right now, we have Democratic governors throwing the Constitution out the window, destroying the economy with lockdowns based off of a virus with a 99% survival rate, and stripping people of their most fundamental civil liberties; almost daring them to try and do anything about it.  Tyranny is upon us... and I can only pray we can pull back from the precipice before open conflict between Americans becomes inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spartan said:

I believe that in the event of the rise of a genuine dictator it would be the well-armed Americans who would rise to resist him; regardless of their own partisan biases.

 

I completely disagree.

It would depend entirely on whether or not they agreed with his agenda.

If Trump decided he wouldn't leave, they would support him as long as he gave them a reason to.
It wouldn't even have to be a good reason.

They've already written off objective facts simply because they appear in the 'biased liberal media'.

Thinking you can't be swayed by propaganda makes you more susceptible to it.

 

And honestly, I think 'the left's' refusal to arm itself shows that they are far less paranoid and far less inclined towards violence than the right, and as a result far less likely to support tyranny. I don't even know how you could argue that gun owners are less inclined towards violence-- they fetishize tools that exist primarily to kill people. Even hunting rifles aren't exactly a pressing need in a time when meat is easy to buy elsewhere. It's so bizarre how the right seems to think the real threat is the people who despise violence so much they actively campaign against being able to own killing tools, and not the people who actively fight to own them because they think they will probably need to kill some people some day. Even other nations that allow gun ownership don't actively fetishize it to the same degree that right wing America does.

 

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

Thinking that "rebels" would consider it a "fact" that they would "eventually lose" is misguided thinking IMHO; because such "rebels" would be unlikely to rise up if they saw no hope whatsoever of success.

 

I'm not convinced that even now they truly understand how an armed revolt would go. I think mostly they're addicted to the rush of power they feel when they have a gun in their hands, and they let it go to their heads.

 

Also, the foreign power would probably wait until both sides were heavily damaged... and it probably wouldn't be a full-blown invasion so much as an economic takeover.

 

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

Violence is a tool of tyranny as well; the Reichstag fire that cemented Hitler's power was a False Flag operation.

 

It doesn't matter if it was a false flag... the consequences are the same.

 

 

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

Or a scenario where Trump legitimately wins the election but is forced out by claims by CNN and Occupy Democrats about how the election was rigged, or the Electoral College was rigged, or whatever.  Either way I have come to believe that the Democrats are more of a problem than Donald Trump will ever be, and I say that as someone who detests Trump.

 

That's what Trump and his own personal propaganda network PRETENDS the issue is.

There was never any plot to overturn the election.

Ever.

 

Tyranny can come from the left or the right, but ultimately I think the fact that Trump is actively corrupting the legal system, undermining the media, attacking justice, etc... is making tyranny far more likely than say, the IRS going after anti-tax protesters in the Tea Party.

 

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

Right now, we have Democratic governors throwing the Constitution out the window, destroying the economy with lockdowns based off of a virus with a 99% survival rate, and stripping people of their most fundamental civil liberties; almost daring them to try and do anything about it.  Tyranny is upon us... and I can only pray we can pull back from the precipice before open conflict between Americans becomes inevitable.

 

Nearly every country in the world has had lockdowns. The reason they have had lockdowns is because medical experts recommend having them. It isn't tyranny, it's science, which also explains why the right doesn't understand and hates it so much.

 

And the way you downplay the 99% survival rate shows that you haven't done the math.

 

If 65% of Americans are infected, that's about 155,350,000 people.

1% of that is 1,553, 500 deaths in the USA.

Do you want to be responsible for 1,553,500 deaths?

 

This is what they're trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:11 PM, Toldya said:

It would depend entirely on whether or not they agreed with his agenda.

If Trump decided he wouldn't leave, they would support him as long as he gave them a reason to.
It wouldn't even have to be a good reason.

 

I can state with a level of certainty that the moment Trump stepped outside of the Constitution that brazenly many of those whom you believe would blindly follow him would not.  I certainly would not.  I am, in fact, not a supporter of Trump and I did not vote for him.  That he and Hillary Clinton were the two candidates we had left to choose from in 2016 is the strongest indicator yet that our system is broken; perhaps irretrievably.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:11 PM, Toldya said:

They've already written off objective facts simply because they appear in the 'biased liberal media'.

Thinking you can't be swayed by propaganda makes you more susceptible to it.

 

On that point I would counter by saying that what many would call "objective facts" are instead actually propaganda.  There are numerous documented instances of the "biased liberal media" blatantly misrepresenting the facts when it is convenient to the agenda they are pushing.  But then, the same happens with the "biased conservative media" such as Fox News.  The long story short is that the media has completely abdicated its responsibility as the Fourth Estate to report the news honestly, and now comports itself as the arbiter of what is "Truth" as they see it.  In the Soviet Union, the state-run newspaper was named "Pravda", which is Russian for "Truth".

 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:11 PM, Toldya said:

And honestly, I think 'the left's' refusal to arm itself shows that they are far less paranoid and far less inclined towards violence than the right, and as a result far less likely to support tyranny. I don't even know how you could argue that gun owners are less inclined towards violence-- they fetishize tools that exist primarily to kill people. Even hunting rifles aren't exactly a pressing need in a time when meat is easy to buy elsewhere. It's so bizarre how the right seems to think the real threat is the people who despise violence so much they actively campaign against being able to own killing tools, and not the people who actively fight to own them because they think they will probably need to kill some people some day. Even other nations that allow gun ownership don't actively fetishize it to the same degree that right wing America does.

 

I take some exception to your use of the word "fetishize" in reference to the beliefs of those who do not share your viewpoints.  I do not "fetishize" guns, and guns' primary purpose is NOT to "kill people".  My grandfather was a police officer for 40 years, and to him firearms were not tools of death, but instead of life; because they helped honest people preserve their own lives in the face of the homicidal actions of societal predators.  I carried his attitude with me when I followed him into law enforcement, and both in law enforcement and in private life firearms have saved me from criminal assaults... as they have saved many thousands of others.

 

This issue also not the black and white "Right" vs. "Left" you would characterize it to be.  Would you be surprised to learn that there are many of those on "the left" that are as ardently pro-2nd Amendment as anyone on "the right"?    How about the fact that there are also some on the left who are exceedingly violent?  Do you remember the Bernie Sanders' supporter who shot up the Republican softball practice??  What about Antifa?  For all of its talk of "diversity" The Left is extremely unforgiving of alternative viewpoints!  As a longtime Democrat I experienced a number of situations where I would be engaged in conversations with people who, the moment they discovered I was pro-gun and opposed to gun control, would immediately start threatening me and saying I was deserving of being murdered for my viewpoint.  When my response was some variation of "Well, I'm thankful I have the 2nd Amendment right to protect myself from people like you" they would fly into extreme histrionics.

 

As for your opinion of Hunting, hunting rifles may not be a "pressing need" in your opinion but knowing hunting and other outdoor skills are good skill sets to have.  The problems I have with people who support gun control, for the most part, is that they want to be taken care of, and want the government to have absolute power to provide for them.  Many are patently incapable of handling any real world crisis situation, and resent there being people who are not as helpless as they are... and so they demand that the independent and self-reliant be forced to comply and conform to their viewpoint.

 

As for "violence", you may well argue that some people are more "inclined towards violence"; but then many who say they abhor violence don't comprehend that there is such a thing as Righteous Violence.  Violence in and of itself is not a Bad Thing; when someone fights to protect themselves, their family, or their neighbors, that is a righteous course of action.  When a police officer kills a violent criminal, that is Righteous Violence; same as when a law-abiding citizen uses violence to protect themselves from an unprovoked assault.

 

Our nation was born in violence; a violence ignited by dictatorial, authoritarian actions by a government that did not respect its people.  A number of our Founders spoke about how violence was sometimes necessary to preserve Freedom and Liberty... and believed the government should be reminded regularly that the people maintain the "Spirit of Resistance".  That viewpoint isn't "Right" or "Left".... but it IS "American."  We do not "fetishize" guns or violence; but we ARE strong proponents of Independence and Self-reliance.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:11 PM, Toldya said:

Nearly every country in the world has had lockdowns. The reason they have had lockdowns is because medical experts recommend having them.

 

The GOVERNMENT "medical experts" recommend them... because they conveniently enable governments to seize huge amounts of power and control over the people.  Odd how every single medical professional I know finds the recommendations of the "medical experts" you cite utterly irrational and indefensible.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 10:11 PM, Toldya said:

 

And the way you downplay the 99% survival rate shows that you haven't done the math.

 

If 65% of Americans are infected, that's about 155,350,000 people.

1% of that is 1,553, 500 deaths in the USA.

Do you want to be responsible for 1,553,500 deaths?

 

This is what they're trying to avoid.

 

I've done the math. I won't be manipulated by "the math" either.  For all the deaths attributable to COVID-19 there are still far more people dying from tuberculosis, or the basic, standard flu.  Most of the doomsday COVID prediction models have collapsed under scrutiny.  Hospitals stand empty of the catastrophic tidal wave of the sick we were told was certain to come.  We could have dealt with COVID-19 without the lockdowns and without obliterating the world economy, without any appreciable worsening of the medical situation.  We could have pursued herd immunity, quarantining only the elderly and those with underlying conditions while letting everyone else go out, live their lives, and build immunity through exposure.  There is ZERO scientific justification for the lockdowns whatsoever.... but it sure facilitated the rise of overreaching governmental authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

I can state with a level of certainty that the moment Trump stepped outside of the Constitution that brazenly many of those whom you believe would blindly follow him would not.  I certainly would not.  I am, in fact, not a supporter of Trump and I did not vote for him.  That he and Hillary Clinton were the two candidates we had left to choose from in 2016 is the strongest indicator yet that our system is broken; perhaps irretrievably.

 

Your mistake is that you think it would be a 'moment' that everyone universally acknowledged was the point where he finally went too far. Do you honestly think that the right wing media, the ONLY media that most of the well-armed right-wingers in America trust, would EVER tell them to turn against Trump? Absolutely everything he says and does is justified, explained and promoted as greatness by them hundreds of times per day. Any wrongdoing is transformed via conspiracy theories and disinformation to 'making America great', and any attempt to call him out on any wrongdoing is transformed into unjust persecution by evil political enemies seeking to overturn democracy.

 

Propaganda works much better on people who think they're immune to it, who think they would know if something was wrong... Hitler didn't start off by moving the Jews into concentration camps, and even when he did, he still gave the Germans enough headroom so they could deny it was happening and still feel good about themselves. He didn't tell everyone he was killing Jews, he said they were criminals and political prisoners who were serving the war effort in work camps. The average German never actually knew what was going on inside the camps. Hitler also had a camp he used for propaganda purposes where the prisoners could play sports and take art classes and generally give the appearance of decent treatment before they were shipped off to the more brutal camps that nobody ever saw.

 

If FOX news was in Germany at the time, they would say that it's perfectly normal to keep prisoners in prisons, mock the libruls for suggesting that their treatment was inhmane ('They're prisoners-- stupid libruls want to treat them like kings... well sorry, they committed crimes and they deserve to do their time')... and any rumors of harsh treatment at camps would be mocked and derided as 'fake news', or compared to treatment under previous administrations. Eventually someone would suggest that the journalists reporting on these issues should be arrested, and given the right has assumed control of the courts, it would happen. They would justify it and it would happen, and would come to seem like a normal thing. They would find reasons to arrest them-- depict them as immoral, give them show trials and ship them away. People would say 'thank god that animal is where he belongs'.

 

The Germans weren't stupid or evil, you know.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

On that point I would counter by saying that what many would call "objective facts" are instead actually propaganda.  There are numerous documented instances of the "biased liberal media" blatantly misrepresenting the facts when it is convenient to the agenda they are pushing.  But then, the same happens with the "biased conservative media" such as Fox News.  The long story short is that the media has completely abdicated its responsibility as the Fourth Estate to report the news honestly, and now comports itself as the arbiter of what is "Truth" as they see it.  In the Soviet Union, the state-run newspaper was named "Pravda", which is Russian for "Truth".

 

That's not true.

 

Sometimes reporters get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they're intentionally distorting the facts-- while the right wing media often does this deliberately. Before 1987, journalists had to abide by the fairness doctrine, which demanded they present the facts as objectively as possible and account for ALL perspectives. The right got rid of this under Reagan under the pretense that it was opposed to 'free speech', but in reality it was so they could spread lies about how smoking didn't kill people, chemicals are good for us, climate change isn't real, and create FOX news-- which was conceived as a right wing propaganda machine and cemented its role as the GOP's own Pravda under George W Bush. The Dems were FORCED to go on the defensive by this and now there is greater bias in left wing media as well... but never to the same extent, and most of the big names still cling to glimmers of their former integrity by going after Democrats when it's called for, which is something right wing media does not do with right wingers.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

My grandfather was a police officer for 40 years, and to him firearms were not tools of death, but instead of life; because they helped honest people preserve their own lives in the face of the homicidal actions of societal predators.

 

They also help society's predators become more likely to take the lives of those honest people. They just make violence and murder so much easier.  Even those 'honest people' are using them to take lives, even if you dismiss the value of those lives by referring to them as 'predators'.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

Our nation was born in violence; a violence ignited by dictatorial, authoritarian actions by a government that did not respect its people.

 

And to the north is a nation that less than a century later was born in peace through a lot of boring paperwork with that same government.

Makes you wonder what could have been.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

The GOVERNMENT "medical experts" recommend them... because they conveniently enable governments to seize huge amounts of power and control over the people.  Odd how every single medical professional I know finds the recommendations of the "medical experts" you cite utterly irrational and indefensible.

 

I don't know which 'medical professionals' you know, but either the entire world is run by power hungry leaders who are trying to control everyone's minds, which is insane... or they're simply trying to do their best and save people's lives because it's the right thing to do. The idea that lockdowns are ALWAYS tyranny and ALWAYS a conspiracy to crush freedom is just not reality, an irrational fear born out of conspiracies and paranoia. Sometimes people need to work together and respect each other's right to live... which is apparently in conflict with what a lot of Americans think they deserve.

 

On 5/20/2020 at 9:34 AM, Spartan said:

I've done the math. I won't be manipulated by "the math" either.  For all the deaths attributable to COVID-19 there are still far more people dying from tuberculosis, or the basic, standard flu.  Most of the doomsday COVID prediction models have collapsed under scrutiny.  Hospitals stand empty of the catastrophic tidal wave of the sick we were told was certain to come.  We could have dealt with COVID-19 without the lockdowns and without obliterating the world economy, without any appreciable worsening of the medical situation.  We could have pursued herd immunity, quarantining only the elderly and those with underlying conditions while letting everyone else go out, live their lives, and build immunity through exposure.  There is ZERO scientific justification for the lockdowns whatsoever.... but it sure facilitated the rise of overreaching governmental authority.

 

I don't even know where to begin.

 

-there aren't more deaths because fewer people were being infected because of the lockdown

-more people die of flu because more people contract the flu, but a much smaller percentage of people who contract the flu die from it

-what models? The ones that were projecting death rates if no actions were taken? Yeah, those didn't come to pass. Can you guess why?

-there is no indication that people even become immune after they've been infected once, and children and young teens are dying of complications and cytokine storms... not to mention the permanent damage it can do to various parts of your body. 

-you have to let go of this conspiratorial mindset-- the government isn't constantly trying to hurt everyone. It wouldn't make sense if they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

 

Your mistake is that you think it would be a 'moment' that everyone universally acknowledged was the point where he finally went too far. Do you honestly think that the right wing media, the ONLY media that most of the well-armed right-wingers in America trust, would EVER tell them to turn against Trump? Absolutely everything he says and does is justified, explained and promoted as greatness by them hundreds of times per day. Any wrongdoing is transformed via conspiracy theories and disinformation to 'making America great', and any attempt to call him out on any wrongdoing is transformed into unjust persecution by evil political enemies seeking to overturn democracy.

 

The reality is that there are political extremists who will blindly follow a leader for the sole reason that they are a member of their chosen political party.  There are Democrats who will do it, and there are Republicans who will.  It makes me think of Washington's warnings of the dangers of political parties again.

 

However, there are a great many well-armed Americans who have their own network of information sharing, and more and more are turning away from traditional media in favor of a more nuanced take on things.  Blind adherence to whatever they're told to believe doesn't sit well with them... or with me.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

That's not true.

 

Yes, it is.  It's sad and tragic... but still true.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

Sometimes reporters get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they're intentionally distorting the facts-- while the right wing media often does this deliberately.

 

You are caught up on "right wing" and "left wing", but the issue is far more pervasive than that.  In fact, the whole "right wing" vs. "left wing" is, to me, just another mind game of manipulation, to keep us focused on fighting with each other rather than uniting against the real threat - overarching government.  Right wing and left wing are both part of the same bird.

 

And I can cite numerous instances where the media purposefully, deliberately lied to push an agenda.  All you have to do is look at just about ANY story regarding firearms use and applications and capabilities in the mass media.  And that ain't the "right wing" at all; but instead pretty much totally the purview of those with more leftist ideologies.

 

The most egregious example of this was an incident in 2004 when CNN did a "story" on the sunsetting so-called "Assault" weapons ban where they tried to claim banned rifles had capabilities they didn't.  They chose to show a fully automatic, military-grade rifle - which was never covered by the law in question -  and compared it to a rifle with all the cosmetic modifications mandated by the ban.  Somehow the military rifle could smash concrete blocks into powder, while the politically correct rifle couldn't...  even though they fired identical ammunition.  It was a contemptible, laughable propaganda piece so egregious and brazen in its falsehoods that when they were called on it they put up a new story a couple of days later, same reporter and same demonstration but with honest results... though they never called it a retraction or even a correction, and they certainly never acknowledged they had bald-faced lied.  

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

Before 1987, journalists had to abide by the fairness doctrine, which demanded they present the facts as objectively as possible and account for ALL perspectives. The right got rid of this under Reagan under the pretense that it was opposed to 'free speech', but in reality it was so they could spread lies about how smoking didn't kill people, chemicals are good for us, climate change isn't real, and create FOX news-- which was conceived as a right wing propaganda machine and cemented its role as the GOP's own Pravda under George W Bush. The Dems were FORCED to go on the defensive by this and now there is greater bias in left wing media as well... but never to the same extent, and most of the big names still cling to glimmers of their former integrity by going after Democrats when it's called for, which is something right wing media does not do with right wingers.

 

There's some truth in this, but the bias goes both ways.  Some don't want to acknowledge that or seriously consider it - the bias always goes against them and their beliefs, in their minds - but the bias is not the sole purview of one partisan entity over another.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

They also help society's predators become more likely to take the lives of those honest people. They just make violence and murder so much easier.  Even those 'honest people' are using them to take lives, even if you dismiss the value of those lives by referring to them as 'predators'.

 

Societal predators have been taking lives since long before there were guns.  Entire civilizations were destroyed with naught but fire and sword.  Predators are only constrained when their potential victim pool has the means to fend them off.

 

And yes, I find the lives of predatory creatures who actively brutalize their fellow citizens with rape and violence utterly without value.  They are subhuman, and devoid of even basic decency.  I was a law enforcement officer and I dealt with violent criminals on a regular basis and saw the harsh reality of their evil.  I was in more than one gunfight, and I never once used my weapon with the intent of taking a life, but only for saving innocent life.  As far as I'm concerned if a criminal had not made the conscious, purposeful decision to prey upon the innocent then they wouldn't have been in the position to get shot; so the onus for their deaths was on them.  We put down mad dogs too, and violent criminals are a far more dangerous threat.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

And to the north is a nation that less than a century later was born in peace through a lot of boring paperwork with that same government.

Makes you wonder what could have been.

 

That century later the British had a very different mindset, and even today Canada remains a Commonwealth of Great Britain.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

I don't know which 'medical professionals' you know, but either the entire world is run by power hungry leaders who are trying to control everyone's minds, which is insane... or they're simply trying to do their best and save people's lives because it's the right thing to do. The idea that lockdowns are ALWAYS tyranny and ALWAYS a conspiracy to crush freedom is just not reality, an irrational fear born out of conspiracies and paranoia.

 

The Medical professionals I know are doctors and nurses on the front lines of this pandemic.  One of my best friends is a military officer, and his wife is likewise an officer in the military who serves in the Medical field and is currently on deployment working in a "high-risk" part of the country.  She left full of commitment and dedication, believing fervently in her duty to save lives... and she now is utterly disgusted by what she now knows is nothing but manipulation.  COVID-19 is simply NOT the threat we were told it is.  The powers that be don't give a DAMN about people's lives, and this entire thing is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the people and direct the nation down the path THEY want us on.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

Sometimes people need to work together and respect each other's right to live... which is apparently in conflict with what a lot of Americans think they deserve.

 

I fully and completely respect other people's right to live their lives as they choose... so long as what they do doesn't interfere in my ability to live my life as I choose.

 

Stripping me of my ability to work while empowering corporations to operate without constraint and kill the small business where I work is what I have a problem with.  Mandating I can't go where I want, when I want - ESPECIALLY when it puts no one else at risk! - is what I have a problem with.  Destroying a healthy, vibrant economy for false, sinister reasons is what I have a problem with.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

 

-there aren't more deaths because fewer people were being infected because of the lockdown

 

And yet places that did not initiate lockdowns have had flatter curves and fewer deaths.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

-more people die of flu because more people contract the flu, but a much smaller percentage of people who contract the flu die from it

 

Not an accurate statement.  More people have died of tuberculosis too.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

-what models? The ones that were projecting death rates if no actions were taken? Yeah, those didn't come to pass. Can you guess why?

 

That's all propaganda and manipulation of numbers.  Again, they put out ridiculously high, terrifying numbers that this virus was going to be nothing less than an apocalyptic event.  When people began to wake up that they were being lied to, the officials hurriedly released revamped figures so they didn't look quite so thoroughly out of their minds.

 

On 5/23/2020 at 8:48 AM, Toldya said:

-you have to let go of this conspiratorial mindset-- the government isn't constantly trying to hurt everyone. It wouldn't make sense if they were.

 

The government wants to CONTROL everyone.  Government ALWAYS evolves towards authoritarianism, and the lockdowns and fear-mongering have enabled them to seize huge amounts of control over people's lives, and too many Americans are docilely rolling over and meekly letting it happen simply because the government tells them it's for their "safety".  That's what Nazis also told people as they enacted ever more draconian rules: "Es ist zu Ihrer Sicherheit."  

 

"It's for your safety."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Spartan said:

However, there are a great many well-armed Americans who have their own network of information sharing, and more and more are turning away from traditional media in favor of a more nuanced take on things.  Blind adherence to whatever they're told to believe doesn't sit well with them... or with me.

 

This is a big part of the problem.

None of these sources of information have any accountability, and aren't obligated to adhere to any standards whatsoever.

They will just say whatever people want to hear and whatever gets you to click on their site.

They're WORSE than mainstream media.

 

13 hours ago, Spartan said:

All you have to do is look at just about ANY story regarding firearms use and applications and capabilities in the mass media.  And that ain't the "right wing" at all; but instead pretty much totally the purview of those with more leftist ideologies.

 

The NRA has used right wing politicians to block research into gun violence for decades.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 

So it's right wing.

 

13 hours ago, Spartan said:

And yes, I find the lives of predatory creatures who actively brutalize their fellow citizens with rape and violence utterly without value.  They are subhuman, and devoid of even basic decency.  I was a law enforcement officer and I dealt with violent criminals on a regular basis and saw the harsh reality of their evil.  I was in more than one gunfight, and I never once used my weapon with the intent of taking a life, but only for saving innocent life.  As far as I'm concerned if a criminal had not made the conscious, purposeful decision to prey upon the innocent then they wouldn't have been in the position to get shot; so the onus for their deaths was on them.  We put down mad dogs too, and violent criminals are a far more dangerous threat.

 

I have all the respect in the world for that, but I also think that the fact that cops have to deal with the worst of the worst shit in society colors their perspective in ways that don't necessarily reflect most people's realities. Being pummelled by endless savagery is probably going to make you cynical about human nature and give you a sense of the world being a horrible place. I want to believe that people are generally good even if they are corrupted beyond the point where they can be redeemed in any meaningful way without a LOT of effort... but I think it's more important to understand how they got that way and prevent it from happening in the first place than to simply shoot them like mad dogs. I don't think arming everyone is the solution... even if it is probably necessary for certain people.

 

13 hours ago, Spartan said:

That century later the British had a very different mindset, and even today Canada remains a Commonwealth of Great Britain.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Canada also has a better democracy, a more peaceful society and a generally better reputation internationally. 

I think America could learn a lot from them, actually.

 

Sorry I don't have time to reply to all of this... it's getting too long haha.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 5:45 AM, Toldya said:

This is a big part of the problem.

None of these sources of information have any accountability, and aren't obligated to adhere to any standards whatsoever.

They will just say whatever people want to hear and whatever gets you to click on their site.

They're WORSE than mainstream media.

 

That is simply not true.  It is ALL about researching the full facts; I accept nothing at face value and research issues as deeply as I can before I form an opinion.  The online resources I pursue cite far more sources and generally have far more credibility than anything in the mainstream media in my experience.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 5:45 AM, Toldya said:

 

The NRA has used right wing politicians to block research into gun violence for decades.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 

So it's right wing.

 

The article you cited is nothing but a partisan propaganda piece in and of itself, and does not even come close to accurately evaluating the situation discussed.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#10c62a8a282d

 

On 5/26/2020 at 5:45 AM, Toldya said:

I have all the respect in the world for that, but I also think that the fact that cops have to deal with the worst of the worst shit in society colors their perspective in ways that don't necessarily reflect most people's realities. Being pummelled by endless savagery is probably going to make you cynical about human nature and give you a sense of the world being a horrible place. I want to believe that people are generally good even if they are corrupted beyond the point where they can be redeemed in any meaningful way without a LOT of effort... but I think it's more important to understand how they got that way and prevent it from happening in the first place than to simply shoot them like mad dogs. I don't think arming everyone is the solution... even if it is probably necessary for certain people.

 

There is some truth in what you're stating here.  I do believe that a lot can be done when kids are taught from the beginning about self-responsibility instead of allowed to grow up without any kind of discipline or training in value-based behavior.  But I also recognize that my interactions with, as you describe, the worst of the worst, does make me prone to question the core motivations of anyone I meet; even those who have genuinely meritorious viewpoints.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 5:45 AM, Toldya said:

Canada also has a better democracy, a more peaceful society and a generally better reputation internationally. 

I think America could learn a lot from them, actually.

 

Well, that's a subject for another time.  I believe democracy has its dangers and its pitfalls and should be constrained in certain ways to prevent overarching mob rule.  Another point: if you removed several of our most violence-prone cities - generally cities with some draconian gun control laws - you would find that most of the United States has violent crime rates, per capita, that are approximately that of Canada.

 

That said, however, Canadians do tend to be more laid-back and less defensive than their American brethren.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 5:45 AM, Toldya said:

Sorry I don't have time to reply to all of this... it's getting too long haha.

 

 

In all seriousness, I appreciate the thoughtfulness you are bringing to this conversation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • diddle dee dee


  • By teacher

    Like Jesse Ventura said to all that would not take a chew in the movie "Predator." LF.org is a political debate forum. This chatbox just ups the opportunity to go at it. Ya'll have your political views, seems to me that ya'll should have thought these things out and be ready to battle. 


  • By teacher

    Is real time political debate a thing ya'll hide from? What do you morons do if you happen to run into some one with opposing political views on the street? 


  • By teacher

    I've never ran into anyone, in real life,  that said Obama lied. I run into folks that tell me Trump lies. I'm at work. I didn't bring it up. I don't reply, I'm representing a company. Not my place. 


  • By teacher

    Lookie there, all I have to do is get out and come back. Why is it that liberals, when they have a company man before them decide they that is the time they go off? Why would ya'll put a company man into that position? 


  • By teacher

    Chatbox is mine. 


  • By teacher

    There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." There is only discrimination. To imply that black on white discrimination is reverse discrimination sort of lends some justification to the idea of so-called "reverse discrimination." Any discrimination is wrong. Original idea supplied to me by a man called Kyle. Credit where credit is due.


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. I told you unwashed masses long ago in this, the chat box what the rules were.  Told you all that I would rule the chat box. Go check it out. Scroll some. The chat box is supposed to be a place where debate can happen damn near instantaneously. At the onset I said that the chat box wouldn't fly and that is because the chat box demands that all needs to be ready for real time debate. Everybody but I fails.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...