Dead kids and our 1st and 2nd amendment rights...

[Phantasmal]

I'm saying it's incapable of performing the feats that you think it is.

Seriously though, how long do you think the average citizens could hold off the government? How long could you? How long would it take you to amass a force large enough to successfully hold off the government forces?

I mean these people talking about fighting their government with their guns, or succeeding, better think about the firepower that is going to be rained down on their heads before they take on our forces.

The use of the drone comment was because it is how The administration is dealing with terrorists in Pakistan. It was tongue in cheek.

 

[/MSG/]

Seriously though, how long do you think the average citizens could hold off the government? How long could you? How long would it take you to amass a force large enough to successfully hold off the government forces?

I mean these people talking about fighting their government with their guns, or succeeding, better think about the firepower that is going to be rained down on their heads before they take on our forces.

The use of the drone comment was because it is how The administration is dealing with terrorists in Pakistan. It was tongue in cheek.

Geronimo did it with about 50 men, completely currounded, for about 2 years I believe. So how long could I? Well, in this entirely theoretical exercise, years. The Chechans have been doing it for about 20 now, against forces far more determined and motivated than anything we would muster, with far worse training and equipment. I mean, my generation (the ones statistically most likely to revolt) have a huge (proportionally speaking) percentage of veterans who've fought that kind of war. We have over a decade of experience doing so. Look at Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Venezula, Ukraine, Etc. All of them stood/stand a far worse chance than we.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Oops nevermind below. I thought you were grind for a second...

You don't actually believe that since as The Fake Libertarian (tfl) you argue that rights are conditional to citizenship.

what a retard. So I guess non-citizens should have the right to vote.

 

[Timshel]

what a retard. So I guess non-citizens should have the right to vote.

Why don't you ask billy since he seems to get it and you don't?

Voting is a civil right, dumbass. Free speech and the right to defend yourself are human rights.

You sure are a lousy fake libertarian. You sound about as libertarian as the PiMPle since he made this same stupid argument in the Oklahoma monument thread.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I don't care much for your strawmanning. I don't even know where you got this latest strawman or where I said non-citizens don't have the right to free speech or whatever new bullshit it is you have invented in your mind. the point is voting is still a right, and we obviously make restrictions in our country based on citizenship and who can exercise what.

I KNOW it sucks for you that I have completely owned you and called you out for the charlatan that you are. but don't take it out on me.

 

[Teflon Don]

This may have been the case back in 1776, but you best make sure you have the military and a few other citizens on your side these days if you are going to take a stand against the govenment. Your gun cache may/will preserve your life for a few days, well, at least, until they drone you.

Think about what you just wrote. Maybe you think you are just being cute? But, you are making the case FOR the 2nd Amendment

 

[Timshel]

I don't care much for your strawmanning. I don't even know where you got this latest strawman or where I said non-citizens don't have the right to free speech or whatever new bullshit it is you have invented in your mind. the point is voting is still a right, and we obviously make restrictions in our country based on citizenship and who can exercise what.

I KNOW it sucks for you that I have completely owned you and called you out for the charlatan that you are. but don't take it out on me.

You don't believe immigrants or non citizens have any rights. You have routinely argued the state can do whatever it wants to them. Maybe your views have changed or you just expressed them poorly in the past (like your dumbass comment about dead kids) but there is no strawman on my part.

Migration is a human right. They let you move across the country because you are a natural Masshole but also because you have a right to move freely no greater or lesser than any other immigrant.

Voting is not a human right but a civil right based on citizenship for obvious reasons. The entire purpose of voting is to determine the will of the interested parties or stakeholders and in the case of governments those are citizens. To allow those who have no proper interest in an election to vote perverts the intent and the rights of those who do. Of course, foreigners should also have a right to acquire citizenship without bias and or invidious discrimination, which would make the right to vote easily achievable.

Again, you are about as libertarian as PiMPle, i.e., not at all, and raise the same ignorant arguments.

You have never made any substantive argument on me as a charlatan where as I have specifically pointed out how you fail to understand or adhere consistently to the principles you claim to support.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

You don't believe immigrants or non citizens have any rights. You have routinely argued the state can do whatever it wants to them. Maybe your views have changed or you just expressed them poorly in the past

back your ridiculous claim up. go. have at it.

(like your dumbass comment about dead kids) but there is no strawman on my part.

That wasn't a mistake. I mean that 100%.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No. Rights exist only by law. There are no rights without law; no rights contrary to law; no rights superior to law. That's the way it is; the way it must be; and no other way. Get used to it.

go back to england. it's not that way here

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seriously though, how long do you think the average citizens could hold off the government? How long could you? How long would it take you to amass a force large enough to successfully hold off the government forces?

I mean these people talking about fighting their government with their guns, or succeeding, better think about the firepower that is going to be rained down on their heads before they take on our forces.

The use of the drone comment was because it is how The administration is dealing with terrorists in Pakistan. It was tongue in cheek.

are you familiar with the concept of overwhelming force? think numbers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Second Amendment was never intended to protect the people from the government. That’s simple nonsense. The rights secured by the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are subject to law; and there is no law that allows the people to take up arms against the government. To the contrary, even to advocate such action constitutes a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. Our individual rights and liberty are provided and protected by law, not by guns; and the method for effecting change is not by armed insurrection, but by vote of our elected representatives in government, and by lawful means through the courts, not lawlessness. That’s the way of our constitutional republic; that’s the American way.

there's a document you should read called the Declaration of Independence. let me know when you're done.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Declaration of Independence is not what was adopted. It is the Constitution - not the Declaration of Independence - that provides for the structure of our government, and the font of our individual rights and liberty by law. The Constitution did not adopt Thomas Jefferson’s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for the division of three coequal branches of governmental power subject to separation of powers limitations through a system of checks and balances. Likewise, the Constitution represents the repudiation of the concept of natural rights. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law. All rights exist only by law. Again, under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness. That's the way it is, not otherwise.

your revisionist history will not be tolerated. that's the way it is.

 

[Timshel]

back your ridiculous claim up. go. have at it.



That wasn't a mistake. I mean that 100%.

Why? You know damn well that you have argued that immigrants/foreigners can be rounded up for deportation or even torture. But, if your position has changed or you want to pretend it is something else then just say so.

Meanwhile, you fail to even articulate for what reason I am charged a charlatan. You are nothing but vague and empty personal attacks, loser.

 

[Celticguy]

The Second Amendment was never intended to protect the people from the government. That’s simple nonsense. The rights secured by the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are subject to law; and there is no law that allows the people to take up arms against the government. To the contrary, even to advocate such action constitutes a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. Our individual rights and liberty are provided and protected by law, not by guns; and the method for effecting change is not by armed insurrection, but by vote of our elected representatives in government, and by lawful means through the courts, not lawlessness. That’s the way of our constitutional republic; that’s the American way.

Put simply, you incorrect. Remember the constitution was conceived in the shadow of an armed revolt against english tyrany. Its specificly intended to serve as protection from the government.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Why? You know damn well that you have argued that immigrants/foreigners can be rounded up for deportation or even torture. But, if your position has changed or you want to pretend it is something else then just say so.

Meanwhile, you fail to even articulate for what reason I am charged a charlatan. You are nothing but vague and empty personal attacks, loser.

I honestly think you may have a brain tumor string. You might want to get that checked out. I have never said anything remotely close to that. I do see you are getting further and further away from your original claims about what I have said in the past.

Your original premise is that I said immigrants don't deserve/have rights. Which is not true and something I never said ever.

Now, on to the next thing, you are a fake libertarian because for one, you support social welfare like midnight basketball, and critisized those that do not support your wealth redistribution. You also are CLEARLY a gun grabber, but are too cowardly to just fucking come out and admit it. You cowardly hide in the shadows too afraid to give your stance on gun rights because you know it will expose you for the fake libertarian that you are.

 

[christiefan915]

Seriously though, how long do you think the average citizens could hold off the government? How long could you? How long would it take you to amass a force large enough to successfully hold off the government forces?

I mean these people talking about fighting their government with their guns, or succeeding, better think about the firepower that is going to be rained down on their heads before they take on our forces.

The use of the drone comment was because it is how The administration is dealing with terrorists in Pakistan. It was tongue in cheek.

I think any suggestion that this country could successfully rise up and rebel against govt. forces is comical. It didn't work for Koresh at Waco and it didn't work for Lee in the Civil War.

 

[/MSG/]

The Declaration of Independence is not what was adopted. It is the Constitution - not the Declaration of Independence - that provides for the structure of our government, and the font of our individual rights and liberty by law. The Constitution did not adopt Thomas Jefferson’s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for the division of three coequal branches of governmental power subject to separation of powers limitations through a system of checks and balances. Likewise, the Constitution represents the repudiation of the concept of natural rights. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law. All rights exist only by law. Again, under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness. That's the way it is, not otherwise.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[/MSG/]

I think any suggestion that this country could successfully rise up and rebel against govt. forces is comical. It didn't work for Koresh at Waco and it didn't work for Lee in the Civil War.

Yes, just look at how well the Libyans crushed their uprising. Or the Syrians. Hell, let's wait and see what happens in Venezula.

 

[christiefan915]

Yes, just look at how well the Libyans crushed their uprising. Or the Syrians. Hell, let's wait and see what happens in Venezula.

Libya and Venezuela don't have our firepower and technology.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a “foundational” document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that ". . . the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration.” The Cato Institute, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Preface, p. 2 (2002). This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record. The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, as I stated in my previous post, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural (viz. “unalienable”) rights. In fact, Jefferson did not much like the Constitution (he thought it ceded too much power to the government); which is understandable since he was not a participant at the Constitutional Convention, and his ideas were not adopted - even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason, who was a principal framer of our Constitution. Still, he has become resurrected as the patron saint (and, more absurdly, a Christian) of most Americans who think that they have “God-given”, “natural”, “inherent” or “unalienable” rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution. In truth, that’s not the way things are ordered; but people nevertheless persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer. Then they complain their “Constitutional rights” are being infringed. Indeed, such persons are the first to complain that “there ought’a be a law!” Well, the truth is that there is.

did you teach goebbels? because you're good with the propaganda. baghdad bob could have used you.