NationStates

Pimps Inc wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:And probably a waste of human lives as well.

It’d be a great example to point to next time a celebrity on Twitter goes “Gun control now! #Browniepoints”

Citizen! The People’s Fascist Republic of Keshiland will protect you from all things!

Thermodolia wrote:

NewLiberalParty wrote:
I bet you find Trickle down economics wonderful right? But hey atleast you still get your gun.

He prevented another one from happening by taxing the rich to help the poor. shocking it worked

>hates trickle down economics
>likes the gold standard
>loves FDR even though FDR got rid of the gold standard

Pick one and only one.

Also the New Deal was more than just taxing the rich to help the poor. It was about investment in our poor communities and putting people to work in the CCC.

All the presidents from FRD to LBJ were great and you know we could put millions to work again in infrastructure but you know vote in horrible politicians to keep the gun.

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

NewLiberalParty wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:>hates trickle down economics
>likes the gold standard
>loves FDR even though FDR got rid of the gold standard

Pick one and only one.

Also the New Deal was more than just taxing the rich to help the poor. It was about investment in our poor communities and putting people to work in the CCC.

All the presidents from FRD to LBJ were great and you know we could put millions to work again in infrastructure but you know vote in horrible politicians to keep the gun.

What?

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

This argument could also be applied to the 1st and 4th.

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

In my opinion the 1st Amendment is outdated since it was written when things like computers and photocopiers, etc., didn't exist.

Also need is irrelevant, it is the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

Thermodolia wrote:

Pimps Inc wrote:It’d be a great example to point to next time a celebrity on Twitter goes “Gun control now! #Browniepoints”

Citizen! The People’s Fascist Republic of Keshiland will protect you from all things!

Amazing how many people are going to need protection from themselves.

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

Handguns are as much a problem as semi-auto rifles, actually. More-so because they can be more easily concealed than something like an AR-15. They both need heavy restrictions and/or outright banning.

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

Handguns are responsible for like 80-90% of firearm death.

Torrocca wrote:

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

Handguns are as much a problem as semi-auto rifles, actually. More-so because they can be more easily concealed than something like an AR-15. They both need heavy restrictions and/or outright banning.

Na.

Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Handguns are as much a problem as semi-auto rifles, actually. More-so because they can be more easily concealed than something like an AR-15. They both need heavy restrictions and/or outright banning.

Na.

Yes. We need less guns, not, "a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with the gun." We're not the Wild-freakin'-West, and pretending otherwise will get even more people killed.

Torrocca wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Na.

Yes. We need less guns, not, "a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with the gun." We're not the Wild-freakin'-West, and pretending otherwise will get even more people killed.

Your ideas likely won't even have much of an impact, thanks but no thanks.

Osnil Returns wrote:Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

Osnil Returns wrote:Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

A tyrannical government wouldn’t be able to-
Ah, fuck it.

Torrocca wrote:

Osnil Returns wrote:Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

Thanks to the 2nd amendment.

Torrocca wrote:

Osnil Returns wrote:Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.

NewLiberalParty wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:>hates trickle down economics
>likes the gold standard
>loves FDR even though FDR got rid of the gold standard

Pick one and only one.

Also the New Deal was more than just taxing the rich to help the poor. It was about investment in our poor communities and putting people to work in the CCC.

All the presidents from FRD to LBJ were great and you know we could put millions to work again in infrastructure but you know vote in horrible politicians to keep the gun.

Keshi you are talking to the wrong person. I’m probably farther left than you are. I’m a hardline cultural nationalist with syndicalist leanings. I support the 2nd because I support arming the workers. Because the best way for the workers to get their rights if they are armed.

Feminists for Equality wrote:In my opinion, the Second Amendment is important to American culture, but it's also outdated. When it was written, guns like AR-15s didn't exist. For me personally, having handguns is fine, given that background checks are passed, but I don't see why anyone needs guns that are designed to kill mass amounts of people. I get that people don't want to scratch an amendment, but I also don't get why people think that having such serious weapons are a necessity.

An armed worker is a free worker.

Pimps Inc wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

Thanks to the 2nd amendment.

Here's a thought for you: the US Civil War (from the South's point of view) was to combat government tyranny. How'd that turn out for them?

Now imagine that, today, but with one side having tanks, drones, a navy that's spread across the globe, the most advanced air force in existence, and millions dedicated to the defense of the country, while the other side has what'd essentially be a bunch of disorganized mobs with AR-15s. Do you think that'd somehow go better than how the Civil War went?

Torrocca wrote:

Pimps Inc wrote:Thanks to the 2nd amendment.

Here's a thought for you: the US Civil War (from the South's point of view) was to combat government tyranny. How'd that turn out for them?

Now imagine that, today, but with one side having tanks, drones, a navy that's spread across the globe, the most advanced air force in existence, and millions dedicated to the defense of the country, while the other side has what'd essentially be a bunch of disorganized mobs with AR-15s. Do you think that'd somehow go better than how the Civil War went?

Except a majority of the military would mutiny and they would have to deal with 600 million+ guns being pointed at them in every environment they go in.

Torrocca wrote:

Osnil Returns wrote:Here's an interesting question: Does the second amendment cover things like attack helicopters and tanks? I personally believe it to be so because the 2nd Amendment was intended to give the people leverage over the government and prevent tyranny. A bunch of semi-automatics aren't a lick of good against a tank or attack helicopter. Why even stop with helicopters? Why can't I have explosive rounds and grenades?

Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

I want to ask you a question. Should the workers be armed? Because I think they should. Nobody is going to boss you around when you and all of your friends have guns. They are more likely to listen to your demands

Thermodolia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Because the 2nd Amendment's a feel-good amendment that deludes people into thinking they're John Rambo or some other action hero who's entirely capable of combating any tyranny that takes hold in the US government - tyranny, mind you, that hasn't once taken hold in the over 200 years of our existence.

I want to ask you a question. Should the workers be armed? Because I think they should. Nobody is going to boss you around when you and all of your friends have guns. They are more likely to listen to your demands

I already tried that approach.

Hmm, I gots to thinking, do some Americans love their gun free zones more than they love children?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I want to ask you a question. Should the workers be armed? Because I think they should. Nobody is going to boss you around when you and all of your friends have guns. They are more likely to listen to your demands

I already tried that approach.

Well I’ll try it again