More than 1 in 5 Trump SUPPORTERS think he will involve the US in a nuclear war

[Knowing]

It's perfectly clear that citizens were allowed arms to create a militia to defend the state, not overthrow it.


The notion that our own govt is or will become sufficiently repressive to spark a popular revolution is pure paranoid fantasy, anyway.

For one, they weren't 'allowed' arms. For two, interpretation that the 2a is dependent on membership in the state militia is terrible English. For three, the government's just powers are dependent on the consent of the governed.

Pure paranoid fantasy indulged in by well educated gentlemen who had just done that very thing. The intention was that agents of government would live happily in a box of legitimacy, protecting the liberties of its citizens instead of dreaming up new and interesting ways of disarming them.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - some ignorant knuckle dragging far right wing radical militia leader bent on the overthrow of our enlightened government.

 

[Jhhnn]

For one, they weren't 'allowed' arms. For two, interpretation that the 2a is dependent on membership in the state militia is terrible English. For three, the government's just powers are dependent on the consent of the governed.

Pure paranoid fantasy indulged in by well educated gentlemen who had just done that very thing. The intention was that agents of government would live happily in a box of legitimacy, protecting the liberties of its citizens instead of dreaming up new and interesting ways of disarming them.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - some ignorant knuckle dragging far right wing radical militia leader bent on the overthrow of our enlightened government.

Why yes, our govt today is just like the British Monarchy, obviously, but only to people whose grip on sanity has all but disappeared. The only revolution in the near future will be at the ballot box, something Repubs are trying desperately to repress. They'll try to lock down the advantages they've gained for the financial elite as long as possible & will exploit even crazy people to have it.

 

[Paratus]

For one, they weren't 'allowed' arms. For two, interpretation that the 2a is dependent on membership in the state militia is terrible English. For three, the government's just powers are dependent on the consent of the governed.

Pure paranoid fantasy indulged in by well educated gentlemen who had just done that very thing. The intention was that agents of government would live happily in a box of legitimacy, protecting the liberties of its citizens instead of dreaming up new and interesting ways of disarming them.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - some ignorant knuckle dragging far right wing radical militia leader bent on the overthrow of our enlightened government.

So why do you guys (republicans) keep trying to prevent American citizens from voting through unconstitutional voting restrictions?

Hmm

 

[Knowing]

So why do you guys keep trying to prevent American citizens from voting through unconstitutional voting restrictions?

Hmm

Who is 'you guys?'

 

[Paratus]

Who is 'you guys?'

See the edit above

 

[Knowing]

See the edit above

I'm not a Republican.

I believe that if the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm isn't an unconstitutional limit on the second amendment then it cannot possibly be an unconstitutional limit on the right to vote.

Of course, I am still struggling to work out how Chicago's violence tax isn't tantamount to a poll tax.

 

[cubby1223]

The notion that our own govt is or will become sufficiently repressive to spark a popular revolution is pure paranoid fantasy, anyway.

I guess you must have skipped reading the survey that was the whole basis of this thread. ~60% of the Democratic voting base is paranoid. That is, if you trust the results that our resident elite member threw us here as worthy news

 

[Paratus]

I'm not a Republican.

I believe that if the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm isn't an unconstitutional limit on the second amendment then it cannot possibly be an unconstitutional limit on the right to vote.

Of course, I am still struggling to work out how Chicago's violence tax isn't tantamount to a poll tax.

As has been pointed out numerous times before, everyone provides ID to vote.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not a Republican.

I believe that if the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm isn't an unconstitutional limit on the second amendment then it cannot possibly be an unconstitutional limit on the right to vote.

Of course, I am still struggling to work out how Chicago's violence tax isn't tantamount to a poll tax.

You should probably just stop following politics altogether, the constitution, our history, and how this country works appears to be too much for you to understand.

If someone simply read the constitution they wouldn't come to the conclusion you did.

 

[MongGrel]

~60% of the Democratic voting base is paranoid.

There is a real BS generalization if I ever heard one.

 

[Knowing]

You should probably just stop following politics altogether, the constitution, our history, and how this country works appears to be too much for you to understand.

If someone simply read the constitution they wouldn't come to the conclusion you did.

Very helpful comment, thank you for your input.

 

[ivwshane]

Very helpful comment, thank you for your input.

You were already educated on the subject and you doubled down on stupid. There really isn't more anyone can say to you so I'm sorry if I don't feel like wasting my time on someone who couldn't care less about facts and the truth.

 

[Knowing]

You were already educated on the subject and you doubled down on stupid. There really isn't more anyone can say to you so I'm sorry if I don't feel like wasting my time on someone who couldn't care less about facts and the truth.

I appreciate your candor. By all means, continue.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

That wouldn't go well for the unarmed side that supports gun control. On the bright side it would be a short war.

I thought we were talking about a nuclear war. I'd like to see the gun-toting right-wingers defend themselves against a nuclear blast. The average Trump supporter probably thinks they can stop a nuclear attack from approaching their houses by waving a gun or firing it towards the cloud.

 

[flexy]

Yes they DO think that, I have seen similar comments many times. It's ironic, since in the age of the internet where a Kindergartner can get informed on anything easily, should it really come to WW3 we can blame ignorance and stupidity for it. (I dare to speculate that a good portion of Americans and especially T voters would not even remotely know what a nuclear war/attack on the US would really mean, very real. I highly doubt they are familiar with the meaning of things like nuclear fallout, half-life or radioactivity in general....which somehow explains the "prepper movement").
In case somewhat doesn't know, I don't think that it requires "many" modern nuclear bombs to make the US and probably the entire northern hemisphere inhabitable, maybe 2-3 and then have wind and weather spread the shit around. And Joe's rusty rifle won't be any relevant there. I was shocked my Ex not knowing what "Chernobyl" meant and I don't think my current wife (US American as well) knows....just saying....

 

[agent00f]

For one, they weren't 'allowed' arms. For two, interpretation that the 2a is dependent on membership in the state militia is terrible English.

No, terrible english skills is ignoring the first part of a sentence because only comprehending the second is more convenient.

Pure paranoid fantasy indulged in by well educated gentlemen who had just done that very thing.

In the 1700's. They would've understood that Don Quixote was meant to be a parody, unlike contemporary wannabes.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess you must have skipped reading the survey that was the whole basis of this thread. ~60% of the Democratic voting base is paranoid. That is, if you trust the results that our resident elite member threw us here as worthy news

So what? All the noise about insurrection isn't coming from Liberals, at all.

 

[Knowing]

No, terrible english skills is ignoring the first part of a sentence because only comprehending the second is more convenient.



In the 1700's. They would've understood that Don Quixote was meant to be a parody, unlike contemporary wannabes.

I didn't ignore the first part of the sentence. I recognize it for what it is. The English does not support making the ownership of arms dependent on service in the militia. Your interpretation is wrong, unsupported by documentation, and would make the second amendment the only collective right (and not really a right at all) on an entirely arbitrary basis.

If you read the bill of rights, you might notice it has a preamble that reads, in part:

"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"

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

How precisely is an amendment that limits free men's access to firearms to service to the federal government restrictive to that government? What you're suggesting is diametrically opposed to the stated intent of the document.

Also notice the distinction in the preamble where 'powers' is used. See Article 1 section 8 where Congress has the 'power to raise and support armies' while in the 2a 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

I don't get your metaphor unless you're suggesting that the constitution is a work of fiction or that several States insisting on a bill of rights was parody.

 

[agent00f]

I didn't ignore the first part of the sentence. I recognize it for what it is. The English does not support making the ownership of arms dependent on service in the militia. Your interpretation is wrong, unsupported by documentation, and would make the second amendment the only collective right (and not really a right at all) on an entirely arbitrary basis.

If you read the bill of rights, you might notice it has a preamble that reads, in part:

"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"

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

How precisely is an amendment that limits free men's access to firearms to service to the federal government restrictive to that government? What you're suggesting is diametrically opposed to the stated intent of the document.

Also notice the distinction in the preamble where 'powers' is used. See Article 1 section 8 where Congress has the 'power to raise and support armies' while in the 2a 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

I don't get your metaphor unless you're suggesting that the constitution is a work of fiction or that several States insisting on a bill of rights was parody.

You simply have awful language comprehension skills.

If a father tells his son taking a girl to the prom: "It's important to make a good first impression at the prom, take my car and enjoy".

Does that mean:

A. Take my car in the context of the prom to enjoy for the event.

B. The car is available in the context of prom-like/similarly-important events.

C. You have unlimited reign to enjoy my car irrespective of context.

Entitled dumbshit kids can try to rationalize all they want it's C, but that's pretty easy to make out for what it is.

 

[Knowing]

You simply have awful language comprehension skills.

If a father tells his son taking a girl to the prom: "It's important to make a good first impression at the prom, take my car and enjoy".

Does that mean:

A. Take my car in the context of the prom to enjoy for the event.

B. The car is available in the context of prom-like/similarly-important events.

C. You have unlimited reign to enjoy my car irrespective of context.

Entitled dumbshit kids can try to rationalize all they want it's C, but that's pretty easy to make out for what it is.

That's a nominative absolute. In your instance the meaning is implied and the relationship between father and son isn't the same as the relationship between free men and the government that has the responsibility to protect their liberties.

Put simply, why would the father say something declaratory and restrictive on his parental authority?

 

[glenn1]

I thought we were talking about a nuclear war. I'd like to see the gun-toting right-wingers defend themselves against a nuclear blast. The average Trump supporter probably thinks they can stop a nuclear attack from approaching their houses by waving a gun or firing it towards the cloud.

Presuming there was a nuclear war the guns will be quite handy for keeping away gunless city folks trying to loot supplies. Or we could just hunt you for food, with you glowing from the radiation and all it won't be hard to spot you and make the shot.

 

[agent00f]

That's a nominative absolute. In your instance the meaning is implied and the relationship between father and son isn't the same as the relationship between free men and the government that has the responsibility to protect their liberties.

Put simply, why would the father say something declaratory and restrictive on his parental authority?

Any government has the basic responsibility to avoid anarchy, thus the context of well regulated militia instead of any nutcase with an agenda.

Presuming there was a nuclear war the guns will be quite handy for keeping away gunless city folks trying to loot supplies. Or we could just hunt you for food, with you glowing from the radiation and all it won't be hard to spot you and make the shot.

As evidence, this is what said nutcases tend to fantasize about.

 

[Knowing]

Any government has the basic responsibility to avoid anarchy, thus the context of well regulated militia instead of any nutcase with an agenda.



As evidence, this is what said nutcases tend to fantasize about.

There are provisions in the constitution for rebellions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank?wprov=sfla1

 

[agent00f]

There are provisions in the constitution for rebellions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank?wprov=sfla1

The sentence is simple enough to grasp as demonstrated, outside of particularly motivated nutcases.

It's also worth mention that the solution to klan lynchings and such isn't to expect black people to become armed vigilantes, but rather to do something about the klan. However that does highlight how certain groups think about such matters.

 

[Knowing]

The sentence is simple enough to grasp as demonstrated, outside of particularly motivated nutcases.

So you're going to ignore evidence because you've already reached a conclusion that supports your opinion?