Those crazy New Zealanders....whatever happened to thoughts and prayers?

[Jhhnn]

Ok then, why should government policy be based on the irrational?

I dunno. Why should it be based on the irrational notion that citizens should be able to carry military firepower but the cops shouldn't? That citizens need it as a security blanket for irrational fears about de gubmint?

It's as irrational as trickle down economics or the belief that we can tax cut our way to near universal prosperity.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Is that supposed to be for or against the idea that thoughts and prayers may be a better policy than an emotional kneejerk policy? I and millions in the middle east wish we stopped at thoughts and prayers after 9-11.

Should have thought of that BEFORE you armed and trained Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in the 1980's, not 20 years later AFTER 9-11. However, to be honest in the American religion we worship through "pray and spray" and after 9-11, Americans filled many Middle Easterners with 5.56m NATO prayers. Outrage not found.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Ok then, why should government policy be based on the irrational?

Because people are irrational and government is about people. Society has to take emotions into account or it will fail. You can't simply ignore it.

 

[Bird222]

I dunno. Why should it be based on the irrational notion that citizens should be able to carry military firepower but the cops shouldn't? That citizens need it as a security blanket for irrational fears about de gubmint?

It's as irrational as trickle down economics or the belief that we can tax cut our way to near universal prosperity.

In my view the 2A is about self-defense which may include a government that has run amuck. Self-defense is not an irrational notion in my view. As for the cops, if they are going to have it let the citizens have it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Bird222]

Because people are irrational and government is about people. Society has to take emotions into account or it will fail. You can't simply ignore it.

Yeah maybe, but I think the constitution and most laws were written not to cater to emotion. We need to be as rational as we can when it comes to governing the public at large.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah maybe, but I think the constitution and most laws were written not to cater to emotion. We need to be as rational as we can when it comes to governing the public at large.

See and I think that our Constitution and government in general is a way to compensate for us being irrational beings. If we were not so prone to doing crazy shit all the time we would hardly even need a government because we would all just get along.

 

[Bird222]

See and I think that our Constitution and government in general is a way to compensate for us being irrational beings. If we were not so prone to doing crazy shit all the time we would hardly even need a government because we would all just get along.

Exactly. That's why we don't need to be passing irrational laws.

 

[Sunburn74]

In my view the 2A is about self-defense which may include a government that has run amuck. Self-defense is not an irrational notion in my view. As for the cops, if they are going to have it let the citizens have it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Except the supreme Court and federal law actually have made sedition and uprisings against the government formally illegal. It's illegal for you to exercise the 2A in that regard.

 

[Jhhnn]

In my view the 2A is about self-defense which may include a government that has run amuck. Self-defense is not an irrational notion in my view. As for the cops, if they are going to have it let the citizens have it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yeh, it's a shame we let the bad guys up-gun first, huh?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Actually, I was ambivalent about an assault-rifle ban in parallel to Steve King's remarks the other day.

It rests on tradition and our own military's oath to the Constitution. During the Civil War, the military split. Many of the Confederate generals were West Point grads.

On the other hand, this fantasy that the Far Right has, thinking they need civilians to have the firepower to oppose a ZOG government or whatever other nonsense they concoct, is a fiction. They just hate America, and look forward to a day when they can let fly with their assault-weapon modifications.

I tend to subscribe to the other interpretation of the second Amendment, limiting arms -- at least those of the nature NZ is banning -- to state militias.

So as much as I thought of buying an AR-15 of my own, I accept the notion that they should or could be banned. And also -- piss on the NRA.

 

[Bird222]

Except the supreme Court and federal law actually have made sedition and uprisings against the government formally illegal. It's illegal for you to exercise the 2A in that regard.

If it gets to that point nobody's gonna care.

 

[Kwatt]

Except the supreme Court and federal law actually have made sedition and uprisings against the government formally illegal. It's illegal for you to exercise the 2A in that regard.

Any historians in the house?

Did England have laws making "sedition and uprisings against the government" illegal?

.

 

[Jhhnn]

Any historians in the house?

Did England have laws making "sedition and uprisings against the government" illegal?

.

Well, yeh, of course-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

 

[Vic]

Except the supreme Court and federal law actually have made sedition and uprisings against the government formally illegal. It's illegal for you to exercise the 2A in that regard.

I support the 2a and the individual right to own guns for self-defense, but the nutters view of the 2a is just that.. nuts. The 2a exists because Washington didn't want to have to pay to arm the militia. Because, in his professional opinion, the militia was worthless against regular army. And I hate to say it, but if regular citizens ever did take up arms against the government, the conflict wouldn't last the morning.
Now on the other hand, responsible gun ownership can help prevent some crime and is good for national defense. But I emphasize the word responsible. Like all rights, it can be abused, and the tolerance of abuse only serves to undermine that right.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Now on the other hand, responsible gun ownership can help prevent some crime

I've never seen any evidence that criminals are ever deterred by someone having a gun, and certainly the effect is not enough to counteract the odds that the gun will be used in the commission of a crime. So, while guns might deter some crimes, they enable a hell of a lot more than they deter. That is a losing argument.

and is good for national defense.

No they are not, as you just said. If our people could not have a hope against our military, what makes you think that they would fare better against a force that could defeat our military to the point where the average citizen would have to take up arms?

 

[Atreus21]

The thing your missing in that scenario is the majority of gun nuts would be the ones putting on their brown shirts, grabbing their ARs and helping put grandma in a camp.

They would do it to “protect their way of life”, “prevent the socialists from taking their guns”, etc.

And if they wanted to put your wife or daughter or grandmother in a camp, you wouldn't want to be armed?

 

[UglyCasanova]

If our people could not have a hope against our military,

But see that’s where you’re wrong

 

[SMOGZINN]

But see that’s where you’re wrong

I don't think so, but in any case in that argument I was pointing out that he had already said that a militia could not stand up against the military:

the militia was worthless against regular army. And I hate to say it, but if regular citizens ever did take up arms against the government, the conflict wouldn't last the morning.

So, he could not then use that as a reason.

 

[Paratus]

And if they wanted to put your wife or daughter or grandmother in a camp, you wouldn't want to be armed?

Sure but by that point it’s too late.

But here’s the thing. In that situation the 2nd amendment is our LAST line of defense.

A free press, strong checks and balances, and free and fair elections are our first, second and third lines of defense. ALL of which are derided by trumps gun loving base.

So don’t mind me if I find those who cry the 2nd will protect us from a tyrannical government hollow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure but by that point it’s too late.

But here’s the thing. In that situation the 2nd amendment is our LAST line of defense.

A free press, strong checks and balances, and free and fair elections are our first, second and third lines of defense. ALL of which are derided by trumps gun loving base.

So don’t mind me if I find those who cry the 2nd will protect us from a tyrannical government hollow.

Fuck You, Libtard! Hail Trump! Strong Leader! He alone can fix it! He is our voice! Be ready to heed his call when the time comes!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think the origin of that musical was Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories. But the book didn't feature Sally Bowles much but in one part. The musical was . . . memorable . . . But why is it that the clip is not permitted here, and requires an extra step on YouTube to watch it? There's nothing particularly salacious about it.

 

[1sikbITCH]

I've never seen any evidence that criminals are ever deterred by someone having a gun

Well this took all of 5 seconds. I'm all for stricter gun laws too but lets keep it real.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the origin of that musical was Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories. But the book didn't feature Sally Bowles much but in one part. The musical was . . . memorable . . . But why is it that the clip is not permitted here, and requires an extra step on YouTube to watch it? There's nothing particularly salacious about it.

Because Nazis, I suspect.

 

[rommelrommel]

I think your standard AR-15 will fire as fast as you can twitch your finger,

More or less.

and the .222 or .223 caliber rounds will tumble,

This is a misconception, military ammo is non-expanding and thus “tumbling” is about the best you can hope for in terms of terminal effect.

or otherwise cause great damage.

223 is one of the least lethal rifle cartridges out there. It’s usually criticized for not causing enough damage, especially with military non-expanding ammunition.

That's why they invented the M-16 -- precursor of the AR-15 -- to maim and kill North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.

No, it was developed because more lethal rifles were heavier, harder to shoot well, and ammunition was much heavier. The M14 and garands before them were quite effective at killing and your survival rate would be much lower when shot by a full size rifle round. However, it’s an easier rifle to use for a mediocrely trained soldier.

It wasn't meant as a sporting proposition. It wasn't meant to be a target rifle or a hunting rifle. It was meant to kill people.

I find this a hard distinction to draw, most firearms are quite effective at killing people. Bolt actions have claimed a lot more lives than any AR15 variant. The AR15 is accurate and quite suited to some types of hunting.

This gun good, that gun bad is a hard game to play.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Fuck You, Libtard! Hail Trump! Strong Leader! He alone can fix it! He is our voice! Be ready to heed his call when the time comes!

The Trump Youth (German: Trumpjugend , often abbreviated as TJ in German and English) was the youth organisation of the Republican Party in the USA. Its origins dated back to 2019 and it received the name Trump-Jugend, Bund American Arbeiterjugend ("Hitler Youth, League of American Worker Youth") in March of 2019...…..
Think about this….