HeyYou Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 The more I look at it, the more I remember the words of Rahm Emanuel- Never let a good crisis go to waste. I submit that those who drive the agendas of either side drive their goosestepping minions into such a frenzy that they actually endanger the internal security of the country and the Government steps in to quote/unquote protect the peace. It would be The Patriot act on steroids and the only ones loosing would be the average citizen. What we laughingly call freedoms. these days would be drastically curtailed and we would end up having the delusion of democracy even more degraded. It has all the trappings of a cheaply made movie, but with a good percentage of the country listening to these mind numbing Reality Shows or surgically attached to the number of likes they get on their last Facebook post, I haven't got much hope in the electorate turning this thing around.The first step on that race to the bottom, is disarming the public. Remove any chance of them being able to fight against what you are trying to shove down their throats. I am no fan of guns, but I see no reason to demonize them as some people;e do. It seems the anti-gun lobby always goes after the NRA, as if it was the ultimate prize. Guns are too much apart of our culture and are glorified almost constantly in the entertainment industry. The only way they can truly effect gun ownership is to get to the kids at an early age and indoctrinate them with the mindset that guns are useless.tool for the ill informed. These people who want to fight the quote/unquote GOOD FIGHT against the mean old NRA are allowing them to wave the victim card, while claiming to uphold a divinely given right. You work on the young who would be future NRA members and you remove support. You remove support, you reduce the membership and in so doing, you diminish their power in congress. These people who call the right cowards for not standing up to the NRA are really talking about taking on those NRA members who are their constituents. Depending on the percentage their are of these in someones district, such a thing could be suicidal. I remember hearing about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling out some of the more moderate Dems for not voting along party lines. She supposedly said she would have them primaried by her followers. I remember when that was tried to remove Joe Lieberman after his vote on the Affordable Care Act, i think. Well, they did take the primaries, but he ran as an independent and won the seat handily. You can do a great deal in Washington and get away with it, but you can't run against those who vote you into office and expect to stay in office. The Right doesn't NEED to stand up to the NRA. According to theory, the Right actually SUPPORT the second amendment, and would like to see it enforced properly. I.E. "Shall not be infringed"...... Which is mostly what the NRA is advocating for. Granted, some of their leadership has gone slightly bonkers of late...... unfortunately, that reflects on the entire organization. Also, not everyone advocating for the second amendment is an NRA member/supporter. Matter of fact, most of them aren't members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedSomeMCP Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 There is good reason to accept that the language of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a personal right to own firearms. http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/debaron/essays/guns.pdf [its a long read if you want to dig through it] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJoseCuervo Posted September 9, 2019 Author Share Posted September 9, 2019 Here is just one of many examples as to why the 2nd amendment is needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 I keep hearing people say "better than Hillary," but its nothing more than a buzz phrase, It is the truth that Trump for pres is better than Hillary. Because the scrutiny on her presidency would have been out the box , following Obama. The scrutiny of Trump Presidency is just par for the course ... amplified by himself ... X+2*7 to the nth ,,, with the texting :laugh: No ... I think Hillary would be in a worse place + Dems agenda #%! Best to let the nature of that which is unstable get washed out by the mere laws of physics first. Add edit : I forgot to mention , I skipped the last couple pages on this thread. Just wanted to respond to this specifically. Cuz after that , what does the rest matter / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedSomeMCP Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 Given that nothing like that is happening in the US currently, and that it is likely not going to happen in the foreseeable future, it seems like a moot point. The real killer of the idea of "protection from the government" or "revolt against tyranny" mindset is that the anti-government forces would have to be comparably armed to the government forces to have much of a chance, which is not going to happen without a really broad reading of what " arms" constitutes to allow all of the fun military toys, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 Given that nothing like that is happening in the US currently, and that it is likely not going to happen in the foreseeable future, it seems like a moot point. Like what ? What is not going to happen ? Cuz if it happened ... it is most likely not going to happen as you have it in your head ... therefore you might miss it actually happening ?/! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedSomeMCP Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 Ninja'd lol. That is a response to the post above yours. See his link. Any comparison between the Trump presidency and a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency is just that - hypothetical. People can believeg way they want, there's no way to test it, and too many factors to consider to even come close to a reasoned guess. Might as well be discussing who would win in a fight between two fictional characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 But that is all we can really do here ... N@!hypothetical ..oo00 ? Ya ,,, no way to teast it > ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted September 9, 2019 Share Posted September 9, 2019 There is good reason to accept that the language of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a personal right to own firearms. http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/debaron/essays/guns.pdf [its a long read if you want to dig through it]Except for a certain Supreme Court decision....... Given that nothing like that is happening in the US currently, and that it is likely not going to happen in the foreseeable future, it seems like a moot point. The real killer of the idea of "protection from the government" or "revolt against tyranny" mindset is that the anti-government forces would have to be comparably armed to the government forces to have much of a chance, which is not going to happen without a really broad reading of what " arms" constitutes to allow all of the fun military toys,Well, lets look at this a bit. The insurgents in afghanistan most certainly are not as well armed as our military, yet, they control just as much territory today, if not more.... than they did when we first invaded. It's called "asymmetric warfare." And our military has demonstrated that they simply aren't very good at it. And that is fighting against a bunch of fractured groups, all fighting for different reasons, with inter-tribal/clan issues as well. They don't always cooperate, yet, they are still a reasonably effective fighting force. Here in the US, if it came right down to it, the army would be fighting against a LARGE group of 'insurgents', all with the same goal in mind. There would be a sniper in every window, and no road would be safe for them. They wouldn't be able to tell who was an enemy, and who was a friend, until the shooting actually started. They wouldn't be able to go to the latrine without taking casualties. And then there is the whole Posse Comitatas act, that essentially forbids the use of the armed forces, against american citizens, on american soil. Getting around that little bit of legislation would be difficult, if not impossible..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mktavish Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 The reason our military takes so much flack , is the loud mouthed Ameri merry go round riders.I mean who wouldn't want to stick their thumb in their eye ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now