Which no doubt, the NRA will in due course be fighting any controls on, because no matter how many school rooms are vapourised or airplanes sent plummeting, the same level of carnage could easily have been achieved with lawn furniture or a really, really big catapult. Or something.
The only answer to a bad guy with a 1950’s style death-ray etc.
Yes, Hitler!
The specific topic there was so-called states’ rights. Do try to keep up. For a cite, I refer you to your middle school history teacher.
:rolleyes: And the reason that is relevant to why the populace needs to be *well-armed *is … ? :dubious: Can you finish your own thought in any other direction? Or at all?
You’re really not very good at this at all.
Good grief.
Once again, are you under teh impression that states rights started with teh civil war or that its proponets were limted to the slave states? Particularly with respect to states rights and teh second amendment?
Right because the only type of tyranny a government would engage in is the internment of Japanese citizens :rolleyes:
Yes, you are very smart. Pakled | Memory Alpha | Fandom
That was the one and only example YOU could provide. Yes, it’s pathetic, I agree.
No, I never said the “states’ rights” cover story started with the Civil War. Do try to keep up. You know damn well what “rights” they were claiming needed protection, because of what exactly they feared a central government might try to impose on them. :rolleyes:
YOU gave the J-A’s as an example of why the citizenry needs to be armed. Now tell us, O Sage: In that one example of Washington Gone Wild, or any other for that matter, what would have really happened if they had offered armed resistance?
Now scroll up, reread your own fucking posts, try to understand them, and then give it another try. If you need to sober up first, then maybe you’d better lock up your guns first, m’kay?
Well, tell me how many examples do you need before you will believe that democracies can devolve into tyrannies? Isn’t one enough to prove it can happen?
No you’re wrong. You’re not just rewriting history, you are taking a small peice of history and turning it into the whole of it. Sure, the concerns of slaveowners is reflected in the constitution but the second amendment and the tenth amendments were not put in at the sole insistence of the slave states. Try reading something other than KosDaily. Try using google. Did you even read the links I posted or are you impervious to facts?
I know you would prefer to argue against the words you wished I had said but try to argue against the ones I actually said, it just makes for more interesting debate.
I gave the Japanese internment as evidence that even OUR government can turn tyrannical.
I will repeat the only statement I have made about the chances of a viable resistance to tyranny. There are 300 million guns in civilian hands. The government couldn’t disarm the population if they deployed every member of the military, national guard, the reserves and all local law enforcement. I would bet that you don’t get 100% participation from the military, national guard, reserves, and local law enforcement.
So yeah, I think that an armed citizenry can provide effective resistance against a tyrannical government. I don’t think we will need to in my lifetime and I don’t really want to defend the second amendment on those grounds but, you’re wrong, you are being deliberately obtuse and you are becoming less and less convincingby the moment.
I used to think you were relatively intelligent, I supppose you are one of those liberals just happened to benefit from the fact that most issues are easier to argue from the liberal point of view.
Well, you have to be pretty smart to be a conservative these days. You have to be creative, fast on your feet, to perform the sort of mental gymnastics the situation demands. But when someone who is instinctively and essentially a liberal tries it, he looks awkward and out of place, he is crippled by a reliance on fact and substance, his capacity for improvisation is stunted.
Now, about tyranny, as exemplified by the internment of the American nisei. Calling that “tyranny” is a bit of artful dodging. The American nisei were the victims of war hysteria, but it was a specific and targeted oppression. “Tyranny”, properly understood, is inclusive. Virtually all the citizens of Stalin’s Soviet Union were tyrannized, even the elites might be purged on a paranoid whim of Stalin. Now, *that’s *tyranny, genuine, pure-D tyranny.
I’ve little doubt that some of the Founding Fuckups did, indeed, think of the citizen’s militia as a bulwark against the tyranny of whichever other FF’s opinion they found dangerous. But more likely they were thinking of the threat of wild Indians on the untamed borders of Ohio and Kentucky. I think we can all agree that the threat has abated to a considerable degree. And, of course, the improvement in the American gene pool as the Cherokee became more absorbed, but that is a personal perspective that science has yet to confirm.
But, see, to a die-harder like our friend here, “tyranny” simply means “laws passed via the democratic process in a democratic government that I happen to dislike”. It’s simply whining about their own lack of persuasive ability.
Now, the concept that implementing gun controls of any significant extent cannot occur because the gun-loving people will rise up en masse against, er, themselves, now that’s where it gets truly ridiculous. DA, what’s your favorite example of anything like that ever occurring anywhere? Surely it didn’t for the Japanese-Americans.
Liberals have had been spoiled by having the better side of almost every argument for a long time. They don’t know what to do when the facts don’t line up with their beliefs.
OK. If you don’t consider that tyranny then I don’t have an example of American tyranny.
Racist.
What democratically passed law are you talking about? As far as I can tell, the AWB isn’t likely to become law. And frankly, a law isn’t OK just because congress passes it. We have something called the constitution against which all laws are measured.
Now where do I say that gun control of any significant extent cannot occur because the gun-loving people will rise up en masse? The closest I have ever gotten to saying that is:
“I will repeat the only statement I have made about the chances of a viable resistance to tyranny. There are 300 million guns in civilian hands. The government couldn’t disarm the population if they deployed every member of the military, national guard, the reserves and all local law enforcement. I would bet that you don’t get 100% participation from the military, national guard, reserves, and local law enforcement.”
If you keep finding yourself lying and twisting the truth to make your arguments, you might consider whether your arguments have any merit. Seriously you have been playing the role of republican this entire thread, immune to facts and logic.
Whichever one has you crying “Tyranny!”
And there’s your answer. If there’s a difference worth mentioning, what is it?
That’s what you call being quoted?
When come back, bring coherence.
So you were just making shit up again. You sure, you’re not a Republican?
All of it. Or is this like how you think the constitution is about preserving slavery?
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings but your just embarassing yourself right now. You should stop.
A little late, but here. Scroll down to November 2012.
That’s the cover of “America’s Freedom,” the official journal of the NRA.
Here’s what it says on the cover, right in the center of the cover, away from everything else on the cover:
[QUOTE=The National Rifle Association]
How and When Obama Will Come For Your Guns.
THE ELECTION BEFORE THE KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR
[/QUOTE]
Hyperbolic, yes. But it’s from your team, not ours. And since it’s their representation of themselves, I hardly think it qualifies as misrepresentation.
SenorBeef, can I assume that you are no longer a NRA member, and no longer receive their publications? ISTM that otherwise, it’s hard to believe this sort of thing would be forgettable.
Sincerely,
Truth-Telling Douchebag, thankyewverymuch
Other headlines from NRA’s “news” magazine:
“ONLY YOU CAN SAVE OUR GUNS FROM KING PINOCCHIO”
“ALL OUR VICTORIES, ALL OUR RIGHTS, ALL OUR FREEDOMS: EVERYTHING IS ON THE LINE IN 2012”
Y’know, I read a blog somewhere that pointed out (either there or by linking to an actual news/op-ed) that the same people who say that they need their guns to defend against government tyranny are often the same people who support dumping endless amounts of cash to buy arms for the same military that would support that government tyranny.
Now, of course, there are plenty of ideological explanations (the belief that the rank and file would rebel if push came to shove, the belief that the Second Amendment is important enough to support despite the whole military thing), but still.
Haha, that’s the best thing I’ve read all day. I’ve got some moron coworkers like this.
If you open fire on your cousin in the National Guard, likely to make next Thanksgiving dinner kind of awkward.
Aw, hell, the sumbitch’s had it comin’ for *years *now …
The NRA became a partisan organization years ago. Frankly, the Catholic church is less partisan.
I like how they put the “Quick - give us money or we’re doomed!” stuff right on the cover, right down to someone writing a check to the NRA. At least they’re honest about what they want from their members.