Of COURSE there is an extreme left. Noone listens to them or takes them seriously but they’re there ready to ban the burning of hydrocarbons, ban the consumption of meat, etc. The right on the other hand have gotten to the point where they have they have to pander to their extreme right to win elections.
What’s the hole for?:dubious:
What are your intentions with that box?
You’re sick.
The supreme court can be counted among those gun nuts. They believe that the right to bear arms is a natural right that springs from the right to self defense and the second amendment is just a codification of that natural right.
Because I’m not going to fall for that trick. If Afghanistan won’t convince you, how about Insonesia? Or Vietnam?
Answer: Not oust it.
Are you still blathering on about your perceptions of other, fictional people’s thoughts and motivations? Let me know when a real “Bernie bro” (whatever that is) shows up and posts here; until then your posts on this subject are like farts in an elevator.
The most likely scenario is an alien invasion. Next is a black man being elected president, which is the Webster dictionary’s definition of tyranny. The number of gun nuts claiming “defense of tyranny” rationale for guns skyrocketed on the night Obama won the election.
Your first sentence addresses a strawman. The rest of the post isn’t deserving of a reply.
Convince me of what? That you will never run out of total unequal scenarios to compare America with? That you couldn’t identify real tyranny worth fighting against if came in a gift box marked “This Month’s Selection from the Tyranny Of The Month Club” hand delivered by Tyranny Claus himself?
France?
They insist on it? Those bastards. Do you have a cite?
You either don’t understand what strawman means or you don’t understand what I wrote.
Read any of the blather the NRA has come out with in the last 50 years. Or the newspaper in any city in the country, and count the number of children killed each year by the actions (or inactions) of “Good Guys with Guns.”
Yes, and given the political beliefs of that particular demographic, I wonder what sort of “tyranny” they believe they need protection against.
The notion of a well-armed population acting as a hedge against tyranny is largely absurd Conservative fantasy, not born out by historical facts. The government of the US is not some occupying force. Not is it likely to be “stolen” by some fringe group. It is a democratically elected government “of, by and for the people”. What that means is that if our government becomes tyrannical, it will be because a large portion of the population have sanctioned it. For example, say a large group of angry, poorly educated, economically disadvantaged people elect an ignorant, narcissistic, racist tyrant who promises to fix all their problems by “stopping” various groups “known” to be troublemakers.
In this particular scenario, guns will not help the oppressed groups, not because hunting rifles are no match against militarized police, Orwellian surveillance, mechanized infantry with air support and the rest of the government’s apparatus of control. It won’t help because those oppressed groups will be a small minority considered to be “agitators”, “immigrants”, “terrorists”, “criminals” and whatnot by the general population. Hitler and Stalin and every other dictator is able to rule their country because the people allow it.
In fact, one could argue that unrestricted access to firearms makes a people less free. The government, police and military have at least some sort of legal oversight. Armed gangs and militias do not. Functionally, what is the difference between a group of armed “patriots” in Nevada deciding they don’t want to follow Federal land use laws and a group of armed white supremacists or Latin Kings gang members deciding that laws on private property and not murdering people don’t apply to them? The concept of unregulated militia protecting people’s rights quickly deteriorates into the right of the strong to dominate the weak. And most likely what you will end up with is a failed state dominated by warlords, criminals and narco-terrorist gangs.
Where does theReign of Terrorfall in this narrative?
My saying has been “As long as the trucks keep bringing food, cheap goods, and gas, citizens will be happy.” Let them stop a few days and our first-world society gets unstable very quickly.
Can you point me to one where they insist on killing children?
Somewhere in between armed revolution and successful state. The reign of terror lasted about a year. That’s pretty good by today’s standards, isn’t it?
Rabid opposition to even the most fundamental safety measures equals responsibility for the deaths that result because of that opposition. If they insist on zero safety measures, they are insisting of the deaths of people that could easily and non-intrusively have been prevented.
Dude. Panem et circenses. 