US anti-government group recruiting cops

[Imaginarynumber1]

37 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Ph I will believe any damn thing once solid evidence is provided. 

But you have none.

You said I lived in a bubble. I claimed that was an assumption since you obviously cannot know what access to information i have. I have plenty of evidence of that. You don't and I don't owe it to you anyway.

[jaylemurph]

On 3/3/2020 at 8:18 PM, Obviousman said:

I'm sure they have plenty of 'average Joes' but for the objectives of the movement, they'd want people in positions of relative power, and people who can refuse to carry out what they determine to be 'illegal' orders.

I still believe that whilst it is admirable to be a patriotic organisation, we have the issue of interpretation. I believe @and then referred to the Second Amendment? I think that is a good example. Some use it to say 'you can pry my weapon out of my cold, dead hands' whilst others say that the interpretation of 'the right to bear arms' is out-dated, from a time when there was no single, organised national defence, and the newly-formed country relied on a militia, upon the people themselves.

Who is right?

Never the gun-wielding maniacs. And by that, I don’t mean all gun-owners. There are plenty of sane, balanced people who own firearms. 

...they’re just drowned out by the majority of loud-mouth, perpetually adolescent gun-fetishists with second-grade educations. 

—Jaylemurph 

[+and-then]

On 3/3/2020 at 7:15 AM, RoofGardener said:

@and then, can you give me any examples of the "progressives" attempting to subvert the constitution ? 

Oh... I'd say the state governments of California, NY, Virginia, and Illinois for starters.  They have placed severe penalties against citizens who own or possess firearms.  The text in the Constitution is childishly simple:  The right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[Trelane]

Oh no,no...no...no

It is a shame what has happened to this country.

[jaylemurph]

14 hours ago, and then said:

Oh... I'd say the state governments of California, NY, Virginia, and Illinois for starters.  They have placed severe penalties against citizens who own or possess firearms.  The text in the Constitution is childishly simple:  The right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The Declaration of Independence also stresses everyone has a right to life, which often gets thoroughly infringed by gun fetishists. I think any sane person would acknowledge they’d rather be alive than be an armed corpse. 

—Jaylemurph

[Abaddonire]

On 3/12/2020 at 11:47 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

You said I lived in a bubble. I claimed that was an assumption since you obviously cannot know what access to information i have. I have plenty of evidence of that. You don't and I don't owe it to you anyway.

You have evidence? Great go ahead and present it. Present the information you claim to have access to.

 

I f you have solid evidence, I would happily accept it. But you don't. 

 

Why? Because if you had solid evidence you would have presented it already.

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The Declaration of Independence also stresses everyone has a right to life, which often gets thoroughly infringed by gun fetishists. I think any sane person would acknowledge they’d rather be alive than be an armed corpse. 

—Jaylemurph

Then they have an absolute right to decline gun ownership.  They do NOT get to exercise that right for others.  Funny how conservatives get mocked and scorned when they advocate for saving the millions of unborn.  I guess the deaths only count if they came from gunfire and even THEN, only if the correct demographic is suffering.  

[jaylemurph]

On 3/14/2020 at 11:56 PM, and then said:

Then they have an absolute right to decline gun ownership.  They do NOT get to exercise that right for others.  Funny how conservatives get mocked and scorned when they advocate for saving the millions of unborn.  I guess the deaths only count if they came from gunfire and even THEN, only if the correct demographic is suffering.  

...and this is your attempt to clean up the difference between you and the loud-mouth, perpetually adolescent gun-fetishists with second-grade educations?

--Jaylemurph

[aztek]

4 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

...and this is your attempt to clean up the difference between you and the loud-mouth, perpetually adolescent gun-fetishists with second-grade educations?

--Jaylemurph

no,  that seems like your attempt to equate them

[jaylemurph]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

no,  that seems like your attempt to equate them

I don’t think there is a difference between him and that group; I expect he does. His difficulty in expressing that, though, may reveal its impossibility. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Obviousman]

On 3/14/2020 at 3:14 PM, and then said:

The text in the Constitution is childishly simple:  The right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Okay but say I was quite religious and adhered to a perceived instruction in the bible that said that gays were to be shunned, that it was against god. Let's say that (as many people would do) I put the bible above the US Constitution.

Would you think that being prejudiced against the gay community would be acceptable? After all, in this scenario I put the word of god above a piece of paper, and that would infringe the Constitution (I am guessing).

Should I maintain that stance because it might agree with my views, or should I listen to arguments that do not align with my own beliefs?

[aztek]

1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

Okay but say I was quite religious and adhered to a perceived instruction in the bible that said that gays were to be shunned, that it was against god. Let's say that (as many people would do) I put the bible above the US Constitution.

Would you think that being prejudiced against the gay community would be acceptable? After all, in this scenario I put the word of god above a piece of paper, and that would infringe the Constitution (I am guessing).

Should I maintain that stance because it might agree with my views, or should I listen to arguments that do not align with my own beliefs?

how is a right to protect ourselves, has anything in common with discrimination of any class of citizens?  it seems your attitude and lack of any reason is much bigger danger than other people's guns.  you make a perfect case for gun ownership

Edited March 17, 2020 by aztek

[jaylemurph]

.

Edited March 17, 2020 by jaylemurph

[aztek]

16 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

See? Scratch a gun nut, get a deeply frightened person clinging to an outdated worldview. We’ve yet to have a mass shooter who wasn’t a gun nut, and repeated mass murders make great arguments for gun control. 

—Jaylemurph

lmao, is that all you got???

Edited March 17, 2020 by aztek

[jaylemurph]

51 minutes ago, aztek said:

lmao, is that all you got???

Yeah, since I see gun massacres as wholly abhorrent and preventable, I’m not willing to engage with someone who countenances the opposite view. This is the end of this part of the conversation.

—Jaylemurph

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Yeah, since I see gun massacres as wholly abhorrent and preventable, I’m not willing to engage with someone who countenances the opposite view. This is the end of this part of the conversation.

—Jaylemurph

what a tragedy, lamo.   

one last question before you go, do you think rapes are preventable?

Edited March 17, 2020 by aztek

[Obviousman]

8 hours ago, aztek said:

how is a right to protect ourselves, has anything in common with discrimination of any class of citizens?  it seems your attitude and lack of any reason is much bigger danger than other people's guns.  you make a perfect case for gun ownership

I have to disagree. It's not a very good analogy but in both cases we have someone interpreting things a particular way, which may or may not be supported.

So we have different interpretations. I am at best a 'mess deck lawyer' but I think that provision was written for a different time (although someone mentioned a constitutional amendment, and that is a very good point IMHO).

We would also seem to differ on how we believe we would protect ourselves - and probably what we are protecting ourselves from.

BTW, full disclosure - here is my own opinion on the matter of gun control:

• I have fired a variety of weapons, from 9mm pistols, sub-machine guns, automatic rifles, .50 cal machine guns all the way through to twin 4.5" naval guns. I enjoyed every minute of it.
• I believe in gun control but that does not mean taking away everyone's weapons:
  • Farmers / people need weapons to protect property, livestock and themselves
  • Sport shooters should be allowed weapons however in most cases those weapons should be kept at a sport shooters club armory, and drawn when wanted
  • Owning a pistol - or other weapons - should generally not be allowed (except as above)
  • There is no reason to have armor-piercing rounds or automatic weapons, etc
  • There needs to be a robust weapon licence procedure / background check along with a national database of who hold what weapons with what serial numbers

[Tatetopa]

On 3/4/2020 at 5:10 AM, aztek said:

2A is just as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago, if not more so

2A offers no protection against tyranny.

On the one hand, an armed citizenry can theoretically resist a tyranny.

On the other hand a heavily armed special interest group of citizens can be a tyranny.

Some people complain about the nation's seeming lack of respect for law and order until they say "The cops know better than to try to enforce laws against us that we don't believe in."

It is mindset that either produces or prevents tyranny.

 

Guns don't guarantee people's freedom.  People guarantee people's freedom.

That being said, have all the guns you want.  I don't care.

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Tatetopa
spelling.

[aztek]

1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

I have to disagree. It's not a very good analogy but in both cases we have someone interpreting things a particular way, which may or may not be supported.

So we have different interpretations. I am at best a 'mess deck lawyer' but I think that provision was written for a different time (although someone mentioned a constitutional amendment, and that is a very good point IMHO).

We would also seem to differ on how we believe we would protect ourselves - and probably what we are protecting ourselves from.

BTW, full disclosure - here is my own opinion on the matter of gun control:

• I have fired a variety of weapons, from 9mm pistols, sub-machine guns, automatic rifles, .50 cal machine guns all the way through to twin 4.5" naval guns. I enjoyed every minute of it.
• I believe in gun control but that does not mean taking away everyone's weapons:
  • Farmers / people need weapons to protect property, livestock and themselves
  • Sport shooters should be allowed weapons however in most cases those weapons should be kept at a sport shooters club armory, and drawn when wanted
  • Owning a pistol - or other weapons - should generally not be allowed (except as above)
  • There is no reason to have armor-piercing rounds or automatic weapons, etc
  • There needs to be a robust weapon licence procedure / background check along with a national database of who hold what weapons with what serial numbers

well it is your opinion, and i disagree with pretty much every point.

it is our constitutional right,  in 80s USSC interpreted it as individual right,

pistol is what regular people can use to defend themselves , and they do so, at least 1.5 million times. a year by low estimate

i see absolutely 0 point in any licensing or registration, since any crackhead can get one illegally,  unless you intend on confiscating it, as it already happened after katrina flood,  this is also happens to be the time where gangs used their unregistered guns, that cops did not take away to loot rob and assault.  and people had no way to protect themselves from it, handgun is also a perfect defence tool for females against rapists, when regularly carried.  

we don't have armor piercing round of automatic weapons available to public,  why would you even bring it up?

you say you are a mess deck lawyer' yet in a post before you tried to compare our constitutional right, with religious beliefs and gay bashing, sorry but you are definitely no lawyer. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by aztek

[Obviousman]

17 minutes ago, aztek said:

we don't have armor piercing round of automatic weapons available to public,  why would you even bring it up?

Sorry - I thought that they were available; if I am wrong then I apologise.

I'm not going to change your mind on this matter, and you are not going to change mine. We'll have to agree to disagree... but I think it does illustrate something which brings us back on topic: we have people on both sides of the argument who are quite well-meaning and sincere in their beliefs that they are doing 'the right thing'.

(And by "both sides" I mean people who are members of these movements, and people who think think these movements - or the people in them - are dangerous)

Edited March 17, 2020 by Obviousman

[jaylemurph]

On 3/17/2020 at 2:07 PM, Obviousman said:

I have to disagree. It's not a very good analogy but in both cases we have someone interpreting things a particular way, which may or may not be supported.

So we have different interpretations. I am at best a 'mess deck lawyer' but I think that provision was written for a different time (although someone mentioned a constitutional amendment, and that is a very good point IMHO).

We would also seem to differ on how we believe we would protect ourselves - and probably what we are protecting ourselves from.

BTW, full disclosure - here is my own opinion on the matter of gun control:

• I have fired a variety of weapons, from 9mm pistols, sub-machine guns, automatic rifles, .50 cal machine guns all the way through to twin 4.5" naval guns. I enjoyed every minute of it.
• I believe in gun control but that does not mean taking away everyone's weapons:
  • Farmers / people need weapons to protect property, livestock and themselves
  • Sport shooters should be allowed weapons however in most cases those weapons should be kept at a sport shooters club armory, and drawn when wanted
  • Owning a pistol - or other weapons - should generally not be allowed (except as above)
  • There is no reason to have armor-piercing rounds or automatic weapons, etc
  • There needs to be a robust weapon licence procedure / background check along with a national database of who hold what weapons with what serial numbers

I think this is wholly rational and that the vast majority of Americans could agree to it.

That said, gun control is never about gun control. It's mostly about people using guns as penis substitutes then forgetting to stop. Seriously, if you replaced "guns" with "my penis" in any given anti-gun control argument, very little would be different.

--Jaylemurph

EDIT: spelling

Edited March 19, 2020 by jaylemurph

[Imaginarynumber1]

On 3/14/2020 at 6:20 PM, Abaddonire said:

You have evidence? Great go ahead and present it. Present the information you claim to have access to.

 

I f you have solid evidence, I would happily accept it. But you don't. 

 

Why? Because if you had solid evidence you would have presented it already.

I'm not even sure what you want evidence of. That I don't live in a bubble? Nothing a produce will satisfy you.