• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The Second Amendment

Tibs:

I find it odd how virulent you are in your opposition to Trump, and say not one word of criticism of the people who genuinely, actually, provably stole the election from your candidate.

And indeed, appear to be carrying the water of the very person and party who stole that election.

You quake in fear of what Trump "might do," while snuggling up to people who have proven what they actually will do - i.e., steal your guy's election.

This what all Republicans don't understand, the Democrats are always split in their support, until their guy is eliminated. After their guy is eliminated, they just say "Oh well, I guess we will vote for who we are told too, and we are now happy about it" Republicans will not follow the part's choice if their guy loses, they just stay home. This is exactly why Hilliary wil become the next President, The party will not get in lock step behind their candidates like the Democrats will, that and because they can not get the dead Republicans to vote too.
 
The fact that the Washington establishment, including both parties, are coming after Trump with all guns ablazing ......tells me all I need to know.
 
The fact that the Washington establishment, including both parties, are coming after Trump with all guns ablazing ......tells me all I need to know.

You didn't see that coming? Trump's only choice would have been to bring Bernie on as VP, and run against both parties. Now that would have been interesting
 
If you want to see a documented case of where armed citizens prevented Tyranny in the modern era look up the battle of Athens Tennessee. Oddly familiar in that case it was armed veterans preventing a crooked Democrat from stealing an election.
 
Last edited:
Trump's only choice would have been to bring Bernie on as VP, and run against both parties.
The teeny-tiny problem with that notion is that Bernie - along with every other sane American - knows Trump is a ******* moron, a raving lunatic, and would never have considered joining a Trump ticket in a million years. But it sounds good on paper, I guess.
 
The teeny-tiny problem with that notion is that Bernie - along with every other sane American - knows Trump is a ******* moron, a raving lunatic, and would never have considered joining a Trump ticket in a million years. But it sounds good on paper, I guess.

The irony of a Crazy-B supporter calling Donald trump a lunatic because he says mean things is comical.
 
The fact that the Washington establishment, including both parties, are coming after Trump with all guns ablazing ......tells me all I need to know.

that he's really that scary/dangerous?
 
Tibs: I find it odd how virulent you are in your opposition to Trump, and say not one word of criticism of the people who genuinely, actually, provably stole the election from your candidate. And indeed, appear to be carrying the water of the very person and party who stole that election.You quake in fear of what Trump "might do," while snuggling up to people who have proven what they actually will do - i.e., steal your guy's election.
I dunno, that all sounds a bit melodramatic to me. I've opposed Trump since the day he announced his candidacy. You can go back and check these threads, if you've got nothing better to do. This was back when there were plenty of other wackadoo GOP candidates, ie Ted Cruz to pick on. I saw right though Trump from the beginning, and oppose everything he stands for - the rhetoric, the populism, the fear/hate mongering, the sexism, the racism. In my view, I've been entirely consistent in my stance. Seeing how frail and limp-wristed the GOP field was, it was no shock Trump jumped to the head of the pack early on, then cruised to the nomination. Mind you, this is a party that had Sarah Palin on the ticket, so nothing surprises me anymore.

As far as Clinton, I have to admit I have very little to say about her, good or bad. She's an establishment politician who has a lot of experience. She has withstood years of multiple witch hunts against her. The right has cried wolf so many times with her, I'm just numb to it all. When a GOP chaired House Commission rules she did nothing wrong (Benghazi), when the FBI closes an investigation against her with no charges filed (email hysteria) I simply shut the book and move on. We live in a country of rules and laws, the Right has created a never-ending saga of hysterics and (false) accusations that you can't help but ignore it. Same goes for all the Obama hate. Remember, he was going to take all the guns away, turn the country into a caliphate, hand over control to the UN, the Birther movement, etc. The far-right, Tea Partyesque faction in the States has created false Prophets and perceived Demons for years now. The anti-Hillary sentiment, in my book, is just the same old demagoguery. Yawn.

The wretched, disgusting love-in between the DNC and Hillary again, was no surprise to anyone on this side. The leaked emails just confirmed what most everyone already knew. I loathe Wasserman-Shultz more than anyone. This internal mandate to subvert Bernie's campaign was as bad as it can get. Sure, a bunch of people lost their jobs within the DNC but it just shows you how corrupt the Democrats are. By the time all this played out, ie the DNC convention, Bernie had a choice to make. Split the party, continue fighting and open the door for Trump. Or do the heroic thing, make the right decision under pressure, and step back, unify the party and live to fight another day. In the presidential race, there's no other responsible choice - ie a protest vote for Jill Stein. So at this point, like Bernie, I hold my nose and reluctantly support the lesser of two evils. But you won't ever find a rah rah Hillary post from me.

And yes, she's an establishment candidate with strong ties to big business, wall street and all. She's done questionable things with the Clinton foundation, made multiple mistakes over the years. Her hands are dirty and she's got enough baggage to fill a warehouse. She's far from an ideal presidential candidate. At this point, she's all that's left. I look at her as a ho hum, C+/C- politician, who'll mostly keep the ship afloat but won't do anything remarkably good or bad. And I'll take that 1,000 times over the fear, the loathing, the uncertainty a Trump presidency would represent. In addition, I think Bernie has pushed the Democratic platform to a better place then where it was. He and his supporters will continue to pressure Clinton, and I think that's a good thing.
 
If you want to see a documented case of where armed citizens prevented Tyranny in the modern era look up the battle of Athens Tennessee. Oddly familiar in that case it was armed veterans preventing a crooked Democrat from stealing an election.

Plus we have evidence that armed citizens, while they may have little chance against tanks and drones, can resist aggression for long periods of time. The Afgans and Vietnamese proved that through shear will and cunning, far superior forces could be forced to recognize their resistance and temper their aggression accordingly. You know..."cold dead hands", "behind every tree" and all that stuff.


hhCtIAd.jpg
 
The real reason for the 2nd amendment is that we did not have a federal standing army in 1791 and needed a means
of defending ourselves against foreign attack. The beginnings of a federal army didn't begin until 1796. The amendment had
nothing to do with personal defense.

The size and sophistication of our current military makes the 2nd amendment obsolete. Citizens with guns are pretty much a
joke if they think they can defend themselves from the lasers, drones, bombs, etc... that the US military possesses.
 
that he's really that scary/dangerous?

LOL. Scary and dangerous to their grip on power.

What it means is that, to them, retaining their power is more important than ANYTHING and if letting the "other side" win is what is required, then that is what must happen. Shows how out of touch they are with the plebes.
 
The real reason for the 2nd amendment is that we did not have a federal standing army in 1791 and needed a means
of defending ourselves against foreign attack. The beginnings of a federal army didn't begin until 1796. The amendment had
nothing to do with personal defense.

The size and sophistication of our current military makes the 2nd amendment obsolete. Citizens with guns are pretty much a
joke if they think they can defend themselves from the lasers, drones, bombs, etc... that the US military possesses.

Once again showing that you should not insinuate yourself into adult conversations.
 
The real reason for the 2nd amendment is that we did not have a federal standing army in 1791 and needed a means
of defending ourselves against foreign attack. The beginnings of a federal army didn't begin until 1796. The amendment had
nothing to do with personal defense.

The size and sophistication of our current military makes the 2nd amendment obsolete. Citizens with guns are pretty much a
joke if they think they can defend themselves from the lasers, drones, bombs, etc... that the US military possesses.

If it would happen though, wouldn't it feel better to be able to shoot back?

I can only imagine what it must have felt like to be a Jew in Auschwitz being led by gunpoint to their death and not being able to do anything about it. The helplessness. The frustration and fear. Total degradation. Even in death for them there was no dignity. At least if they could have shot back. Would it have changed much? I don't know, maybe over time. But at least they could have gone out fighting a bit.
 
We have to stop letting these people set the premise. One of the tactics being used in this thread is they will go the intellectual route. The arguments made by this founder or that founder. I know those things, too. However, it is in the Constitution, and that is what matters.

Why do they do this? Because the can't answer one simple question. Let me set the premise.

I am a stickler for shooting my firearms safely. I also maintain them at all times, making sure they are in proper working order. Lastly, when done with them I lock them up.

So the question they need to answer is how taking firearms away from me, and the millions like me who do it the same way, or limiting what I can get (yea, I am not talking about bazookas, so don't go there) makes anyone safer?

Usually at this point they say things like, "Well, there is a lot of death. We have to do something about all this death."

Well, how far are you willing to go, there. Are you really concerned about death? If the idea to take firearms away or limit them because of death is what we are talking about here is there a willingness to do it with other things? For example, AIDS has cost the lives of 700,000 people since around 1981 in the USA according the a stat I saw a little while ago. No doubt AIDs is spread through promiscuous sexual behavior. You limit you risk with less partners. Should we put laws in place outlawing promiscuous sexual behavior? After all, I have been told that laws on guns is because of death. Let's be consistent. I am using the absurd to illustrate the absurd, by the way.
 
these people....they... why do they do this?.... they.....they need to answer... they say...
I don't know who 'these people' are, but they sounds scary and intimidating.
 
I don't know who 'these people' are, but they sounds scary and intimidating.

They don't scare me. I am armed.

But you proved my point. You cannot answer the question. So you have be flippant. Which is fine, I enjoy that, actually.
 
I can't remember the name of the movie, but Ethan Hawke plays an Air Force guy who works out
of a container in the Nevada desert. He uses GPS and satellite imaging technology to view the
daily activities of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan. When terrorist activity is confirmed they get CIA
authorization and press a button and the site and terrorists are blown to smithereens. Sometimes they let
a crowd gather at the site, assume some of those gathering are terrorists and blow the site a second time.

Do you think the terrorists guns did them any good? If the US government wants you dead, you will be dead.
You will not get the opportunity to shoot back.
 
I can't remember the name of the movie, but Ethan Hawke plays an Air Force guy who works out
of a container in the Nevada desert. He uses GPS and satellite imaging technology to view the
daily activities of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan. When terrorist activity is confirmed they get CIA
authorization and press a button and the site and terrorists are blown to smithereens. Sometimes they let
a crowd gather at the site, assume some of those gathering are terrorists and blow the site a second time.

Do you think the terrorists guns did them any good? If the US government wants you dead, you will be dead.
You will not get the opportunity to shoot back.

I still like the idea of being able to. What if they miss me? What if I am so quick and elusive I get away and am in some mountain hideout and the only way they can get me is conventionally? You know all of us gun nuts dream of that scenario, right?

So basically you are saying because our government is so big and powerful we should outlaw the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means people can't enjoy target shooting or hunting or any of those things anymore, what all because the government is so big and powerful?
 
Yep, the 2nd Amendment has stopped the government from oppressing everyone. When the Marines go into Florida, Spike with stop them with his arsenal. Just like Patrick Swazye stopped the Russians. Wolverines!

Do you mean like when militias joined together and took on the BLM? If I'm not mistaken, the BLM returned Clive Bundys cattle that they illegally confiscated. The 2nd Amendment was used to beat back an over reaching federal force.

search
 
Do you mean like when militias joined together and took on the BLM? If I'm not mistaken, the BLM returned Clive Bundys cattle that they illegally confiscated. The 2nd Amendment was used to beat back an over reaching federal force.

search

You mean the felons currently awaiting trial?
 
I can't remember the name of the movie, but Ethan Hawke plays an Air Force guy who works out
of a container in the Nevada desert. He uses GPS and satellite imaging technology to view the
daily activities of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan. When terrorist activity is confirmed they get CIA
authorization and press a button and the site and terrorists are blown to smithereens. Sometimes they let
a crowd gather at the site, assume some of those gathering are terrorists and blow the site a second time.

Do you think the terrorists guns did them any good? If the US government wants you dead, you will be dead.
You will not get the opportunity to shoot back.

That is a great scenario when it's in the Middle East. But why isn't Ethan Hawke sending in a drone strike on terrorists in the United States? Terrorists are killing Americans on our soil, so why not target them here? Because Ethan would be taking out Innocent lives as well. The same would go with militia groups. Sure, there are camps and the FBI and HS know where they are, but it's the millions of us who have firearms and most of us are highly trained military with combat experience that stand in the governments way. If the government fires on its people, it knows it's got a fight on its hands from millions of patriots who believe their oath to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is why the liberal ******* want the firearms confiscated, limited, etc. it's about power, not safety. If it were about safety, they would limit speed limits on cars and have breathalyzer starting switches to quash DUI deaths.
 
You mean the felons currently awaiting trial?

Yep. Funny how an over reaching government who lost a stand off to an armed militia trumps up charges on burning ground to show them who is boss. But I like how you have skirted the fact that the second amendment has enabled an assembly of armed militia to beat back an oppressive federal force. Let's call them Felton's to distract from a direct and recent example of its application. You asked the question, it was answered.
 
Yep, the 2nd Amendment has stopped the government from oppressing everyone. When the Marines go into Florida, Spike with stop them with his arsenal. Just like Patrick Swazye stopped the Russians. Wolverines!

giphy.gif
 
Top