TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »

Raistlin, you are both above and far, far away from this idiocy. why do you pursue it? Is it some sort of lurid fascination with that which is base - that which is lewd? Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia?

Actually....

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court yet!

fixed

Well, granted that's not really a goal of mine, but I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already.

And just for reference, you qualify as the former:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter [...] they are either incapable of performing basic tasks of reading and drawing reasonable inferences from what they read, or they are willfully distorting its meaning for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already.

Most pleasing thing I have read in this thread.




...or foreboding.



Either way, congratulations are in order.

/kazoo

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Raistlin, you are both above and far, far away from this idiocy. why do you pursue it? Is it some sort of lurid fascination with that which is base - that which is lewd? Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia?

well, to be honest i like donny but...i dont know! i have this thing. its called not being able to keep my mouth shut. and despite what people might think, i have a tremendous care for all decent people around the globe. i care that thousands of americans are killed each year with firearms, and i just cant stand the illogical justification of the 2nd amendment (though, i do not support gun laws in the US, theyre too fvcked for it to make a difference).

i want everybody to live in rainbows and sunshine with my little ponies.

oh, and i quit pot, so now i need to find something to fill in the hours after work

and hahahaha @ arbiter's "yet". if you ever DO make the bench mate you'll have to let us all know! i'd enjoy following your career

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, ive had exactly the same argument with him.

About Gun Control?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN again, in the midst of a global war, it is reasonably easy for a small band of people to prove problematic for a greater force. but, since we are talking about the US and the 2nd amendment, and the US is far from the third reich (despite what trancer might think) and is at peace in the homeland, i cant see how you think it is possible.[/QUOET] pfft..it certainly does NOT look possible anytime in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that it could NEVER happen, nor does it mean that protecting against it will NEVER be necessary. The same great group of guys who brought us all of our other guaranteed freedoms...all bound together in a Constitution that has innumerable, mutually protective, checks and balances built in to it...are the same ones that saw fit to add the right to bear arms; The right to speak freely. To Vote. Freedom or religion. Freedom to address the government with grievances, etc. The concept of guaranteed freedom from oppression by one's government is no more out of date today, than it was back then. [QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's just wrong. the branch davidians didnt "hold" anyone off. the ATF & FBI deliberately held off, no doubt for PR reasons, not to mention the number of children in the complex. they could've stormed that place with a riot tank anytime they wanted, but (shock horror!) the state often goes to incredible lengths NOT to harm its citizens.

They shot several agents when they tried to storm in, then they backed off, negotiated for a month, then went back in with armored personnel carriers. I'd say they did a pretty damn well with just a few rifles on hand.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN which is exactly the point. i dont trust your average moronic person with the latest technology for stealing life. im sorry, too many fucktards in the world, as evidenced by your MASSIVE firearm homicide rate each year.

I'll take my chances at being the victim of a random gun crime (which by the way, is about 10 times lower than it is of dying in a car accident), as opposed to being a potential victim of mass genocide.

Historically, MILLIONS more people have died at the hands of their own out of control government, than have ever died at the hands of your run-of-the-mill criminal.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN NO. that's NOT what i said donny, and you know it. i want to know how it can DEFEND against the state.... also, i think you'll find IEDs have had a far greater impact than snipers. do you support the right to bear explosives?

Well, as Arbitor partially correctly pointed out, the right to bear arms wasn't exactly meant to extend only to firearms. We can already buy gun powder in canisters over the counter here, so in a sense, we already have the right to bear explosives. But you don't see IED's going off constantly here, now do you?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, i think the suggestion is absurd, considering the might of the nazi military at the time...

I already provided you with an example of how a few Jews with rifles not only held off a MUCH larger troop of German Soldiers, but they actually managed to kill a few of them too! We're talking about fewer than a dozen people here. And you STILL want to argue that SIX MILLION armed people couldn't have made a difference?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right. so the hutus, instead of butchering the tutsis with machetes, would have used AK47s instead. what's your point? and again, even if firearms could have made a POSITIVE difference, the US isnt fucking rwanda for christ's sake. weren't you the one trumpeting the virtues of the american state re the judiciary etc?

My point is that had the Tutsis all been armed with guns, MANY more would have lived. It was yet another prime example of an out of control governmental perpetuating genocide on it's people....an occurance that YOU think is "outdated" and can't happen anymore in our "civilized" world anymore, so we should all be disarmed as a result.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN name a modern liberal democracy (like the US or Oz) that has done so. again, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, you need to use examples that you can relate to the US.

lol...why does it have to be a "liberal democracy" in order to have any merit? Not all countries that even start out this way (or are currently this way) or necessarily going to end up this way!

Look; it happened in Germany (Hitler's rise to power), it happened in Cambodia, in Rwanda, etc...the concept of Dictatorship is alive and well in humanity. You're kidding yourself if you think the danger of it never occurring again in certain countries...or all countries for that matter...is over. Don't you ever read a history book?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, not at all. youre creating a fictitious (and incredibly unlikely) possibility to justify something. THAT's the weak argument.

Hey, I'M not the one who put the right to bear arms in the Constitution for the purpose of protecting the people from their own Government, the Founding Fathers did! I'm not making anything up or dreaming up any paranoid conspiracy theories...I'm just telling you who put it there and why.

You should ask yourself why it is that you find all of their other major contributions to the Constitution so worthy of respect, yet you are willing to shit all over the 2nd Am.? If they were brilliant enough to think up the concepts that they did, perhaps you should open up your mind a little more and consider that maybe they put just as much thought in to the 2nd Am. right as they did the rest of our rights...and therefor, maybe it has serious merit?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, and i quit pot

;fx's;gvhadsfksafd

That decision had better be due to either a girl making you quit or your Government job issuing UAs.

Nobody quits just because.

I'm not even going to pretend like I smoke regularly, because I don't. But quit? Good god, that's like going celibate. Or quitting beer or something equally as ridiculous. I don't even know what I'm getting at here.

But yeah, I do agree with you. Fucking deplorable how many people are inadvertently or unfortunately killed at the end of firearms in war-time situations, much less domestic occurrences. It's not a black/white subject, but I feel quite strongly about people preserving their ability to defend themselves as well as people taking a very objective viewpoint on just what is necessary in our so-called civilization. I am kind of ranting at this point. Hey, beer.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter fixed Well, granted that's not really a goal of mine, but I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already.

So what? There are lawyers on both sides of this issue who have equally firm convictions.

Like I said before; The Courts so far have made it clear who "the people" are. Who do you think "the people" are?

HI, I am DONNYBRASCO, and I like to EMPHASIZE some WORDS with CAPITAL LETTERS in order to STRESS that my point is very SERIOUS.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On ;fx's;gvhadsfksafd That decision had better be due to either a girl making you quit or your Government job issuing UAs. Nobody quits just because. I'm not even going to pretend like I smoke regularly, because I don't. But quit? Good god, that's like going celibate. Or quitting beer or something equally as ridiculous. I don't even know what I'm getting at here.

Yeah though, seriously PKC, why'd you quit?

Was hurting his SupCom tactical skills imo

Made him just sit around and worry about how to set up his base so it looked like a perfect rectangle. Man, I fucking do that in strat games even when I'm not high.

you think eye scans would work if i'm rolling on E?

Hey, this is a serious topic here, don't start talking about drugs, TayloR.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco About Gun Control?

yes. and his arguments are much the same as yours. ooooh, evil government!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco They shot several agents when they tried to storm in, then they backed off, negotiated for a month, then went back in with armored personnel carriers. I'd say they did a pretty damn well with just a few rifles on hand.

and what - you think your evil totalitarian nightmare government is going to behave in the same way as your duly elected one? cant have it both ways champ. there was IMMENSE restraint shown by the government officers, do you think your SS brigades will work the same way?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'll take my chances at being the victim of a random gun crime (which by the way, is about 10 times lower than it is of dying in a car accident), as opposed to being a potential victim of mass genocide.

but where is the evidence that this "mass genocide" would ever occur? last time i checked, your evil government still had all those nukes. if they want a mass genocide, why bother with the army when they can just bomb your ass?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I already provided you with an example of how a few Jews with rifles not only held off a MUCH larger troop of German Soldiers, but they actually managed to kill a few of them too! We're talking about fewer than a dozen people here.

that's in a time of war when the germans had more pressing concerns. if WW2 had not occurred, there isnt a damned thing a poorly armed jewish militia could have done against the might of the nazi regime.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco And you STILL want to argue that SIX MILLION armed people couldn't have made a difference?

learn your history. 6 million jews werent all from germany from starters, many came from nations CONQUERED by germany. you tell me why you think a bunch of untrained jews would have faired better than france, poland or the USSR?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco My point is that had the Tutsis all been armed with guns, MANY more would have lived.

says who? these people were macheted to death. had the government come to the party with assault rifles, the results would have been much the same.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It was yet another prime example of an out of control governmental perpetuating genocide on it's people....an occurance that YOU think is "outdated" and can't happen anymore in our "civilized" world anymore, so we should all be disarmed as a result.

and you keep pointing to 3rd world dictatorships to provide a comparison to the advanced liberal democracies (ie the US which started this whole conversation) and i do not think such a comparison is remotely valid.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco lol...why does it have to be a "liberal democracy" in order to have any merit? Not all countries that even start out this way (or are currently this way) or necessarily going to end up this way!

there is not a single reason to suggest the world's current advanced liberal democracies will fall into dictatorship, nor that average joe's holding guns will prevent it either.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Look; it happened in Germany (Hitler's rise to power), it happened in Cambodia, in Rwanda, etc...the concept of Dictatorship is alive and well in humanity. You're kidding yourself if you think the danger of it never occurring again in certain countries...or all countries for that matter...is over. Don't you ever read a history book?

maybe i am kidding myself, but no, i dont see the lib decs ever going that way. especially not the US with all its other protections.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Hey, I'M not the one who put the right to bear arms in the Constitution for the purpose of protecting the people from their own Government, the Founding Fathers did! I'm not making anything up or dreaming up any paranoid conspiracy theories...I'm just telling you who put it there and why.

yes, but like arbiter, i dont think the second amendment DOES say everyone can own a gun. i agree with his interpretation of the statute.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You should ask yourself why it is that you find all of their other major contributions to the Constitution so worthy of respect, yet you are willing to shit all over the 2nd Am.?

who said i respected the US constitution? for the most part, i really dont. we dont have one and we have a much freer society. i know youre all brought up to worship it, and perhaps in your nation it was necessary, but dont confuse it with being an infallible document. i find static laws that are hard to change can prove to be an immense roadblock to social and political evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco If they were brilliant enough to think up the concepts that they did, perhaps you should open up your mind a little more and consider that maybe they put just as much thought in to the 2nd Am. right as they did the rest of our rights...and therefor, maybe it has serious merit?

no. as above.

your founding fathers werent seers and i do not believe ANY of them would enjoy looking at the results of your gun-obsessed culture in 2008. the fathers were merely statesmen, and given how i feel about modern statesmen i find the worship with which americans give a bunch of politicians (albeit full of well-meaning rhetoric) to be mildly amusing.

the constitution and bill of rights, the courts, parliament etc etc etc all do a far greater job at limiting your government than the right to bear arms, and i find arguments to the contrary to be painfully stupid.

@ sushi & halcyon - when you have a problem its time to call it a day, at least for a little while. even if its just to prove you can stop.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN when you have a problem its time to call it a day, at least for a little while. even if its just to prove you can stop.

Ah, fair enough.

What did you totally forget to pay rent a few times or something?

I keed.

I understand. It's why I've not had a drop of alcohol in... uh, like 30 minutes or so. I have willpower.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Ah, fair enough. What did you totally forget to pay rent a few times or something?

hahaha. nah, but everyday for 4+ years is a bit much.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I understand. It's why I've not had a drop of alcohol in... uh, like 30 minutes or so. I have willpower.

thats the other problem. whenever i go on a self-imposed cold turkey, i start drinking more

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Like I said before; The Courts so far have made it clear who "the people" are. Who do you think "the people" are?

I was not making an argument that "the people" were someone other than ordinary civilians.

The issue I raised there hinges upon two questions. First, is the clause "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mere prefatory language with no logical implication for that which follows, or does it qualify the following text such that it does not apply unless the preceding condition is met? And second, if it is not mere prefatory language, then is a well-regulated militia necessary (or even contributory) to the security of a free state?

To my knowledge the courts has not given an opinion one way or the other on the first question, and thus a discussion of the second is not relevant (though I certainly hope it is not necessary, since we don't have one.) The attorney general's office issued an opinion a couple of years ago which suggested it was prefatory language, and I suspect that the court would rule similarly for to do otherwise would essentially invalidate the entire amendment. Though I am inclined to disagree with that interpretation, it is not strong disagreement and I am fine with that position. But I do think it is important to recognize that the realities of modern gun ownership do not reflect the founding fathers' vision of gun ownership in the form of an organized militia, and consequently these rights are lacking both in their ability to effectively defend the free state (if, indeed, they could at all) and are also responsible for significant unnecessary death and destruction in conflicts between citizens.

Overall, I believe the other issue I raised with the amendment (regarding the scope of the term "arms") poses a much greater challenge for anyone seeking to interpret it legitimately. In any case, I am generally not as anti-gun as many people around here. My main issue is with those who make unsound arguments against reasonable restrictions on the ownership of arms (particularly those with potential for causing "extraordinary" loss of life or property in the hands of a small group or single individual), whether those arguments are rooted in an exceedingly arbitrary interpretation of the constitution or other questionable logic.

If Dave the drug dealer wants to steal himself a pistol to make sure his supplier doesn't screw him, that's fine by me. Because, frankly, as far as I'm concerned they can both die in a shootout in some seedy part of town far removed from the likes of myself. But if Joe the mentally unstable anarchist and his gang of revolutionaries want to stockpile assault rifles, rocket launchers, and other miscellaneous explosives, then I do think we might want to intervene before things get out of hand. In general, I would say that domestic terrorism poses a more real danger than the spontaneous decision of our collective governing bodies to transform to totalitarianism, and I think our policies on the ownership of guns and other arms should reflect that reality.

And with that, I am going to grab my four hours of sleep before I get back to helping the U.S. government devise new and interesting ways to snuff out all resistance.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, perhaps you could tell me how the gun ownership of average joe even comes close to "well regulated militia". it is obvious, at least to me, that this implies some form of organisation, which personal ownership obviously isnt.

The 2nd Am. isn't an OBLIGATION, it's a RIGHT! Just like the 1st Am. isn't an obligation. Just because it's not always used doesn't negate it from EVER being used!

The right to form that militia is and always should be there, as was intended when the Constitution was written.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...i have a tremendous care for all decent people around the globe.... i want everybody to live in rainbows and sunshine with my little ponies...

Mmmm, and do you think that EVERYONE shares your myopic view of the world?

What shall the tree-huggers of the world do then, when those people who wish to enslave their vulnerable asses, chose to do so, as has happened time and again throughout history, and is still happening now?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On But yeah, I do agree with you. Fucking deplorable how many people are inadvertently or unfortunately killed at the end of firearms in war-time situations, much less domestic occurrences. It's not a black/white subject, but I feel quite strongly about people preserving their ability to defend themselves as well as people taking a very objective viewpoint on just what is necessary in our so-called civilization. I am kind of ranting at this point. Hey, beer.

Well, Raisin (and Arbitor) are conveniently ignoring the stats which point to the hundreds of thousands of people who may have saved their life in instances of crime, BECAUSE they had a gun.

But making the gun debate a "crime" debate is a favorite trick of the left. The 2nd Am. is not mainly or even solely about protecting yourself from common criminals. It's much, much bigger than that. And sometimes, you have to take some good with the bad in order to gain then larger advantages of not ever being in a position to be enslaved by your own Government.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On HI, I am DONNYBRASCO, and I like to EMPHASIZE some WORDS with CAPITAL LETTERS in order to STRESS that my point is very SERIOUS.

You figured that out all on your own, did you?

Like I said in another thread; Weed makes people perpetually stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by TaylorR you think eye scans would work if i'm rolling on E?

You may not want to pull away from the light show that the scanner will be putting out.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahaha. nah, but everyday for 4+ years is a bit much.

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.

Your brain will seem remarkably clear, in a month from now. I was surprised, anyway, at how quickly my head cleared from the fuzziness.

In your case, this worries me slightly...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thats the other problem. whenever i go on a self-imposed cold turkey, i start drinking more

And I turned out just fine!

Drinking will make you more shit at gaming than a splif/cone will though. Been there lol. Talk about pwnd :/

Edit: Except for Tekken

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ...is the clause "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mere prefatory language with no logical implication for that which follows, or does it qualify the following text such that it does not apply unless the preceding condition is met?

Who says it has to be "met"? As I've stated before, it's a "right", not an "obligation". Since when are our rights negated if they're not put to use regularly?

And COME ON! The two are linked and you know it! If they weren't, they'd be SEPARATE Amendments.

They were VERY judicious in their verbiage, the Founding Fathers. EVERY word was carefully considered. They were obviously saying that the right to bear arms is about individuals in Militias (formed ad hoc by the people) keeping arms in their private possession for such purposes, should they chose to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter And second, if it is not mere prefatory language, then is a well-regulated militia necessary (or even contributory) to the security of a free state?

Why is that necessary for YOU to decide? Or anyone? It's there. The Founders said it was "necessary". So leave it alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ...But I do think it is important to recognize that the realities of modern gun ownership do not reflect the founding fathers' vision of gun ownership in the form of an organized militia...

There are PLENTY of greater legal minds than yours who DO NOT support that view. The validity of the 2nd Amend. is NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE!

Do you decide when Free Speech is no longer valid? No, you don't. Nor do you have a say as to when the rest of the Constitution is not valid to you.

So please explain to me how the concept of individual protection...whether from one's government, or from a common criminal...is an out-dated idea! That's absurd. ESPECIALLY when you (of all people) should know that by law, neither the Military nor the Police have ZERO legal obligation to save your life.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter My main issue is with those who make unsound arguments against reasonable restrictions on the ownership of arms (particularly those with potential for causing "extraordinary" loss of life or property in the hands of a small group or single individual), whether those arguments are rooted in an exceedingly arbitrary interpretation of the constitution or other questionable logic.

Nice try, but therein lies that slippery slope that I'm talking about when it comes to gun ownership; "Reasonable" restrictions. I'll stand my ground on the issue of the 2nd Amend. and not yield an inch, because all of our other rights are ultimately incumbent upon having this one as a last resort.

So we ALREADY have an avalanche of gun laws (restrictions) on the books. Just how far do you propose we go? Your implication is clear; First you attack the validity of the 2nd Amend., then you say you just want "reasonable" restrictions...based on what; Your faulty interpretation of the 2nd Amend.??

This is an old tactic on the part of the Gun Control Movement, and it has cost you guys elections even, because MOST people in this country aren't buying it.

God, be original at least if you're going to debate this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If Dave the drug dealer wants to steal himself a pistol to make sure his supplier doesn't screw him, that's fine by me. Because, frankly, as far as I'm concerned they can both die in a shootout in some seedy part of town far removed from the likes of myself. But if Joe the mentally unstable anarchist and his gang of revolutionaries want to stockpile assault rifles, rocket launchers, and other miscellaneous explosives, then I do think we might want to intervene before things get out of hand.

One man's insane fellow citizen is another's brilliant leader.

These risks come with the territory, but you and I both know that the instances of insanity ruling and abusing the 2nd Amend. are MUCH lower than the instances of prevailing sanity which do not.

Again; It's a risk that comes with the territory. A price we pay for a much larger form of security and freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In general, I would say that domestic terrorism poses a more real danger than the spontaneous decision of our collective governing bodies to transform to totalitarianism, and I think our policies on the ownership of guns and other arms should reflect that reality.

And what happens say 50 or 100 years or more from now, should a Dictatorship or Totalitarian Regime manage to take control of the country? Do you think that they will stand idly by and let the collective people change the Constitution back, so that they can over-throw them? Dumb.

Jesus, Raisin! I wish you would go back to smoking weed, cuz I can't keep up with your posts, lol.

I'll answer your last long one in a bit...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, like we're gonna be implanted with chips. fuck you kids are idiots.

You assume too much. Never did I say anything about being implanted with RFID chips. They'll be putting them in our driver's licenses. My state is already planning to be REAL ID compliant in 2009. Do you really think they would implant them in our hands? The religious right would be in a total uproar about that (666, Mark of the Beast and such), and considering that America is still a Christian dominated nation, the govt would be in a huge fight.

As I've said, there's a difference between having your SSN and fingerprints put in a database, but quite another when they have logs about you telling the time you took a shit, what you watched on primetime, and the density of your fartstank. Again, maybe I'd have stronger faith in my country if we weren't out starting wars and overthrowing governments.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Australia doesn't have a similar program only because they don't have the technology to do it if they wanted to by mandate from the head kangaroo. [[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes. and his arguments are much the same as yours. ooooh, evil government![/QUOTE} I'm not saying the government is evil! Jesus, get that through your thick head already! I'm saying the founding fathers put the 2nd Amend. in place (amongst other Amendments) because THEY didn't want us to trust our own government. They very intentionally put in place MANY checks and balances which ASSURED that the PEOPLE ran the government, not the other way around. You're calling ME a paranoid based on a Constitution written by people didn't trust organized government. Brilliant. [QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and what - you think your evil totalitarian nightmare government is going to behave in the same way as your duly elected one? cant have it both ways champ. there was IMMENSE restraint shown by the government officers, do you think your SS brigades will work the same way?

Can't be any worse than being totally unarmed and served up on a platter to either system of government.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but where is the evidence that this "mass genocide" would ever occur? last time i checked, your evil government still had all those nukes. if they want a mass genocide, why bother with the army when they can just bomb your ass?

???

Since when do nukes have to be used exclusively to create mass genocide?

Look, I'm not saying it's anywhere NEAR happening now, or 10 years form now, in my lifetime, or if I had kids, in THEIR lifetime, or even in their children's lifetime!

But historically, genocide and oppression HAVE happened and will continue to happen throughout the world. And one of the things that truly makes our system of government so great is that it was created with the idea that everything that could be done, would be done to keep it's power from being used against it's own people. Why is this so abhorrent to you? You think freedom can be obtained simply by talking nice and playing nice all the time? Sometimes things may get ugly, and the Founders built in another "check" for that possibility just in case; The 2nd amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's in a time of war when the germans had more pressing concerns. if WW2 had not occurred, there isnt a damned thing a poorly armed jewish militia could have done against the might of the nazi regime.

Oh really? How do you know this? Have you got a crystal ball that tells you how the world WOULD have turned out, had things been different?

Why...when I give you examples of how a small group of people with guns can keep whole armies at bay...do you just brush the facts under the carpet with sweeping generalities like; "It won't make a difference!"?? I just SHOWED you that it can, yet you won't admit to it. Lame.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN learn your history. 6 million jews werent all from germany from starters, many came from nations CONQUERED by germany. you tell me why you think a bunch of untrained jews would have faired better than france, poland or the USSR?

Umm, they were ALL unarmed Raisin! Germany saw to that once it occupied their countries. So what's your point? The Germans actually killed at least double this number of humans in total who were unarmed.



I'm out of time for the rest of your post...have to pick it up again tomorrow.

Goodnight Stoner! You should have quite years ago. Your mind had SO much potential...but now look where it ended up.







(You know I'm only fucking with you)

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why...when I give you examples of how a small group of people with guns can keep whole armies at bay...do you just brush the facts under the carpet with sweeping generalities like; "It won't make a difference!"?? I just SHOWED you that it can, yet you won't admit to it. Lame.

TROOF.

Let us not forget Cinco de Mayo, the day when 4000 poorly armed Mexican farmers stood up against an 8,000 strong French army who had the finest equipment of the time. Small groups can lead to key victories against a larger, overly arrogant, and overconfident army.

Though I'm not saying a Jewish militia could flat out beat the Nazi's, but under the right leadership, and the right circumstances, it's possible.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.