Y'know, GD, I was watching Bill Maher last night and he said something that really made me laugh. He said that he wished there was a liberal out there who would have the sack to say that the 2nd Amendment is bullshit.
I thought about it for a minute and then realized how exactly it was bullshit. It's not that you want a gun to protect yourself from home invasion or some other local situation requiring defense. Or even that you like the sport of it. Those things I understand. What it really is that you honestly think that you are are some sort of guardians who are on watch against the government, should they ever...turn.
This is hilarious when you consider that if they were as bad as you say they are or would be, you'd be skid mark in less than second. It's also amusing when you consider that what this is really some sort of deep, psychological need to feel in control. Truly, you guys are the most insecure people I have ever known.
What makes me sad is that you and people like you are now and would be willing participants in any tyranny. You have no problem forcing people to do what you think is for their own good.
you'd be skid mark in less than second.
What gives me hope is that you and people like you continue to be blissfully ignorant about the reality of fourth generation warfare within your own lines of supply - therefore increasing the chances of your side being woefully unprepared for the civil war you start.
What gives me pause is that you and people like you continue to be blissfully ignorant about the reality of fourth generation warfare withing your own lines of supply - therefore increasing the chances of your side starting the civil war because you actually think you can win it.
I realize that the possibility of what you are describing is what defines you and the others from TSM but you have to understand that it's just not going to happen. You are worried about a paranoid fantasy.
Now, if you want to be concerned about something, how about your health? Or a car accident? Or the instability in some parts of the world that is going to result from climate change? Those are the real threats out there, GD. It's sad and tragic that you think the latter, especially, is a fantasy. Well, I guess your going to find out soon enough just how wrong you are.
the chances of your side starting the civil war
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you people? All that plaque that's built up from the right wing blogsphere and media is really detrimental to your mental health. They're playing on your fears, dude. It isn't real.
juris, since Newtown, I have been so thoroughly disgusted with 2nd amendment supporters, it's hard for me to care. I'm more concerned about the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
I'm more concerned about the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment.
You should be concerned about all of them - the govt is as willing to step on one as another. Then again, that govt is just reflecting people like you.
It's a dopey graphic anyway, just like 99% of the rest that get posted here. "Well-regulated militia" is in a dependent clause, and gives a reason for the operative part of the sentence. It doesn't say it's the only reason, but is the most important one.
I'm glad the Big Three network news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. aren't engaged in panic-mongering in support of gun control, economic regulation to control global warming, etc., and no matter what the issue, always requiring more and more governmental powers and regulation. Funny how that works.
It's not paranoid if they actually are out to do what you are being accused of being paranoid of.
Take, for example, YOU. You have been posting, repeatedly, calls for increased gun control. Over and over you call for infringement upon inalienable rights. You are not alone in doing so and are joined by actual people in positions to enact such violations of rights. It cannot be considered paranoia to think that 'they' are trying to restrict rights when indeed 'they' ARE trying to restrict rights.
They're playing on your fears, dude. It isn't real.
Are you saying YOU and people like you ARE NOT currently acting to restrict my rights? Funny, I could have sworn that I read around here somewhere that you were calling for gun control.....
Over and over you call for infringement upon inalienable rights.
No, that's your mischaracterization of me. It's also my mistake for working within your framework. That's never going to happen again.
As usual, the problem is your imperial directives. You don't get to be the judge of what the second amendment means. Neither do I, really. But you know who can? The Supreme Court of the United States. And they did a damn fine job of it in Heller which I wholeheartedly support. So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid. According to SCOTUS, they would not be restricting your rights.
So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid.
Bullshit! We have given you specific and on record politicians saying that is the goal.
You may not be advocating that but there are lots that are doing so. In fact, there are petitions circulating in Cali now to ban and confiscate all guns.
Which might actually mean something if you understood what was said in Heller.
It's got lots of words, so it's complicated. But one wonders why you can't handle understanding just one sentence.
my mistake for working within your framework.
Hah! If you call what you do 'working' in my framework, I'd hate to see how many kittens you kill while being more 'obstinate'.
imperial directives
You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.
So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid. According to SCOTUS, they would not be restricting your rights.
Holy semantic shift batman!
What are you saying in this sentence?
A: People ARE NOT out to take guns because SCOTUS says they can't.
B: People ARE out to take guns, but it is not an infringement according to SCOTUS?
If it is B, that does not, IN FACT, make me paranoid. BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS. Whether SCOTUS says it is an infringement or not is irrelevant to that point.
If it is A, that also does not make me paranoid IF THERE ARE INDEED PEOPLE LIKE YOU TRYING TO TAKE GUNS.
The writer of the decision of Heller, a conservative justice, stated both in the decision and subsequent interviews that banning certain types of weapons is constitutional. Therefore, your protestations are without merit.
Further, this is fine example of how facts that you don't like are "liberal" or "unconstitutional." Neither are they liberal propaganda, juris:)
No, Guard Duck, it's the part that you don't like so it's back into the bubble. I guess Justice Scalia is a gun grabber too. Maybe he'll be the first to attack you in the coming civil war.
19 comments:
The better question is how does a school teacher not understand the concept of semantic change?
Y'know, GD, I was watching Bill Maher last night and he said something that really made me laugh. He said that he wished there was a liberal out there who would have the sack to say that the 2nd Amendment is bullshit.
I thought about it for a minute and then realized how exactly it was bullshit. It's not that you want a gun to protect yourself from home invasion or some other local situation requiring defense. Or even that you like the sport of it. Those things I understand. What it really is that you honestly think that you are are some sort of guardians who are on watch against the government, should they ever...turn.
This is hilarious when you consider that if they were as bad as you say they are or would be, you'd be skid mark in less than second. It's also amusing when you consider that what this is really some sort of deep, psychological need to feel in control. Truly, you guys are the most insecure people I have ever known.
What happened to the M that claimed he had changed his mind about the 2nd? That he had learned. That guy get lost somewhere?
should they ever...turn.
What makes me sad is that you and people like you are now and would be willing participants in any tyranny. You have no problem forcing people to do what you think is for their own good.
you'd be skid mark in less than second.
What gives me hope is that you and people like you continue to be blissfully ignorant about the reality of fourth generation warfare within your own lines of supply - therefore increasing the chances of your side being woefully unprepared for the civil war you start.
What gives me pause is that you and people like you continue to be blissfully ignorant about the reality of fourth generation warfare withing your own lines of supply - therefore increasing the chances of your side starting the civil war because you actually think you can win it.
I realize that the possibility of what you are describing is what defines you and the others from TSM but you have to understand that it's just not going to happen. You are worried about a paranoid fantasy.
Now, if you want to be concerned about something, how about your health? Or a car accident? Or the instability in some parts of the world that is going to result from climate change? Those are the real threats out there, GD. It's sad and tragic that you think the latter, especially, is a fantasy. Well, I guess your going to find out soon enough just how wrong you are.
the chances of your side starting the civil war
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you people? All that plaque that's built up from the right wing blogsphere and media is really detrimental to your mental health. They're playing on your fears, dude. It isn't real.
juris, since Newtown, I have been so thoroughly disgusted with 2nd amendment supporters, it's hard for me to care. I'm more concerned about the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment.
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you people?
Ant and Grasshopper is a great parable. Grasshopper just screams and mocks that which he is too stupid to understand. Howdy Mr. Grasshopper.
6Kings,
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
I'm more concerned about the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment.
You should be concerned about all of them - the govt is as willing to step on one as another. Then again, that govt is just reflecting people like you.
It's a dopey graphic anyway, just like 99% of the rest that get posted here. "Well-regulated militia" is in a dependent clause, and gives a reason for the operative part of the sentence. It doesn't say it's the only reason, but is the most important one.
I'm glad the Big Three network news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. aren't engaged in panic-mongering in support of gun control, economic regulation to control global warming, etc., and no matter what the issue, always requiring more and more governmental powers and regulation. Funny how that works.
paranoid fantasy
It's not paranoid if they actually are out to do what you are being accused of being paranoid of.
Take, for example, YOU. You have been posting, repeatedly, calls for increased gun control. Over and over you call for infringement upon inalienable rights. You are not alone in doing so and are joined by actual people in positions to enact such violations of rights. It cannot be considered paranoia to think that 'they' are trying to restrict rights when indeed 'they' ARE trying to restrict rights.
They're playing on your fears, dude. It isn't real.
Are you saying YOU and people like you ARE NOT currently acting to restrict my rights? Funny, I could have sworn that I read around here somewhere that you were calling for gun control.....
Over and over you call for infringement upon inalienable rights.
No, that's your mischaracterization of me. It's also my mistake for working within your framework. That's never going to happen again.
As usual, the problem is your imperial directives. You don't get to be the judge of what the second amendment means. Neither do I, really. But you know who can? The Supreme Court of the United States. And they did a damn fine job of it in Heller which I wholeheartedly support. So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid. According to SCOTUS, they would not be restricting your rights.
So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid.
Bullshit! We have given you specific and on record politicians saying that is the goal.
You may not be advocating that but there are lots that are doing so. In fact, there are petitions circulating in Cali now to ban and confiscate all guns.
And how would that work out with Heller exactly, 6Kings?
We have given you specific and on record politicians
No, you haven't. Propaganda is not "information."
Propaganda is not "information."
Except of course when you do it.
Heller which I wholeheartedly support
Which might actually mean something if you understood what was said in Heller.
It's got lots of words, so it's complicated. But one wonders why you can't handle understanding just one sentence.
my mistake for working within your framework.
Hah! If you call what you do 'working' in my framework, I'd hate to see how many kittens you kill while being more 'obstinate'.
imperial directives
You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.
So, your notion that people are out to get you and your guns is, in fact, paranoid. According to SCOTUS, they would not be restricting your rights.
Holy semantic shift batman!
What are you saying in this sentence?
A: People ARE NOT out to take guns because SCOTUS says they can't.
B: People ARE out to take guns, but it is not an infringement according to SCOTUS?
If it is B, that does not, IN FACT, make me paranoid. BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS. Whether SCOTUS says it is an infringement or not is irrelevant to that point.
If it is A, that also does not make me paranoid IF THERE ARE INDEED PEOPLE LIKE YOU TRYING TO TAKE GUNS.
if you understood what was said in Heller.
The writer of the decision of Heller, a conservative justice, stated both in the decision and subsequent interviews that banning certain types of weapons is constitutional. Therefore, your protestations are without merit.
Further, this is fine example of how facts that you don't like are "liberal" or "unconstitutional." Neither are they liberal propaganda, juris:)
certain types of weapons
Which is the part YOU don't understand.
Therefore, your protestations are without merit.
Says he who whines vociferously about imperatives. Niiiiice.
No, Guard Duck, it's the part that you don't like so it's back into the bubble. I guess Justice Scalia is a gun grabber too. Maybe he'll be the first to attack you in the coming civil war.
Post a Comment