Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[Make Angels Great Again]

Ban all guns from civilians and let the government keep them all.

That'll fix it.

[Glen]

34 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Ask John McCain

The McCain who voted for the tax bill?

[Glen]

8 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Ban all guns from civilians and let the government keep them all.

That'll fix it.

Besides retarded people, who says that?

[mtangelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Glen said:

The McCain who voted for the tax bill?

So they have to disagree with all of Trump's policies or they are lock-step.

Got it.

[Make Angels Great Again]

5 minutes ago, Glen said:

Besides retarded people, who says that?

 

So @nate is retarded then? I mean, I had a feeling.

 

a simple AW search of ban guns displays that on the first page of results.

[mtangelsfan]

33 minutes ago, nate said:

Guns are great!

Alcohol kills 4500 people 21 and younger each year.

 

Booze is great!

[red321]

McCain votes with Trump 83+% of the time. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

 

[nate]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

Alcohol kills 4500 people 21 and younger each year.

 

Booze is great!

Captain can't put 1 and 1 together.

Booze kills the people drinking it 90%+ of the time, guns kill other innocent people.

But hey, pro life!  Republicans are against abortion because it is murder, but they are very pro gun murder, kids dying without healthcare, elderly dying without healthcare and poor people dying of malnutrition.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, nate said:

Captain can't put 1 and 1 together.

Booze kills the people drinking it 90%+ of the time, guns kill other innocent people.

But hey, pro life!  Republicans are against abortion because it is murder, but they are very pro gun murder, kids dying without healthcare, elderly dying without healthcare and poor people dying of malnutrition.

Actually,  no.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html

 

[nate]

More than 60%

90% > 60%

Anyway, I am fine with banning alcohol if it means banning guns.

[mtangelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Glen said:

So is deflection!

When you start talking about curtailing alcohol, I'll start playing your get along game regarding guns.

Its hypocritical to care about one and not the other.

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, nate said:

More than 60%

90% > 60%

Anyway, I am fine with banning alcohol if it means banning guns.

You would be about the only one.  No way the alcohol industry or the firearm industry allow it.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Sadly, there are a lot more crazies than just Nate on this topic.

[nate]

I am also ok with just making the first DUI mandatory 2 years in jail, second mandatory 5 and third life.

The way I see it, every DUI is attempted manslaughter.

By the way, of the 10k DUI related deaths in 2015, only 1900 were someone in another vehicle.

There were 9,616 firearm related homicides in 2015.

[mtangelsfan]

I respect Nate's opinion.  He is consistent and doesn't play in the gray areas with this. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

I respect his dedication to his view. It's too bad how ignorant it is though.

 

One of the biggest steps towards tyranny is disarming the population. A defenseless population is an easily controlled one.

[Tank]

2 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I respect his dedication to his view. It's too bad how ignorant it is though.

 

One of the biggest steps towards tyranny is disarming the population. A defenseless population is an easily controlled one.

when's the last time in this country that civilians needed weapons to keep the gov't from going off course?

[Make Angels Great Again]

Just now, Tank said:

when's the last time in this country that civilians needed weapons to keep the gov't from going off course?

 

The mere threat of armed citizens is enough to deter. There are estimates of 270 to 310 million guns in the US.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it never could. The second amendment is right behind free speech for a reason.

[Tank]

8 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

The mere threat of armed citizens is enough to deter. There are estimates of 270 to 310 million guns in the US.

so by that logic, if you and i are strapped and a US army tank comes rolling down the street telling us that a curfew is now in place as trump starts clamping down on our liberties, we're good to go, right?

in this scenario, it seems far more practical to have armed militia groups prepared for such things as opposed to individual citizens citing this tired old mantra in ways that make it sound like they're ready to take on the gov't and be effective all by themselves.

meanwhile, our kids keep killing more kids and no one's losing sleep over it.

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

so by that logic, if you and i are strapped and a US army tank comes rolling down the street telling us that a curfew is now in place as trump starts clamping down on our liberties, we're good to go, right?

in this scenario, it seems far more practical to have armed militia groups prepared for such things as opposed to individual citizens citing this tired old mantra in ways that make it sound like they're ready to take on the gov't and be effective all by themselves.

meanwhile, our kids keep killing more kids and no one's losing sleep over it.

Tell that to the Davidians and Randy Weaver.

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

so by that logic, if you and i are strapped and a US army tank comes rolling down the street telling us that a curfew is now in place as trump starts clamping down on our liberties, we're good to go, right?

in this scenario, it seems far more practical to have armed militia groups prepared for such things as opposed to individual citizens citing this tired old mantra in ways that make it sound like they're ready to take on the gov't and be effective all by themselves.

meanwhile, our kids keep killing more kids and no one's losing sleep over it.

 

I'm not saying Billy Bob and Cletus can take on an M1 Abrams with their muskets. It's far more complicated than that.

Sides would form, portions of the military would go rogue, some indoctrinated, there are a lot of angles to this. If the population as a whole have their guns forcibly removed, they're much easier to control.

[mtangelsfan]

It doesn't matter.  You want civil war, then start trying to disarm everyone.

[Taylor]

21 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

The mere threat of armed citizens is enough to deter. There are estimates of 270 to 310 million guns in the US.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it never could. The second amendment is right behind free speech for a reason.

Um, no.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/order_of_bill_of_rights_is_second_amendment_the_second_most_important.html

Quote

No. The Bill of Rights has an order, but it has nothing to do with the relative importance of the rights. James Madison, who whittled down the long list of amendments proposed during constitutional ratification, argued that all changes to the Constitution should be incorporated into the text itself rather than tacked on the end. Connecticut’s Roger Sherman disagreed and won the argument, giving us the numbered list of 10 amendments we have today. The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified.

The original first amendment, which did not pass, outlined how the number of seats in Congress would rise in response to population growth—a modification of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. The original second amendment, which initially fell short of ratification and later became the 27^th Amendment, banned members of Congress from raising their own salaries before voters had an opportunity to oust them. That related to Article I, Section 6, which deals with congressional compensation.

The now-sacred First Amendment was originally slated to sit in the far less distinguished third position. That doesn’t mean the founding fathers thought congressional salary more important than the freedom of speech. Rather, the First Amendment relates to the powers of the legislature, which come later in the Constitution than does the structure of Congress. According to Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar, the provision we now know as the First Amendment begins with the phrase “Congress shall make no law” because it contrasts with Article I, Section 8, which begins “Congress shall have power.”

 

[Tank]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Tell that to the Davidians and Randy Weaver.

but isn't there a completely different philosophy behind the actions of these two? they seem to have been more afraid of having to follow the normal rules of society (particularly koresch [i don't know enough about randy weaver right now to comment]) than a gov't removing all of their rights. and wouldn't that, therefore, present a completely different set of circumstances than the idea of keeping an armed citizenry to prevent gov't intrusion of our basic rights?

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Tank

[mtangelsfan]

Both were first apprehended due to firearms.  Both times Feds murdered people.

think about this happening everywhere