It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:32 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 846 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
No. Your 0% comment is completely wrong, and goes against the entire history of human civilization.

No it's right. You are expanding it to a well arned uprising. That is not the situation. We're talking Ogie and his buddies. He even gave the Bundy example.

And what happened 2-300 years ago is hardly relevant in 2018.

This is the 2018 US military vs Ogie and 6 of his friends.

What happened 300 years ago is definitely relevant. There’s a reason Sun Tzu is still taught at military academies.

But yeah if you want to just boil it down to 7 guys vs an army I have no choice but to concede that point. But then this simply becomes a waste of both our times because revolutions aren’t fought by 7 guys.

Sun Tzu's ideas are relevant.

Armies from the 18th century being susceptible to citizen uprising is not.

You’re simply wrong. Every general in the world would disagree with you.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So Ogie and his buddies in his well regulated militia could stand up to the United States military?

Well the US military is feasibly capable of eradicating the civilian population with chemical or nuclear weapons, but if it gets to that point you'll wish you stood up to them with your AR-15's before it got to where the government became so tyrannical that it'd nuke its own people.

But assuming the government is unwilling to kill everyone just to take out the partisans, yes. Ogie and his buddies would be able to eventually wear down and sap the US military of its will to fight.

You're saying the US military couldn't kill Ogie and 6 of his friends without chemical weapons?

Sounds like a terrible army.

Deliberately misrepresenting the opposing argument is a bad look. We both know we aren’t talking about a group of a dozen guys but a much larger resistance. The kind you would see if confiscation actually started gaining mainstream consideration.

Nobody here is arguing that 8 guys are gonna take out an army.

You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

In Nevada they numbered in the hundreds, but they came from groups (such as the 3 Percenters) who's numbers go into the tens of thousands.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So Ogie and his buddies in his well regulated militia could stand up to the United States military?

Well the US military is feasibly capable of eradicating the civilian population with chemical or nuclear weapons, but if it gets to that point you'll wish you stood up to them with your AR-15's before it got to where the government became so tyrannical that it'd nuke its own people.

But assuming the government is unwilling to kill everyone just to take out the partisans, yes. Ogie and his buddies would be able to eventually wear down and sap the US military of its will to fight.

You're saying the US military couldn't kill Ogie and 6 of his friends without chemical weapons?

Sounds like a terrible army.


we should spend more money on it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
Everyone arguing against the AR15 is saying small arms can't defeat an army, yet none of them can tell me why we haven't wiped out the Taliban yet.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I don't think you realize how large the militia movement has become. The government is already scared of it and if you don't believe me, why do you think they stood down in Nevada?

mercy.

they should've been bombed into oblivion.

Well the government tried that approach at Waco and it got them Oklahoma City

Tell me, what would have happened if there was a massacre in Nevada?

applause for law and order. one less family of thieves and pretend soldier hanger-ons would be in the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So Ogie and his buddies in his well regulated militia could stand up to the United States military?

Well the US military is feasibly capable of eradicating the civilian population with chemical or nuclear weapons, but if it gets to that point you'll wish you stood up to them with your AR-15's before it got to where the government became so tyrannical that it'd nuke its own people.

But assuming the government is unwilling to kill everyone just to take out the partisans, yes. Ogie and his buddies would be able to eventually wear down and sap the US military of its will to fight.

You're saying the US military couldn't kill Ogie and 6 of his friends without chemical weapons?

Sounds like a terrible army.

Deliberately misrepresenting the opposing argument is a bad look. We both know we aren’t talking about a group of a dozen guys but a much larger resistance. The kind you would see if confiscation actually started gaining mainstream consideration.

Nobody here is arguing that 8 guys are gonna take out an army.

You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

They probably could but they didn’t. If they had wiped them out there’s a good chance they would have created an even larger uprising.

The point is the US Army would unequivocally not be able to put down a large armed revolution among its citizens. If the armed resistance was based on repealing the 2A there’s a huge contingent of soldiers that would straight up join the resistance.

It’s infinitely more complicated than how you’re making it out to be.

You can't claim protection from the 2A and then get mad if it is legally repealed. That's the rules you play by with Constitutional rights.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Everyone arguing against the AR15 is saying small arms can't defeat an army, yet none of them can tell me why we haven't wiped out the Taliban yet.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

this is why gun debate is hopeless. the discussion has shifted from the massacre of students to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19487
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Quote:
and recent history would back this up. The Taliban does not have any tanks, fighter jets, etc. but here they are 16 years later and gaining ground. We never repelled the Vietcong either.


The answer to both those questions is that the politicians are not letting the military do the job correctly.
They where basically not allowed to go after the North Viets in North Viet,that is a huge advantage. Lets hem rest and regroup.
The situation we are in now the reason we are not winning is simple ,you need boots on the ground. Not just a couple hundred but several thousand.Draft needs to be brought back and we need to send in along with allied forces major ground units to take and hold territory and show them they are defeated. Right now we are in a situation similar to what happened in Germany after WW1,yah they lost but they never seen occupation forces and never thought they really lost by being conquered.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
You can't claim protection from the 2A and then get mad if it is legally repealed. That's the rules you play by with Constitutional rights.

See here's why you really cant give into these people who want to ban guns. There's a totalitarian mindset at the center of it that is really dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
Well the US military is feasibly capable of eradicating the civilian population with chemical or nuclear weapons, but if it gets to that point you'll wish you stood up to them with your AR-15's before it got to where the government became so tyrannical that it'd nuke its own people.

But assuming the government is unwilling to kill everyone just to take out the partisans, yes. Ogie and his buddies would be able to eventually wear down and sap the US military of its will to fight.

You're saying the US military couldn't kill Ogie and 6 of his friends without chemical weapons?

Sounds like a terrible army.

Deliberately misrepresenting the opposing argument is a bad look. We both know we aren’t talking about a group of a dozen guys but a much larger resistance. The kind you would see if confiscation actually started gaining mainstream consideration.

Nobody here is arguing that 8 guys are gonna take out an army.

You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

They probably could but they didn’t. If they had wiped them out there’s a good chance they would have created an even larger uprising.

The point is the US Army would unequivocally not be able to put down a large armed revolution among its citizens. If the armed resistance was based on repealing the 2A there’s a huge contingent of soldiers that would straight up join the resistance.

It’s infinitely more complicated than how you’re making it out to be.

You can't claim protection from the 2A and then get mad if it is legally repealed. That's the rules you play by with Constitutional rights.

I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19487
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Everyone arguing against the AR15 is saying small arms can't defeat an army, yet none of them can tell me why we haven't wiped out the Taliban yet.


One word:Pakistan.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I don't think you realize how large the militia movement has become. The government is already scared of it and if you don't believe me, why do you think they stood down in Nevada?

mercy.

they should've been bombed into oblivion.

Well the government tried that approach at Waco and it got them Oklahoma City

Tell me, what would have happened if there was a massacre in Nevada?

applause for law and order. one less family of thieves and pretend soldier hanger-ons would be in the US.

You keep telling yourself that is what would happen, but I'd say the 1990s tell us there would be a different and more violent reaction.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
repealing it is never going to happen. but you could enact much stricter gun laws and the supreme court would eventually let them slide. they are very susceptible to the political winds.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
Hatchetman wrote:
repealing it is never going to happen. but you could enact much stricter gun laws and the supreme court would eventually let them slide. they are very susceptible to the political winds.

If you want to find a way to get the Dems to actually lose what could be a wave election, start talking about gun control. The Dems advantage this year is largely due to an enthusiasm gap. Gun control talk is one solid way to close that gap and lose all of the Senate seats the Dems are defending in red states.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

So the US government is afraid of murdering people because they dont want to incite an armed insurrection that they know they cannot win....and you say that's a bad thing?

I said nothing about an armed insurrection and definitely didn't say any of this was a bad thing.

I'm just playing out the "defend against tyrannical government" thing in our current reality.


But anyway, seems were just back to the inevitable conclusion. Our rights to bear arms...any and all arms...is more important than any amount of dead people/kids.

That's just our reality. I get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
rogers park bryan wrote:
I said nothing about an armed insurrection and definitely didn't say any of this was a bad thing.

I'm just playing out the "defend against tyrannical government" thing in our current reality.


But anyway, seems were just back to the inevitable conclusion. Our rights to bear arms...any and all arms...is more important than any amount of dead people/kids.

That's just our reality. I get it.

If you really cared about dead people/kids you wouldn't be attacking the AR-15.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
These arguments bore me. Why can't we all agree that 200-300 dead kids every year are a small price to pay for our beautiful 2nd amendment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

So the US government is afraid of murdering people because they dont want to incite an armed insurrection that they know they cannot win....and you say that's a bad thing?

I said nothing about an armed insurrection and definitely didn't say any of this was a bad thing.

I'm just playing out the "defend against tyrannical government" thing in our current reality.


But anyway, seems were just back to the inevitable conclusion. Our rights to bear arms...any and all arms...is more important than any amount of dead people/kids.

That's just our reality. I get it.



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

Well they would deserve what they got if they took up arms against the government to fight against a legally passed Constitutional amendment.

Keep in mind here the issue isn't the repeal. I don't think it should be repealed. However the gun lobby is offering no solutions at all. America just flat out said it.

The unlikely repeal may be the only shot at any meaningful change.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Fighting a land war on foreign territory and fighting on land that you are familiar with is different. RPB is right.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

Well they would deserve what they got if they took up arms against the government to fight against a legally passed Constitutional amendment.

Keep in mind here the issue isn't the repeal. I don't think it should be repealed. However the gun lobby is offering no solutions at all. America just flat out said it.

The unlikely repeal may be the only shot at any meaningful change.

so apparently if its legal its moral. interesting take, you've just greenlit some pretty abhorrent shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Nas wrote:
Fighting a land war on foreign territory and fighting on land that you are familiar with is different. RPB is right.

a soldier from Florida is going to very adept and familiar with rural Oregon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
FavreFan wrote:
]
You’re simply wrong. Every general in the world would disagree with you.

So there haven't been so many advancements in weaponry that 300 year old ideas don't work without major updates?

That's surprising. I'll take your word for it.

Doesn't change the fact that Ogie's fantasy about a Bundy group standing up to the US military and winning any less ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

Well they would deserve what they got if they took up arms against the government to fight against a legally passed Constitutional amendment.

Keep in mind here the issue isn't the repeal. I don't think it should be repealed. However the gun lobby is offering no solutions at all. America just flat out said it.

The unlikely repeal may be the only shot at any meaningful change.

I am pretty confident that total confiscation would result in an armed revolution regardless of it being completely legal.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
America wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

Well they would deserve what they got if they took up arms against the government to fight against a legally passed Constitutional amendment.

Keep in mind here the issue isn't the repeal. I don't think it should be repealed. However the gun lobby is offering no solutions at all. America just flat out said it.

The unlikely repeal may be the only shot at any meaningful change.

so apparently if its legal its moral. interesting take, you've just greenlit some pretty abhorrent shit.

If you rightfully stand by your rights based on a Constitutional amendment then you have to accept it is no longer your right when it is repealed.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
America wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You over use the _____ is a bad look thing. It's ironically....a bad look.

How many people did Bundy have?

That was and continues to be the example Ogie us using.

You think the US military is unable to take out Bundy and pals?

So the US government is afraid of murdering people because they dont want to incite an armed insurrection that they know they cannot win....and you say that's a bad thing?

I said nothing about an armed insurrection and definitely didn't say any of this was a bad thing.

I'm just playing out the "defend against tyrannical government" thing in our current reality.


But anyway, seems were just back to the inevitable conclusion. Our rights to bear arms...any and all arms...is more important than any amount of dead people/kids.

That's just our reality. I get it.



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Right. No amount of dead children will deter us. We're in agreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 17217
pizza_Place: Pequods
America wrote:
Nas wrote:
Fighting a land war on foreign territory and fighting on land that you are familiar with is different. RPB is right.

a soldier from Florida is going to very adept and familiar with rural Oregon.

Let's be honest, the soldier from Florida probably has uncles who previously served and are now involved in militias. He and half of his unit are going to desert when given orders to put them down.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
]
You’re simply wrong. Every general in the world would disagree with you.

So there haven't been so many advancements in weaponry that 300 year old ideas don't work without major updates?

That's surprising. I'll take your word for it.

Doesn't change the fact that Ogie's fantasy about a Bundy group standing up to the US military and winning any less ridiculous.

Weapons are a lot more advanced. military strategies against superior firepower don’t become invalidated because of super superior firepower though.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Good chat fellas. Appreciate all of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
America wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I’m not getting mad, but good luck telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to get mad about :lol:

Well they would deserve what they got if they took up arms against the government to fight against a legally passed Constitutional amendment.

Keep in mind here the issue isn't the repeal. I don't think it should be repealed. However the gun lobby is offering no solutions at all. America just flat out said it.

The unlikely repeal may be the only shot at any meaningful change.

so apparently if its legal its moral. interesting take, you've just greenlit some pretty abhorrent shit.

If you rightfully stand by your rights based on a Constitutional amendment then you have to accept it is no longer your right when it is repealed.

what


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 846 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group