Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Yes, clearly only a heavily-armed populace could expect to have any sort of democracy.
The only way I lose my enfranchisement, is if you and most of the forum do as well. I'm in a lot of favorable demographics.
Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Yes, clearly only a heavily-armed populace could expect to have any sort of democracy.
The only way I lose my enfranchisement, is if you and most of the forum do as well. I'm in a lot of favorable demographics.
Only an armed populace can be said to possess self-government. Yes. You are almost there. Don't give up now, trevor. You can do it!
Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Yes, clearly only a heavily-armed populace could expect to have any sort of democracy.
The only way I lose my enfranchisement, is if you and most of the forum do as well. I'm in a lot of favorable demographics.
Removing a tiny percentage of the 300+ million guns in circulation = disarming and we're the scaredy cats
Last edited by Montegriffo on Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Yes, clearly only a heavily-armed populace could expect to have any sort of democracy.
The only way I lose my enfranchisement, is if you and most of the forum do as well. I'm in a lot of favorable demographics.
Removing a tiny percentage of the 300+ million guns in circulation = disarming.
Which ones are we removing?
Martin Hash wrote:Liberty allows people to get their jollies any way they want. Just don't expect to masturbate with my lotion.
Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Speaker to Animals wrote:It's always weird when GCF argues with me because I definitely want to take away his enfranchisement in the vote, but then he goes on to defend the idea of disarming the American people. He doesn't seem to know how to connect the dots..
Yes, clearly only a heavily-armed populace could expect to have any sort of democracy.
The only way I lose my enfranchisement, is if you and most of the forum do as well. I'm in a lot of favorable demographics.
Removing a tiny percentage of the 300+ million guns in circulation = disarming and we're the scaredy cats
It's a question of who governs whom. If the state has the authority to deprive you of "scary guns", then the manifest fact of the matter is: you do not possess self-government. You will get the government those who control the guns deem you worthy of receiving, in your case probably enforced by the likes of Smitty on behalf of the sovereign.
A self-governing people must have the means to defend their prerogative. take those means away and they no longer self-govern. Democracy becomes a farce as one can readily see in the UK.
Personally, I am all for disarming the likes of GCF and disenfranchising them from the vote because they have proven themselves nothing but a pox upon liberty and American governance. Don't get me wrong here. I understand well why any government would want to disarm leftists.
Quick thought experiment: if the UK government decides tomorrow to gas all overweight subjects and those who live like pikeys in motor vehicles, what could Monty do about that? I suppose he could complain. He could object in the strongest terms as he was dragged away. Perhaps his fellow subjects might think about protesting, which never changes a damned thing, but maybe the government will crack down on that too.
Only an armed populace can actually #resist. It's amazing to me that the people signalling #resist nonstop for a year now want to disarm everybody. The people whose resistance to Trump is predicated on the fantasy of what they would do to stop the rise of Hitler if they were in Germany in those days want to remove the very tools that actually would enable the people to stop the rise of a tyrant.
We don’t have self-governance. We gave that up to fight WW2. Your small arms became obsolete 30 years ago. You cannot #resist anything bigger than the local police force. Forget it. Not happening, unless you want to stage a full-on Civil War, which would be fought by the fucking army anyway, and you’d be too busy looking for food to even help.
You are regularly invaded, probed, and detained by the government already. If your parents didn’t #resist, then it’s too fucking late now. Drop this insane fantasy.
