The CDC Wants More Money to Eradicate ... Your Rights

[Smitty-48]

I mean, anybody who has been following the thread will note, as soon as the liberal sacred cow of the CDC was even mentioned for possible rationalization, Milspecs the Blue Team hack said what, again?

"ZOMG pandemics!"

Even tho the only real pandemic threat would be emergent influenza, which, the CDC does not have a cure for, she pulled the panic lever reflexively, and went all the way to doomsday as a partisan wedge.

Bait and switch, the CDC is doing what now? Gun Control.

The Second Amendment as "pandemic", and Milspecs is all for it; Blue Team sacred cow.

They can't get a constitutional amendment, but there is no limits to the variations of doomsday they will invoke to get around that, up to and including equating firearms with weaponized smallpox or some such shit. lol.

This is why Blue Team wants the CDC to be in charge of this instead of the military, the CDC is their ideological lapdog, the Pentagon is not.

In the CBRN biz, everybody knows how this works, USAMRIID is the operational animal, spends all its time preparing to fight a war against pathogens, CDC is the political animal, spends all its time coming up with rubrics for Blue Team to expand the nanny state.

[jediuser598]

The price of freedom is that some people are going to abuse it. Sometimes criminally so.

People just need to realize that yes, people are going to be more deadly if they have access to guns. No we shouldn't restrict access to guns because people shoot up schools. I'm not a fan of sacrificing freedom for a bit of security. If felons serve their time, then they should have all of their rights restored, including their 2nd amendment rights. Mental disabilities should not disallow you from having guns.

Purchasing and owning guns is a right in America. There should be little to no "backround" checks or hoops to jump through for exercising our essential rights. Fuck backround checks. Anyone who isn't in prison or in jail, should be allowed to own and use guns.

[Smitty-48]

Actually, I don't think that's the case, you can have all sorts of restrictions, up to the very threshold of the Second Amendment, at the state level, ain't nothing wrong with that, the problem is; one size fits all federal gun control, which is really what the gun grabbers are after here, and why they are trying to hijack the CDC.

Now, the best way to deter this sort of thing, would be a scorched earth program, where liberal gun grabbers come to understand that, if they put their federal sacred cows agencies into the path of States Rights, those agencies can and will be defunded to the point of de facto relegation, any federal agency they try to conscript into their ideological agenda, is an agency that they are imperiling in the process, the agencies themselves will understand that as well, so they will flee from the gun grabbers at the first sign of them.

[jediuser598]

Actually, I don't think that's the case, you can have all sorts of gun control, strict gun control even, up to the very threshold of the Second Amendment, at the state level, ain't nothing wrong with that, the problem is; one size fits all federal gun control, which is really what the gun grabbers are after here, and why they are trying to hijack the CDC.

I'm not a fan of gun control outside of people can't own rpg's, nukes, tanks and stuff like that.

As towards the CDC, why the fuck should the CDC be worried about guns, seems to be way outside of their purview. That's just stupid.

[Smitty-48]

Actually, I don't think that's the case, you can have all sorts of gun control, strict gun control even, up to the very threshold of the Second Amendment, at the state level, ain't nothing wrong with that, the problem is; one size fits all federal gun control, which is really what the gun grabbers are after here, and why they are trying to hijack the CDC.

I'm not a fan of gun control outside of people can't own rpg's, nukes, tanks and stuff like that.

What's wrong with a tank? English faggots are at liberty to drive their own tanks, all they need is an "H" class drivers license.

Look, here's one now, driving a tank around London town.

[jediuser598]

Now, the best way to deter this sort of thing, would be a scorched earth program, where liberal gun grabbers come to understand that, if they put their federal sacred cows agencies into the path of States Rights, those agencies can and will be defunded to the point of de facto relegation, any federal agency they try to conscript into their ideological agenda, is an agency that they are imperiling in the process, the agencies themselves will understand that as well, so they will flee from the gun grabbers at the first sign of them.

Like Team Red gives a flying fuck about states rights. You see what Sessions said to California?

“There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled,” he continued.

And how do you get past a democratic filibuster to defund one of their sacred cows? Hell if that's how it worked, the EPA would have been gone already. Here's the problem with your approach, That's like killing your siblings dog for a wrong they did to you. Guess what? Still gotta live in the same house as them, you're still family. You don't go all scorched earth on your brother, cause you're burning down your own house as well.

[jediuser598]

Actually, I don't think that's the case, you can have all sorts of gun control, strict gun control even, up to the very threshold of the Second Amendment, at the state level, ain't nothing wrong with that, the problem is; one size fits all federal gun control, which is really what the gun grabbers are after here, and why they are trying to hijack the CDC.

I'm not a fan of gun control outside of people can't own rpg's, nukes, tanks and stuff like that.

What's wrong with a tank? English faggots are at liberty to drive their own tanks, all they need is an "H" class drivers license.

Look, here's one now, driving a tank around London town.

I think the world would get very interesting very quick if civilians could own nukes.

[Smitty-48]

I think the world would get very interesting very quick if civilians could own nukes.

I would assert that the following clause in the constitution would preclude the state militias from possessing strategic weapons, short of invasion by foreign power;

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"

Like, Red Dawn scenario, Soviet Red Army overrunning Nebraska, federal forces unable to defend? OK, at that point they can take control of the nukes in situ, but short of that I would say not.

Well Regulated Militia is a states right, whereas strategic weapons of war fall under the authority of congress.

A strategic weapon is a weapon which can be deployed on very short notice for immediate action entirely for the purposes of interstate warfare, and thus strategic weapons are on a war footing at all times by their very nature, and thus, to posses a nuclear weapon, would be to "engage in War" by default.

So when gun grabbers invoke the "well you can't have nukes so you shouldn't have AR-15's" that's just another fallacious canard peddled in bad faith.

[jediuser598]

I think the world would get very interesting very quick if civilians could own nukes.

I would assert that the following clause in the constitution would preclude the state militias from possessing strategic weapons, short of invasion by foreign power;

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"

Like, Red Dawn scenario, Soviet Red Army overrunning Nebraska, federal forces unable to defend? OK, at that point they can take control of the nukes in situ, but short of that I would say not.

Well Regulated Militia is a states right, whereas strategic weapons of war fall under the authority of congress.

So when gun grabbers invoke the "well you can't have nukes so you shouldn't have AR-15's" that's just another fallacious canard peddled in bad faith.

Agreed.

Well known though is my general dislike of libertarians. It's got me thinking, Libertarians, like *real* libertarians wouldn't mind letting their civilians own nukes, would they? Imagine that world, someone like Bill Gates could get one. At that point, he could hold any city hostage, "Do what I say or get nuked." What's the libertarian response to that? Sorry I might be straying a bit from the original thread.

[Smitty-48]

I would say that your neighbor possessing a nuclear weapon would fall under the prohibition of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", the extreme danger of a nuclear weapon in proximity to other yeoman as it were, would to me constitute a violation of libertarian principles, because it precludes the reasonable enjoyment of their property by default.

Plutonium under explosive lenses in your neighbors yard; nope, that's not reasonable, absurdly disproportionate measure, so you should reasonably be within your rights not to have your property burdened by that menace, to force you to live in fear of it would be a de facto attack upon your person and pursuit of happiness.

Terrorizing; fist meets nose.