Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But those polls are national polls and that could mean she loses the popular vote but wins the EC. It's not how many vote for you, it's only those who win in battleground states.
Clinton was up 10 points in 2016 and still lost. Your polls are meaningless.
So your overall point is "nothing happens until it does"? Let's say I want to send people to death camps, but I don't want to have a hard time with it, so I want to start trying to disarm people first. What would that look like?
You would have a hard time with it regardless, because sending people to death camps is exactly the kind of outrageous "I am evil!" stunt that actually could spark mass resistance, regardless of whether or not people have guns. But like I said, that won't happen, because a modern authoritarian government has nothing to gain from that kind of mustache-twirling stunt.
I'm talking about America in the current general period of time, not other countries and not other times in history. Short of the government doing something outrageously drastic like marching stormtroopers down the streets or sending people to death camps (which it has no reason to do, as there are far more effective and discreet ways to operate an authoritarian regime), Americans are not going to sacrifice their livelihoods and leave their families so that they can become unpaid freedom fighters and spend the rest of their lives as hunted fugitives. They have too much to live for.
Where do these polls happen? I've always wanted to be Polled.
I think I'm interpreting "disarm" and "ban guns" a bit more broadly than you, but regardless, I'll rephrase - I strongly disagree with the notion that an armed population are somehow a check on the federal government or a deterrent to any undesirable activity on their part, and that if the government were planning to pass shitty, unpopular, or blatantly unconstitutional laws, they would first need to disarm the population. That's just something that gun enthusiasts like to tell themselves (and everyone else) so they can imagine that they're actually performing an important civic duty by pursuing their hobby.
I'm not trying to call you specifically out. I'm just saying that the implied threat of an armed population in this country making trouble for or resisting an oppressive government is ultimately an empty one. Americans will not rise up against their government en masse, with or without their guns. Politicians know this. In fact, I'd say that anyone who has taken the time to actually think about this subject instead of immediately accepting gun enthusiasts' romanticized view of their hobby as the undisputed truth knows this. In light of this fact, I think that conspiracy theories about how gun control laws and policies are secretly intended to make the population compliant and unable to resist in the face of further tyranny fall apart.
As Jim Jeffreys notes in his bit about guns in one of his stand up tours, there's only one argument for having guns, and that's "I like guns".
People don't need it for "protection", they're not going to rise up against the government, they just like guns.
This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.What do you want a gun for then?
Oh, ok. You should rest easy then. If I'm found with a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb by the federal government it will definitely be taken away from me and I will definitely get in a lot of trouble. So this "disarming" that you speak of actually happened decades ago, no need to fear it as something imminent now.
I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public
You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.
Examples?
I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public
I'm not saying you can't rebel; I'm saying you won't rebel. Prove me wrong.
It's been very successfully implemented in other countries
it's objectively an ideal way to all but eradicate every negative effect that prostitution has on society at large - diseases, violence, sexual assault, and the like.
I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far.
"my friend 'went to a voodoo ritual'" is already a bridge too far for me to take anything that follows at face value
no i just think he's lying
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
I'll take "things that never happened" for $1000, Alex!
Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo."Trump did the wrong thing" is why the nonprofit organization representing the Haitian immigrants who have legal status is filing criminal charges against Trump, even if the local authorities won't.
As if Trump hasn't been fund raising to pay his legal bills for years.What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.
What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort. Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong.
