U.S. Politics - Thread

[The DoggFather]

I never said that I'm not biased.

Read my post again, you regurgitate without any analysis of what you've consumed

It's so evident because it's literally the same shit that fox/oan/newsmax have just spewed the night before.

But you’re missing my point. You literally say the same shit I can just turn on cnn/msnbc to get your exact opinion from. And also AOCs twitter lol

That's why I say FUCK THE MEDIA.

It's not straight news, it's just opinions and agendas "presented" as news.

 

[DinkumDog]

It’s the principal. If a tyrannical government wants total control. They’ll ban the citizens from having guns. It doesn’t matter if they had more powerful guns or like Biden said his government has nukes. You ain’t going to nuke your own people unless you’re a legit spawn of Satan. By saying oh well they have more powerful weapons might as well give up our last remaining bit of hope to fight for freedom you’re just handing the power over. I mean putting things into perspective the Americans were way underpowered to the English at the time of the revolution and the militias formed with shitty guns were a big part of the difference.

So explain John Howard, a staunch conservative who banned automatic / military style guns after Port Arthur. And we haven’t had a massacre since. Was he tyrannical? Was it to ‘control the people’? No, he just didn’t want to see another Port Arthur, the same as Jacinda Arden (a leftie) didn’t want to see another Christchurch. It’s common sense, nothing more, it’s not even a political argument but was turned into one.

 

[Realist90]

So explain John Howard, a staunch conservative who banned automatic / military style guns after Port Arthur. And we haven’t had a massacre since. Was he tyrannical? Was it to ‘control the people’? No, he just didn’t want to see another Port Arthur, the same as Jacinda Arden (a leftie) didn’t want to see another Christchurch. It’s common sense, nothing more, it’s not even a political argument but was turned into one.

I hope this is just due to my lack of being bothered in my grammar here that you’re not understanding lol.
The point isn’t that if a government takes guns that’s what makes them a rogue tyrannical government. It’s that let’s say a tyrannical government did come in, later down the track, what fighting chance would we have if the only people with guns are the rogue government and criminals?
And then when we talk about America it’s a totally different ball game. No country is like America when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That's why I say FUCK THE MEDIA.

It's not straight news, it's just opinions and agendas "presented" as news.

I tend to agree. But then you hit the problem of, where do you get your news from?

The main stream media is definitely biased, but unfortunately the alternatives are much worse.

 

[CaptainJackson]

That's why I say FUCK THE MEDIA.

It's not straight news, it's just opinions and agendas "presented" as news.

I watch my opinion shows and it's none of the MSM stuff. Minor players like David pakman.

But there's quite clearly a difference one can determine in someone who watches opinion shows and forms their own opinions after watching said shows vs someone who just repeats the bullshit they've just watched

A glaring example I can give is realist saying Cassidy Hutchinsons whole testimony was hearsay. It wasn't, that hearsay bullshit was straight from Laura Ingram, it's straight out bullshit, as far away from fact as you can get. Realist repeated it word for word from fox news.

Someone who formed their own opinion on Hutchinsons testimony would have said she gave first hand witness testimony on some things but others were hearsay (ie things she heard others say they heard someone else say)

Again realist regurgitates the bullshit he hears with no analysis on it

 

[The DoggFather]

I tend to agree. But then you hit the problem of, where do you get your news from?

The main stream media is definitely biased, but unfortunately the alternatives are much worse.

Exactly.

MSM isn't as bad as the internet, but it's getting there.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I hope this is just due to my lack of being bothered in my grammar here that you’re not understanding lol.
The point isn’t that if a government takes guns that’s what makes them a rogue tyrannical government. It’s that let’s say a tyrannical government did come in, later down the track, what fighting chance would we have if the only people with guns are the rogue government and criminals?
And then when we talk about America it’s a totally different ball game. No country is like America when it comes to this sort of thing.

Unless the government is going to allow people to own tanks and RPGs, I don't see how it's really that relevant.

 

[DinkumDog]

I hope this is just due to my lack of being bothered in my grammar here that you’re not understanding lol.
The point isn’t that if a government takes guns that’s what makes them a rogue tyrannical government. It’s that let’s say a tyrannical government did come in, later down the track, what fighting chance would we have if the only people with guns are the rogue government and criminals?
And then when we talk about America it’s a totally different ball game. No country is like America when it comes to this sort of thing.

Don’t blame your lack of grammar on people not understanding you. We understand you perfectly.
We just don’t understand you .

So you’re speculating, but based on the example of Australia and NZ post massacre that didn’t happen - but let’s keep pumping the people full of fear and keep them armed just in case. I can equally say well what if I get hit by bus tomorrow I’d better not leave the house. Yep, sound logic there, as they assist and await the next mass US shooting…utterly lame argument.

 

[Mr 95%]

It’s the principal. If a tyrannical government wants total control. They’ll ban the citizens from having guns. It doesn’t matter if they had more powerful guns or like Biden said his government has nukes. You ain’t going to nuke your own people unless you’re a legit spawn of Satan. By saying oh well they have more powerful weapons might as well give up our last remaining bit of hope to fight for freedom you’re just handing the power over. I mean putting things into perspective the Americans were way underpowered to the English at the time of the revolution and the militias formed with shitty guns were a big part of the difference.

Forget the principle, think of the reality, a tyrannical government will do what they have to do to take, or hold power..thats why they are tyrannical!*

Speaking of guns..and speaking of reality, I’m not unrealistic enough to think you can ban guns outright (i’ll be honest I used to think that way)..its virtually embedded in their culture and almost impossible to take them from citizens..but I’m all for a complete overall in gun management..with better regulations to stop those who shouldn’t get guns not get em..or the type of guns available.. I’m also for a universal approach to gun management..for example, the storage of guns should be the same in every state..one state guns are to be under lock and key, other states guns can be laid out in the open..some states you just have to turn 18 to get a gun..To me this is the key..look they are hellbent on keeping their guns.. I just wish both parties would lay down their ’arms’ (pun intended) and make a combined concerted effort to make the rules around guns that are strong enough and stringent enough to hopefully see a decrease in shootings.. As the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just not working..


Just a note…the only reason the Americans won the Civil is because they were provided ammunition by the French, so that negates that point about them being underpowered..

*I dare say no nukes as it’d be detrimental to themselves..lol!

 

[Realist90]

Don’t blame your lack of grammar on people not understanding you. We understand you perfectly.
We just don’t understand you .

So you’re speculating, but based on the example of Australia and NZ post massacre that didn’t happen - but let’s keep pumping the people full of fear and keep them armed just in case. I can equally say well what if I get hit by bus tomorrow I’d better not leave the house. Yep, sound logic there, as they assist and await the next mass US shooting…utterly lame argument.

I’m not blaming it on that but couldn’t understand how you got the conclusion I think a government is tyrnnical just by banning guns. My point was with the 2nd amendment it’s main reason is so that the citizens have a fighting chance to protect their rights and freedoms if it ever happened. Let’s say for arguments sake a Stalin or mao type leader came
In and started slautering thousands and then millions of their own people due to believing in the wrong ideologies. Would you not want at least a fighting chance to fight for your rights? And the good thing with America you can get quite a lot of military grade weaponry to keep up with the military to a certain point, but then it can’t just be oh they have tanks we have no chance, warfare tactics change. Take the Vietcong for example. Wayyyyyyyyyy underpowered in regards to military technology and weaponry, yet their use of guerilla warfare made americas power almost naught. They won’t be lining up old school in rows and lines and shoot directly at each other lol

 

[Realist90]

Forget the principle, think of the reality, a tyrannical government will do what they have to do to take, or hold power..thats why they are tyrannical!*

Speaking of guns..and speaking of reality, I’m not unrealistic enough to think you can ban guns outright (i’ll be honest I used to think that way)..its virtually embedded in their culture and almost impossible to take them from citizens..but I’m all for a complete overall in gun management..with better regulations to stop those who shouldn’t get guns not get em..or the type of guns available.. I’m also for a universal approach to gun management..for example, the storage of guns should be the same in every state..one state guns are to be under lock and key, other states guns can be laid out in the open..some states you just have to turn 18 to get a gun..To me this is the key..look they are hellbent on keeping their guns.. I just wish both parties would lay down their ’arms’ (pun intended) and make a combined concerted effort to make the rules around guns that are strong enough and stringent enough to hopefully see a decrease in shootings.. As the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is just not working..


Just a note…the only reason the Americans won the Civil is because they were provided ammunition by the French, so that negates that point about them being underpowered..

*I dare say no nukes as it’d be detrimental to themselves..lol!

I touched on this in my reply to dinkum in regards to government having better military tech etc.

The current interpretation is the only interpretation that can be given. You can argue awwww they had muskets back then. But that was inline with the technology they had back then. You’ve gotta then prove that if they were alive today they’d say oh na weapons are too powerful now citizens can’t have them only government. That goes against their whole arguemnt with the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment allows the citizens to keep up with the technology of the times. I could probably agree with more background checks but then the whole privacy laws comes into play and we don’t want the government peering too much into peoples lives.

 

[DinkumDog]

I’m not blaming it on that but couldn’t understand how you got the conclusion I think a government is tyrnnical just by banning guns. My point was with the 2nd amendment it’s main reason is so that the citizens have a fighting chance to protect their rights and freedoms if it ever happened. Let’s say for arguments sake a Stalin or mao type leader came
In and started slautering thousands and then millions of their own people due to believing in the wrong ideologies. Would you not want at least a fighting chance to fight for your rights? And the good thing with America you can get quite a lot of military grade weaponry to keep up with the military to a certain point, but then it can’t just be oh they have tanks we have no chance, warfare tactics change. Take the Vietcong for example. Wayyyyyyyyyy underpowered in regards to military technology and weaponry, yet their use of guerilla warfare made americas power almost naught. They won’t be lining up old school in rows and lines and shoot directly at each other lol

You’re either trolling or you actually believe this propaganda. If the former well played. If the latter, in the words of Agent Orange: Sad!

I specifically said in the case of Australia and NZ (and there’s more examples eg: Norway post Anders Breivik) there was no ‘what if’ outcome and hence it’s a lame argument to keep people armed ‘just in case’.

 

[CaptainJackson]

we don’t want the government peering too much into peoples lives.

Facepalm

Facepalm

Facepalm

 

[CaptainJackson]

*I dare say no nukes as it’d be detrimental to themselves..lol!

I dont think it's a bridge too far when Mr "ingest disinfectants" wanted to nuclear bomb a hurricane

 

[Mr 95%]

Facepalm

Facepalm

Facepalm

Are you referring to a recent decision by the Supreme Court? Lol..

 

[CaptainJackson]

Are you referring to a recent decision by the Supreme Court? Lol..

That and those same adjudicators wanting to further encroach into the bedroom

 

[Realist90]

You’re either trolling or you actually believe this propaganda. If the former well played. If the latter, in the words of Agent Orange: Sad!

I specifically said in the case of Australia and NZ (and there’s more examples eg: Norway post Anders Breivik) there was no ‘what if’ outcome and hence it’s a lame argument to keep people armed ‘just in case’.

He says “Wrong!” not sad lol.
This whole argument is about america though with the 2nd amendment and abortion? You can’t use what works in one country as evidence it will work in another country. That’s like saying communism didn’t work in Russia so it would work in China…. Oh wait

 

[Mr 95%]

I touched on this in my reply to dinkum in regards to government having better military tech etc.

The current interpretation is the only interpretation that can be given. You can argue awwww they had muskets back then. But that was inline with the technology they had back then. You’ve gotta then prove that if they were alive today they’d say oh na weapons are too powerful now citizens can’t have them only government. That goes against their whole arguemnt with the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment allows the citizens to keep up with the technology of the times. I could probably agree with more background checks but then the whole privacy laws comes into play and we don’t want the government peering too much into peoples lives.

Not really..the interpretation has changed over the years.. As I said, to take guns off the US citizens would require decades of cultural change.. However, they seriously need to address the rules and regulations around gun ownership or shootings and massacres will continue..

 

[Realist90]

Not really..the interpretation has changed over the years.. As I said, to take guns off the US citizens would require decades of cultural change.. However, they seriously need to address the rules and regulations around gun ownership or shootings and massacres will continue..

It’s never changed to the point where citizens haven’t got the constitutional right to own and bear arms and can never be changed unless you actually change the constitution which is what the democrats ultimately want to do with almost everything because it was written by straight Christian white men so is out of touch to the new and improved version of America where a woman is a man and a man is a woman Bose versa lol, oh and dragons too

 

[CaptainJackson]

It’s never changed to the point where citizens haven’t got the constitutional right to own and bear arms and can never be changed unless you actually change the constitution which is what the democrats ultimately want to do with almost everything because it was written by straight Christian white men so is out of touch to the new and improved version of America where a woman is a man and a man is a woman Bose versa lol, oh and dragons too

Do you know what amendment means?