Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, May 26, 2016.
Keep your dirty socialist mitts off my guns you fucking yuropoors.
Meh, you can keep your guns. I personally have little interest in them, but don't really have a horse in this race either. Only thing that should be done is effective background checks; if you're on something akin to a no-fly list, or have any history of being mentally unbalanced or what have you, you should not be able to buy a gun. The NRA actually supports a similar position, if memory serves.
They also hated each other and had very different views on how the country should be.
They had their disagreements but hated eachother?
Also I find it kind of funny (read: horrifying) how readily some people are to just throw out the Constitution and what our founders said in regards to the formation and continuation of the country.
Dude, Aaron Burr killed Hamilton.
No, we just believe it's a living document.
Imagine if dueling would be still allowed.
I know, I know, not exactly the same and hyperbole. And you don't mean it like that. But I just find it funny to think some 150 years back.
I am sure some people had the exact same thought when they changed that thing with slavery in the constitution ...
The greeks have a nice saying, societies that don't change, eventually stagnate and die.
That doesn't mean you can just apply the blanket term "the founding fathers hated eachother" because of one duel and some of them having disagreements.
Documents don't breathe.
Then those people didn't know what they were talking about as slavery was never listed as a Constitutional right.
That's why we have the (not always used well) amendment process but the first 10 amendments are the most important and should never be trampled on.
There was quite a hefty war because of that 'right' to own slaves. You might have heard about it :p.
*There was quite a hefty war because of State's rights. You might have heard about it :p
I never claimed that it was a part of the constitution. I am just saying changes can happen. How likely they are? That's of course a whole different matter. But who knows what might be in 50 or 100 or 150 years. Maybe we would see another civil war then? Who knows. I mean there is after all a legal procedure to make changes, even in this case. I mean let us assume, for the sake of this argument, the legal requirements for a change of the second amendment would all be met, what do you think would happen? What would you do? Would you grab a gun and fight the government? - Again I am not saying this is likely or even a good thing. I am just curious.
Well the Bill of Rights has been doing just fine for the last 250 years so I'm not too worried about that.
I can't really say. I'd certainly hope that if the United States got that corrupt to that point we'd be looking at another Civil War. It's hard to say what I'd personally do because big changes like that are usually preceded by a whole lot of other shit beforehand.
What would you do if the 4th Reich started cropping up around you?
It's a shame Burr didn't take out Hamilton sooner tbh.
The Founding Fathers are a much cooler group of people than a lot of people give them credit for. I'm personally a fan of Charles Lee and dislike how he was treated by George Washington (and yes, he wasn't a Founding Father but was close). The FF couldn't agree on anything, which is why they tossed out the 'original' American government in order to make a new one almost as soon as the paper was dry. They didn't agree on who should be able to vote, slavery, and were constantly feuding over everything from the banking system of the United States to taxation as well as the powers of the government.
Then again, I prefer Hamilton to 1776.
Considering that Germany is a nation that has weapon onwnership not as a part of it's constitution and a very difficult process to get weapons, I find that a bit offensive! *I am not serious here, but I am just saying, hyperbole much? :p
I wasn't focusing on weapon ownership specifically but I mean't seeing something that's a fundamental part of the nation like one of the Bill of Rights being taken away is just as extreme and out there to me as Germany becoming great again forming the 4th Reich.
Just because you have a job doesn't mean that you're not lazy.
You can't eliminate poverty, period. What you can do is increase living standards for the poor. And the system which preforms best in that regard is lassiez-faire capitalism.
No, that's not what survivorship bias is. I'm not saying that everyone magically becomes rich in capitalism, nor should they. You just can't seem to understand that not everyone is an egalitarian.
Since the pdf itself contains absolutely nothing in terms of evidence, and its sources are papers that have to be paid for (and not cheap either), I don't find it very credible. The source for the situation in France says in its description that it looks at Public-Private Partnerships (that's very different from outright privatization).
As for the UK thing, it's terribly cherry-picked if not an outright lie.
Maybe they could do that if the government wasn't stealing a third of their income.
>never said that
>goes on to say exactly that
On a completely unrelated note, I am 100% in support of some kind of mutual combat law.
How do y'all feel about that?
That sounds like it could very easily be abused.
Like, what if someone blackmailed you in to fighting them by saying they'd harm your family or something.
It seems a bit dangerous tbh.
Seattle has mutual combat laws so it's not like it's completely unprecedented. I'm sure it has it's flaws but I think it creates an opportunity for people to settle grievances in a lawful manner as oppose to having people subvert the law to do so, which tends to dramatically escalate things.
Think the problem is that it then becomes endemic. I know France (in the 19th century, admitedly) had duels solve everything, but they eventually figured out that between people who cheated, people who died by mistake or malicious design, people who simply went overboard, and people generally being stupid, it caused way more problems than it could ever solve.
There's probably enough violence in America without trying to add to it, just sayin'.
This is somewhat interesting. Somebody looked into the whole "Trump loves Putin" deal. Apparently Trump, due to his many business failures and huge debt load, is blacklisted by almost every major american bank (the Deutsche Bank still deals with him, and they're failing) so he's kinda reliant on russian money sources.
Also, top kek no. 2, all new Trump hotels will be named "Scion" now instead of "Trump" as apparently the name is not that great of a brand anymore.
Interestingly though, according to Reuters, despite more republicans being suspicious of the validity of the election, more democrats are apparently prepared to take up arms if the election doesn't go their way.