Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[BlackSand]

What's the problem? I'm trying to figure out what BlackSand is saying.

I think we are little off-topic ...

.​

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, so I take it you do not support government in any way (e.g. leveraging the coercion of the state to your own advantage by voting, etc.)?

Are you saying that you view governmental imposition into your life as just one more hurdle to overcome?

The anarchist does too, they are just trying to "mitigate its effect" by using discourse and argumentation as means to strike at governmental imposition at its source - public support. If I'm understanding your position correctly, you do not acknowledge external authority as valid - governmental or otherwise - and so how are you not an anarchist?

Also, as a matter of curiosity, do you have a personal moral code, or are you merely citing pragmatism as your motivation?

Yes ... I am guided by a moral code and principles.
Yes ... In many ways I am pragmatic (when called for).

In some aspects I am required to acknowledge authority and benefit from external controls.
I don't concern myself with aspects of established governance that do not impede my progress.
When elements of established governance impede my progress, I adapt and innovate within the confines of my morals and principles.

Yes ... I see government as a imposition, but I don't necessarily fight the system to defeat the system.
I fight the system only to achieve my goals when necessary.
I set my goals to coincide with what is within the realm of what I can actually effectively influence, and within the confines of my principles.

What I do is like having a task and a toolbox full of tools.
I use the tools I need when I need them, fix the things I know I can fix, build the things I think need to be built ...
And let the rest of world figure out what it is they should be doing.

.​

Yeah, we are off-topic. SORRY EVERYBODY, I just found your position compelling and wanted to better understand it. Um, so let's see if we can accomplish both...

So you probably wouldn't have much to say about whether government comes for people's guns, or whether the people would fight back, right? (I jumped in the thread late, maybe you already addressed it)

I respect your commitment to subjectivity (in the sense that you're focused on your own situation and how best to deal with what your perception presents), though I do subscribe to the notion of moral imperatives (in the sense that behaviors have consequences, and it behooves us to obey nature's laws to avoid undesirable consequences). What you've said doesn't obviate this notion, but I believe there is a moral imperative to consider your effect on the world around you - for instance, speaking the truth about the immorality of gun confiscation when the topic arises.

You'll forgive any implied assumptions, I don't fully grasp the full breadth of your position. I also get that there's no reason why I should, but ya know... just curious... just two people talking.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Makes you start to consider the Anarchy position a little less insane, doesn't it?

I am far from starting to consider Anarchy ... I have been practicing self-rule for over 10 years now.

When you stop asking for permission ...
Start doing what you know is right ...
Make an honest and beneficial attempt at improving the world around you ...
And actually succeed in doing so versus pie in the sky government controlled/administered good intentions ...


You really don't have a problem finding people that want to contribute, profit, and join in the success ...

.​

What do you "know is right"? Do you acknowledge the equality of rights of all individuals, or do some people have rights that others don't have?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

Doesn't "government" imply the right to govern? The right to make laws which others must obey under threat of punishment? Isn't this operating in excess of what the individual has the right to do?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

If the anarchist position were a "logical necessity" why are there so few self-confessed anarchists?
Where are the individuals that act in perfect accord with the rights of individuals?
A system of laws requires some sort of government. No government = no law.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What do you "know is right"? Do you acknowledge the equality of rights of all individuals, or do some people have rights that others don't have?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

Doesn't "government" imply the right to govern? The right to make laws which others must obey under threat of punishment? Isn't this operating in excess of what the individual has the right to do?

It's possible you don't relate to what I am suggesting because you still think in a "universal" sense as far as what I view as an individual choice.

It doesn't matter what I think about someone else's rights ... Where I am headed doesn't require them to do anything they don't want to do.
I am not a proponent of Anarchy or self governance as a means by which to establish what anyone else is required to do.
That's for goof-balls that like theorizing versus application of concepts borne in principles, that also require adaptation and personal responsibility.

I don't need a government, a law, punishment nor coerced obedience to accomplish my goals.
As far as operating in excess of what I have the right to do ... I ain't asking for permission.
If someone feels the need to try and stop me ... Put an obstacle up in front of me and see if I don't figure out a way around it ...
Or means by which to mitigate it's affect on achieving what I want to do.

To some that may sound intimidating ... But it doesn't mean I haven't failed before.
It only means I don't accept failure as a dead end ... And will keep looking for a way to do what is productive and necessary.

"Can't" ... Never did anything ...
I am practicing self-governance ... And I am not going to sit around waiting for anyone to agree.

.​

Really? What if someone thinks he has the right to drive any way and any where he likes and hits you doing 100 mph?
Might that not stop you from getting where you're going?

 

[9thIDdoc]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

 

[Timmy]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

 

[Kondor3]

You will abide by the Laws of the United States.

Guarantee

Is that supposed to be a threat?

You will fuck off or be ready to die trying to enforce your immoral and unconstitutional new bullshit law.

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

 

[Kondor3]

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guarantee

Will you bet your life on it? We will.

Machine Guns, or Valhalla motherfucker!

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

Law "enforcement" agencies will engage in treason?

Well, Strzok and McCabe did, I suppose it's possible. But at the time they engage in treason, then they become enemy combatants and we have a duty to subdue them.

 

[Kondor3]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

You will abide by the Laws of the United States.

Guaranteed.

I'll abide by the Constitution.

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

 

[Kondor3]

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

Law "enforcement" agencies will engage in treason?

Well, Strzok and McCabe did, I suppose it's possible. But at the time they engage in treason, then they become enemy combatants and we have a duty to subdue them.

Incorrect.

Law enforcement agencies will execute the laws of the United States.

If that means acting against those who violate those laws, then, that's on the head of the violators, not law enforcement.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

You will abide by the Laws of the United States.

Guaranteed.

I'll abide by the Constitution.

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

Colt made the child the equal of bigger men.
Watch yourself.

 

[Timmy]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say crazy gangs of self righteous kooks are the deciders of what is or is not constitutional?

That’s why we have the fed court system .

 

[Dan Stubbs]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

I now get what the word Zombies are, mindless Progressive non-thinkers.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say crazy gangs of self righteous kooks are the deciders of what is or is not constitutional?

That’s why we have the fed court system .

Than use it if you think you can ban guns.

 

[Kondor3]

You will abide by the Laws of the United States.

Guaranteed.

I'll abide by the Constitution.

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

Colt made the child the equal of bigger men.
Watch yourself.

Real skeered now.

If you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation, then, by all means, feel free.

If not, go dry-hump somebody else's pants-leg, eh?

 

[miketx]

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

Law "enforcement" agencies will engage in treason?

Well, Strzok and McCabe did, I suppose it's possible. But at the time they engage in treason, then they become enemy combatants and we have a duty to subdue them.

Incorrect.

Law enforcement agencies will execute the laws of the United States.

If that means acting against those who violate those laws, then, that's on the head of the violators, not law enforcement.

Keep spinning your lie scumbag, the 2nd amendment is there so we can resist illegals laws. I don't care how many insults and lies you come up with, you are still a liar, and many of us will not go quietly if you bastards try to disarm us.

 

[Kondor3]

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

Law "enforcement" agencies will engage in treason?

Well, Strzok and McCabe did, I suppose it's possible. But at the time they engage in treason, then they become enemy combatants and we have a duty to subdue them.

Incorrect.

Law enforcement agencies will execute the laws of the United States.

If that means acting against those who violate those laws, then, that's on the head of the violators, not law enforcement.

Keep spinning your lie scumbag, the 2nd amendment is there so we can resist illegals laws. I don't care how many insults and lies you come up with, you are still a liar, and many of us will not go quietly if you bastards try to disarm us.

1. What "lie" ?

2. Why am I a "scumbag"?

3. The Second Amendment is there so that the Militia-of-the-Whole can be utilized as a last resort to defend the Republic.

4. Who is "you bastards" ?

5. When have I ever advocated disarming you?

The stage is yours...

 

[miketx]

Regressive liberal ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion

6c. attack their rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity

18. You can’t read.