The Democrats & the Constitution
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
I prefer you without the tights.
Whatever floats your boat, enemy of The Constitution.
I wish I could grow that good a beard and chest hair, but unlike Elisabeth Warren my Native American genetics prevent it.
You are one weird dude. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
@syskatine The funny thing about your idiotic memes is this.
You are exactly the fool being referred to in the phrase about those which ignore history being doomed to repeat it. You seem to think we as modern humans are on some different plane of reality from those who overthrew the British 240 years ago. That is an infantile and shortsighted thing to believe because literally nothing in human history supports the idea that violent revolution is a thing of the past.
You of course, take any concern over a growing, oppressive government or the Constitutional right to bear arms being infringed upon to be the rant of a lunatic survivalist who is evidently fat, has a tiny dick and is completely out of step with reality - worthy of ridicule.
You say that in a thread about the Constitution - a document that has largely preserved this country in spite of a massive Civil War (which no doubt was written off by similar deep thinkers as a paranoid fantasy, before it f'ing happened), and you've been a proponent of rewriting aspects of this as a "living document." I understand why strategically you would want to undermine these things, being a big government statist in favor of things the Constitution is written to protect us from.
I have no idea what you choose to celebrate today, but I still wish you a Happy Independence Day, even if you don't understand the value of being a citizen instead of a subject.
You are exactly the fool being referred to in the phrase about those which ignore history being doomed to repeat it. You seem to think we as modern humans are on some different plane of reality from those who overthrew the British 240 years ago. That is an infantile and shortsighted thing to believe because literally nothing in human history supports the idea that violent revolution is a thing of the past.
You of course, take any concern over a growing, oppressive government or the Constitutional right to bear arms being infringed upon to be the rant of a lunatic survivalist who is evidently fat, has a tiny dick and is completely out of step with reality - worthy of ridicule.
You say that in a thread about the Constitution - a document that has largely preserved this country in spite of a massive Civil War (which no doubt was written off by similar deep thinkers as a paranoid fantasy, before it f'ing happened), and you've been a proponent of rewriting aspects of this as a "living document." I understand why strategically you would want to undermine these things, being a big government statist in favor of things the Constitution is written to protect us from.
I have no idea what you choose to celebrate today, but I still wish you a Happy Independence Day, even if you don't understand the value of being a citizen instead of a subject.
If I recall, @syskatine says he owns 30 guns. I would think somebody that had more guns than most families would be educated at least about the Second. Surely he didn't lie about that...
Well, not every time, but there's a pretty obvious correlation between the angry, paranoid types and being that cartoon. Look at medic. There's plenty of things for them to obsess over, and big government should be about number 538, but by gawd it's the federal government. They get scared over everything. Taxes, terrorists, lawyers, environmentalists, blacks, gays, women, abortion... they never stop with the alarmism. Don't forget the gun grabbers. It's always some perceived crisis and them or their historically-advantaged demographic is aaalways the victim. That's the mind set that blew up the Murrah bombing. It's insane.
I'm not sure you even disagree with me on the gun issue all that much. I can't figure out where you're coming from -- it's more of a general tone and worldview with you. I don't think you have a problem with beefing up background checks. I don't think you have a problem with strict regulation of many types of guns. I thought you said those things on here. I can't figure out why your'e so mad about the issue when you have such liberal opinions.
Aaaannnnnnddddd a somewhat legitimate discussion devolves into yet another shit show.
You've said that mega and medic are "mad" multiple times. I've read most of their posts on here and never thought either of them was "mad". Your equilibrium is jacked up. Now Vito....he gets mad.
He just hates the fact he's been thoroughly schooled on the Second Amendment and it's his way of trying to project his defeat onto others.
He obviously doesn't realize that quotes I posted are from the Framers and not me. He's well versed in ignorance though.
I know the government doesn't stand a chance against the People. There's very few in law enforcement and the military that would heed a command to use force against the populace for political achievement. Those pukes would be the first to go along with the politicians who ordered it, including syskatine's King Obama and Queen HilLIARy. But it doesn't keep the turd brain from conjuring up his fabrications he's all too comfortable using. He lies and doesn't even realize it. It's that routine for him.
He's just a useful idiot of the left who resorts to cartoons when he's unable to find talking points to compete with the facts. And apparently he loves hairy men with guns.
Note to you and Mega: Can't tell you how much I enjoy the two of you talking to "ignore"; it's so freakin' easy to fill in the "stupid" blanks.
You aren't missing anything. It's like heavyweight mma fighters beating up a toddler without the violence. The fake jabs alone make it cry. At least other left leaners here have dignity and INTEGRITY.
Vito gets mad but I feel it's justified.
I actually am a little mad, but not for the reasons you wish. I'm irritated because you and people like you have turned guns and discussion of overturning a Constitutional amendment into shallow, pop-culture virtue signaling.
Ignorance of terminology, gun safety, gun statistics.... (basically any knowledge at all about guns) is a badge of honor to be embraced in the same way that self-important dipshits who hate social media brag about their total lack of understanding of it. You are basically the guy who has never had a social media page and brags to his backwards ass friends about your willful ignorance.
The thing is man, you don't really give a shit about guns. You don't give a single shit about gun violence. All you care about is inclusion in the culture of people who think they are smarter than redneck republican gun owners. It's really not even relevant that you flat get your ass BEAT every. single. time. Because your team politics tribal group tells you you are still smarter, despite all evidence to the contrary. Guns is simply the play you are running and you want your guys to score. That's as deep as you get.
You don't care and it's simple and it's obvious in your choice of memes. Not a peep out of you when 50+ black kids get shot by illegal pistols on any given week in Chicago, but you are f'ing Jim Bradey whenever someone shoots white people with a rifle, even though it remains a statistical anomaly. Why? Because it fits the narrative and nothing more.
As for you and me, we are way off man. You've argued against the modern relevancy of the 2nd Amendment and when you do argue for the Constitution, your whole goal is to ignore the obvious fact that the Bill or Rights deals in personal freedoms - claiming that the 2nd Amendment is all about establishing the National guard or some bullshit. I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I feel that gun ownership is a privilege and a duty of free citizens.
I'm for the regulation of gun types only insofar as they are limited to personal small-arms which are not full auto. So, exactly as it is now. Beefing up background checks is largely a myth as evidenced by various investigative reporters failing to legally purchase guns in their recent attempts. I'm open to discussion of background checks but so far I've heard nothing that makes sense or that would have affected the last two terrorism attacks - not that any gun law would, but again that should be obvious but somehow isn't.
Last edited:
After typing the last post, I randomly saw this story on my FB newsfeed. Do something @syskatine ! Think of the children!
http://bb4sp.com/32-killed-chicago-july-4th-weekend/# <--- headline is misleading. 32 shot, not necessarily killed. Since numbers are important.
http://bb4sp.com/32-killed-chicago-july-4th-weekend/# <--- headline is misleading. 32 shot, not necessarily killed. Since numbers are important.
Dang it.
Nearly 100% certain that your message is willfully list on @syskatine . It's a shame, indeed it's shameful (of him).
In an exchange of ideas that conflict, there are 2 paths that can unfold Sutton the individual for resolution...to acknowledge, clearly, a difference of value or opinion, or to lie about valid values that are effective against your own. He chooses to lie, about all parameters within the discussion that are there to be lied about (or misrepresented). It is a passive play, versus, say, running for office in order to cement in place one value over another. And it's an inherent character weakness within the person who plays it.
But kudos, @MegaPoke for how poignant, succinct, and accurate you summed up arguably the most burdensome characteristic in political discourse, personified indelibly by sys's behavior.
To sys, I'd only encourage that you strive to be more than what you demonstrate here. It's sad watching how you operate. Sad because though I take great entertainment in watching you flail, the more sober pay of me understands that 1. You have to live with yourself, and 2. You are a net negative on society.
Eh, @syskatine I really do want good for you, i just believe you don't have a built in mechanism for becoming "better."
You experience no shame. You present yourself as infallible and your values above question or even analysis.
The aforementioned qualities are needed in all humans. It takes a willingness and strength to allow vulnerability.
You experience no shame. You present yourself as infallible and your values above question or even analysis.
The aforementioned qualities are needed in all humans. It takes a willingness and strength to allow vulnerability.
The 2 qualities being *the ability to experience shame and the ability to accept a degree of vulnerability via self-analysis/criticism.
Don't worry black lives matter is on the way.
The black caucus is on the way.
The press will report this just like they did Orlando.
Syskatine will gather signatures for these poor people to sue gun manufacturers.
No. None of that will happen. Sickening.
I would like for the politics board to pause and commemorate Brad's 100th anti-Syskatine essay. B-
I won the gun control debate years ago with simple data. It drives sickfats wild. I'm sorry we have so many firearm deaths. Other western, modern countries have a small % of ours. That's the daisy cutter that nobody has an answer for, except for anecdotal arguments and venom.
I won the gun control debate years ago with simple data. It drives sickfats wild. I'm sorry we have so many firearm deaths. Other western, modern countries have a small % of ours. That's the daisy cutter that nobody has an answer for, except for anecdotal arguments and venom.
I would say irrelevant. But sure, doesn't count is fine too. F*** Europe's systems on anything. It's like the New England Patriots saying, "we are getting too many holding penalties on 2nd and 7, inside the 20, during nighttime road games when it's raining but below 50 degrees. So, let's change our offensive to the Rams system in case that fixes the problem.
You still can't name a single nation that is an apples to apples comparison, despite the fact I've challenged you to do so many times.
Any chance you want to examine the confounding variables in your conclusion that gun laws in Europe are the reason gun murder rates are lower?
I posted a graph of like 20 countries, and said pick one and you wouldn't. We both know how that plays out -- you'll say there's no analog, as they are too socialistic, too white, too __________. I'll say that's white noise, and the data proves that people from whatever nation simply don't kill as much when they don't have ready access to guns, and there's great diversity already built into the number of nations with much less violence that disproves your exceptions. Someone will say gun control didn't work in the Paris deal. I'll say yeah, but it's worked compared to us in the rest of the model, and it's not a standard of 100% no gun violence, now you're talking anecdotes. If we talk 100% success then we're doing it all wrong, too. Then the point is made that those countries don't already have guns everywhere like we do. Then I say yeah, this is a long term project and nobody rationally demands overnight success from any widespread public policy initiative, success is gauged over time.
Am I missing how that debate goes? Setting aside the piss and personal attacks that are always sprinkled in, what new argument is there regarding the data?
No, you are right I guess. It's just that when invited, you've never personally cited a country that's a direct comparison, always leaving yourself open for saying, a list! look at the list!
But the real lists you should look at is gun crime by city not nation. Then, compare that to legal gun ownership per capita. The results would destroy your claims.
You want to look at something that'll make a difference in our gun violence ranking (which nationally isn't bad at all actually)? Look at the war on drugs and our incarceration rate.
Decriminalize drug offenses. Legalize pot. Regulate it and treat it like alcohol. Watch the criminal market for it (and it's accompanying illegal gun violence) drop like a rock.
Until you get this or seem to give a shit about actually stopping gun violence, I am tired of treating you like you are a serious person where guns are concerned.
No, you are right I guess. It's just that when invited, you've never personally cited a country that's a direct comparison, always leaving yourself open for saying, a list! look at the list!
But the real lists you should look at is gun crime by city not nation. Then, compare that to legal gun ownership per capita. The results would destroy your claims.
You want to look at something that'll make a difference in our gun violence ranking (which nationally isn't bad at all actually)? Look at the war on drugs and our incarceration rate.
Decriminalize drug offenses. Legalize pot. Regulate it and treat it like alcohol. Watch the criminal market for it (and it's accompanying illegal gun violence) drop like a rock.
Until you get this or seem to give a shit about actually stopping gun violence, I am tired of treating you like you are a serious person where guns are concerned.
Again... I've told you to select one of lots and lots of countries - your call. Any one of them. And we both know you'll have variables, no matter the country, that you'll say disqualifies it, and I'll disagree. Citing a city vs. a country is insane to me. If guns are freely available 6 inches outside of city limits, wtf is the use of municipal gun control laws? It's like saying you want to swim in the chlorine-free section of a swimming pool. We have to take entire pools to analyze, not just one section of the swimming pool.
I totally agree re: incarceration and drugs and am probably more opinionated about it than you are.
Similar threads
