***Official Political Discussion Thread***

smh @ this crazy NRA lady mixing up police being armed so that they can protect the public with private citizens having guns.

she's the worst.
 
smh @ this crazy NRA lady mixing up police being armed so that they can protect the public with private citizens having guns.

she's the worst.

That’s just their normal tactic. Answer 10% of the question and then switch it to something else.
 
BTW, if Killmonger came through wit da upgrades. I'm breaking Buju Banton out prison before I start running these white supremacist some fades.

December can't come soon enough
 
Hey

Satan worship is a form of religion

That’s why satanists are suing for abortions

Works both ways
 
if I had 3 million to spend, I don't think I could buy any single policy concession from a politician. unless that 3 mill came with 35% of the country backing me.
 


tenor.gif
 
The argument is not really about the government stopping you from practicing your religion, it is about the government stopping you from using your religion as the pretext to inflict harm, oppress, and deny other people their rights.

The problem is the right/religious right/wypipo think these are the same things

I’m glad I’m missing this mess on tv I’d probably would’ve been pissed after 5 minutes of watching them
 
This whole idea that 2nd amendment functions as a bulwark against a tyrannical government is easily the most insane things that "respectable" conservatives believe.


as if you and your lil AR-15 are going to stop a drone strike. :lol:

So why does Al-Qaeda still exist?

Every major Civil Rights leader believed in the people arming themselves and ironically enough most gun control legislation was put in place to keep guns out of the hands of people of color.

Why are yall handwaving fact as if only red neck white people have ever cared about guns?
 
Last edited:
So why does Al-Qaeda still exist?

Every major Civil Rights leader believed in the people arming themselves and ironically enough most gun control legislation was put in place to keep guns out of the hands of people of color.

Why are yall handwaving fact as if only red neck white people have ever cared about guns?

uhhhhmmm, America =/= Afghanistan?

Yes terrorist organizations are prevalent in nations with weak to non existent infrastructure/institutions.

america is not one of those nations.
 
So why does Al-Qaeda still exist?

Every major Civil Rights leader believed in the people arming themselves and ironically enough most gun control legislation was put in place to keep guns out of the hands of people of color.

Why are yall handwaving fact as if only red neck white people have ever cared about guns?
This is a strawman

He was just pointing out that if the full force of the military was applied to anyone group, they would have been wiped out.

Btw, Civil Rights leaders were not telling black people to strap up for them to fight a ground war against the US military.
 
uhhhhmmm, America =/= Afghanistan?

Yes terrorist organizations are prevalent in nations with weak to non existent infrastructure/institutions.

america is not one of those nations.

So it would be easier to wipe out a militia in a country with more infrastructure and more resources with drones?
 
Al Qeuda and all terrorist groups are prevalent in countries with bad infrastructure and institutions.

It is easier to seduce young men into that life when they have no other real options in life.

The fact that a terrorist group can still recruit, especially after the US army leaves, is not a knock on the US military's might
 
So it would be easier to wipe out a militia in a country with more infrastructure and more resources with drones?
If the middle eastern countries being terrorized had more infrastructure and resources they most likely wouldn't have these militia issues.
No one in well developed countries is crazy enough to form militias in an attempt to take over their countries, they know better.
 
This is a strawman

He was just pointing out that if the full force of the military was applied to anyone group, they would have been wiped out.

Btw, Civil Rights leaders were not telling black people to strap up for them to fight a ground war against the US military.



Federal, state or local.
 


Federal, state or local.

I have seen this video. You clearly don't understand what Malcolm, or I are saying to you.

First that "Federal, state, or local" is about the government failing to protect black people from violent white citizens. Not even that black people should engage in armed combat with these law enforcement entities. Furthermore he says nothing of the military really. He just says have them for protect against people that attempt to do ill to you. No one is calling that sentiment ridiculous

And I hope you don't own any pistols. Cause Malcolm says not to buy those :lol:

Like at what point during this video does Malcolm say "buy firearms to engage in a ground war with the US military". That is the argument that is being mocked

Hell the gear the military had in 1960 is a joke compared to what they have now.

You like guns, fine. But if the military declares war on you, your *** will be dead before you can think about reaching for one of you precious firearms.
 
Last edited:
I guess the question this boils down to is this: how much are we willing to protect militias for the possibility of resisting government overreach in exchange for the risk of individuals (and groups) using weapons to murder fellow citizens?

of course, it's not a zero-sum game. we can enact better laws that benefit society on both counts. but at the end of the day we need to assess the balance of the two and realize that we need to compromise a little bit to find a reasonable middle ground. because at least one extreme (heavily arming private militias with no restriction) is not reasonable and no reasonable American citizen would in good faith think that's a good idea.
 
I'm just trying to imagine Osh Kosh founding a private army to terrorize Canada before moving south into America. It wouldn't end well for him :lol:
Or @Belgium trying to claim the beautiful european countryside for Papa Vlad with his russian rifles :rofl: Wouldn't end well for him either :lol:
 
There are so many reasons why the US military would not engage in a large scale ground war with domestic citizens.

But if it did, and all military personnel was down, it is laughable to thing some AR-15s would be enough to win that fight.
 
Last edited:
a big difference is that civilians in a different country are, on average, going to be hostile to a foreign army. but on domestic soil, on average, civilians will turn against the local militia and help the government/army/police.

of course there are counterexamples but they don't hold up on a larger scale.

i forget if i already mentioned it in this thread, but the Patty Hearst documentary is a good example. the SLA was heavily armed and had a few sympathetic civilians help them out. but when push came to shove, the LAPD were able to clear 3 or 4 city blocks and isolate the heavily armed SLA to a single house. all the SLA members who were holed up ended up dying while no civilians or officers were injured.
 
Back
Top Bottom