Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[Tex]

Congrats, il Pad. You've officially done the Dance of Death.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Which has already been answered in very simple, straight-forward language.

The limits he proposes cover territory not also covered by the 2nd Amendment. He can support a ban on assault weapons AND favor the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect assault weapons.

Why is this so hard? It is as if you keep asking "how can he like ice cream if he likes steak?" Well, he likes both, and one has nothing to do with the other.

I'll take your refusal to answer the question as admitting that you are as anti-2nd amendment as Obama is.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Tex

Congrats, il Pad. You've officially done the Dance of Death.

I did?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you suggesting we all have a right to own every weapon used by the national guard? Seriously?

We have the right to arm ourselves to the point we could be effective foot-soldiers in a militia.

Your grandfather's bolt-action hunting rifle (sorry, someone else's grandfather's) does not allow you be an effective foot-soldier in a militia.

We really do live in a society where the cost of freedom is completely divorced from modern life. We have no draft. The military is populated by the poor and low-middle and middle-middle class. The word "citizen" doesn't mean anything.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you suggesting we all have a right to own every weapon used by the national guard? Seriously?

By the way, I do find it tremendously amusing that in your worst case dream world where the government turns tyranical and decides to destroy American citizens everywhere, the difference between life and death in the battle royale against the imperial US Army will be whether or not you own an AK-47. Sure, they could drop giant bombs on your home with fighter jets, or launch them from bases around the world, or nuke your neighborhood, but those weapons will have no effect on you or your fellow patriots armed with an assault rifle!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'll take your refusal to answer the question as admitting that you are as anti-2nd amendment as Obama is.

I take your response to mean that your title of "board pinhead" is not, in fact, an honorary title.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

By the way, I do find it tremendously amusing that in your worst case dream world where the government turns tyranical and decides to destroy American citizens everywhere, the difference between life and death in the battle royale against the imperial US Army will be whether or not you own an AK-47. Sure, they could drop giant bombs on your home with fighter jets, or launch them from bases around the world, or nuke your neighborhood, but those weapons will have no effect on you or your fellow patriots armed with an assault rifle!

You are such a damned moron, that it is staggering.

You personally look at the recent history of Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan, USA in Afghanistan, and Iraq and have concluded that small-arms insurgency is ineffective.

You sir, know nothing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are such a damned moron, that it is staggering.

You personally look at the recent history of Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan, USA in Afghanistan, and Iraq and have concluded that small-arms insurgency is ineffective.

You sir, know nothing.

No, Waters. I have assumed that small-arms insurgency is effective when it is undertaken against a rational foreign power. If, in fact, the US government decides that it is literally going to go to war with its own citizens, and make the destruction of a large segment of the citizenry its primary goal, I am of the strong opinion that your ownership of an AK-47 is going to be a fairly amusing anecdote in the anals of history.

I would also note that the weapons largely used in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam were not owned by the citizenry at large PRIOR to the war.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah. Got it. You want to have a debate about the legal meaning of a legal instrument that contains zero legal analysis. Makes sense.

I would like to discuss economics but only if we limit the discussion to our favorite food additives.

I'm speaking about the politic merits, not the legal meaning. You state an axiom which is meaningless, all rights are circumscribed. Duh, sherlock, tell me something meaningful.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I take your response to mean that your title of "board pinhead" is not, in fact, an honorary title.

Perhaps not. But Mike will confirm that it was a request.