kallend 1,677 #26 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteOr another way to parse this... Quote... that the people most concerned about the 2nd Amendment allowing them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government are, for the most part, the same people that want the government to have the most, biggest, strongest and best arms that taxpayer money can buy? Paradoxical, isn't it? Once you set aside taxpayer money for arms procurement, wouldn't anyone want to get the most, biggest, and strongest for it? I don't think many people want the least, shittiest arms for the government regardless of how much they feel is an appropriate amount of tax money to spend on it. OTOH, they also claim to want to defend themselves against said government that they have armed to the teeth, when it turns tyrannical. Why don't you figure out what you're trying to say with this thread and get back to us. It's pretty clear to anyone who knows what a paradox is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 April 15, 2013 Quote those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, from what I can tell, this means pretty much 90% of the citizenry, dems and reps, and everyone else alike.......... "the means to fight it" - such as: influential, voting, legislative, physical, etc???? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #28 April 15, 2013 QuoteIt's pretty clear to anyone who knows what a paradox is. Are you saying you're lying? But what if you're lying when you say that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #29 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteIt's pretty clear to anyone who knows what a paradox is. Are you saying you're lying? But what if you're lying when you say that? All men are liars. Only trust women and cats.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #30 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr another way to parse this... Quote... that the people most concerned about the 2nd Amendment allowing them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government are, for the most part, the same people that want the government to have the most, biggest, strongest and best arms that taxpayer money can buy? Paradoxical, isn't it? Once you set aside taxpayer money for arms procurement, wouldn't anyone want to get the most, biggest, and strongest for it? I don't think many people want the least, shittiest arms for the government regardless of how much they feel is an appropriate amount of tax money to spend on it. OTOH, they also claim to want to defend themselves against said government that they have armed to the teeth, when it turns tyrannical. Why don't you figure out what you're trying to say with this thread and get back to us. It's pretty clear to anyone who knows what a paradox is. Since your OP is not an example of a paradox, I suppose I should conclude we're in agreement over our last two posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #31 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteNot to mention... QuoteAs far as I'm concerned they can own RPGs and anti-tank guns. How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. That's, not a fact... it's a broad and weird generalization that makes no sense, likely, based off your perception that everyone who is scared of tyranny, to be in a militia group. And your OP is not a paradox, and a further poorly worded generalization based on your own opinions... probably only posted about because you are losing the gun arguments. "Shurg" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #32 April 15, 2013 Quote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #33 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #34 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Have you seen anyone in here suggesting we triple our defense spending? All it would take is a bit of a tax hike, or some additional deficit spending, both of which are certainly within the realm of "possible". Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #35 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Have you seen anyone in here suggesting we triple our defense spending? All it would take is a bit of a tax hike, or some additional deficit spending, both of which are certainly within the realm of "possible". Blues, Dave Who said anything about "triple"? Did you read the GOP platform for the last few election cycles?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #36 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Have you seen anyone in here suggesting we triple our defense spending? All it would take is a bit of a tax hike, or some additional deficit spending, both of which are certainly within the realm of "possible". Blues, Dave Who said anything about "triple"? Did you read the GOP platform for the last few election cycles? I did. It was one example of "as heavily armed as possible". Quintuple would be another. Do you know people advocating for that? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #37 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How does that in any way alter the fact that those most concerned about government tyranny and having the means to fight it, are generally the same people that want the government to be as heavily armed as possible. I've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Have you seen anyone in here suggesting we triple our defense spending? All it would take is a bit of a tax hike, or some additional deficit spending, both of which are certainly within the realm of "possible". Blues, Dave Who said anything about "triple"? Did you read the GOP platform for the last few election cycles? I did. It was one example of "as heavily armed as possible". Quintuple would be another. Do you know people advocating for that? Blues, Dave "Possible" includes political reality.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteI've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Hell, even in the anonymous atmosphere of Speaker's Corner, there are only two types of posters on that subject: 1 - We spend too much on defense, we spend too much on most everything else too. 2 - We spend too much on defense, ...... (I can't hear you on the topic of other budgets, I'm a one topic pony when discussing budgets. lalalalalalala) HOWEVER, there is quite a contingent of #2 posters that like to PRETEND that the people in #1 are the quintuple defense group. They like strawman arguments. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #39 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI've never met anyone who advocated for the government being as heavily armed as possible. Blues, Dave You need to get out more. Hell, even in the anonymous atmosphere of Speaker's Corner, there are only two types of posters on that subject: . I wasn't restricting the comment to SC posters, of course.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #40 April 16, 2013 QuoteOnce you set aside taxpayer money for arms procurement, wouldn't anyone want to get the most, biggest, and strongest for it? I don't think many people want the least, shittiest arms for the government regardless of how much they feel is an appropriate amount of tax money to spend on it. You said it better than I did. Thanks. That isn't hard to do. You got nothing sensible, as usual. Can't make up your mind on who gets armament and who doesn't? Well, hell, Johnny Boy...let's disarm the police...after all you may one day be fighting them for your civil rights. Oh...wait....you're one that will not be fighting for civil rights. Never mind.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
