Why is it...

[kallend 1,644]

... 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?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,396]

Not me. I'm in favor of the former, but I don't think we need a "defense" budget as big as the rest of the world combined.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rehmwa 2]

I want the right for non-felons and non-crazies to own what we want without government intrusion. I want the right for local communities to have all the options possible for THEM to choose how best to protect their citizens and their children - without the feds butting into local needs.

I don't care much about the argument of the 2nd, though it is applicable and I want people to give it the same level of respect and treatment as all the other protected rights.

I think we spend WAY too much on military, and also on EVERYTHING else.


You can lie comfortably in your simple little stereotypes about people, but it's a false illusion for such a smart and decent guy.

...
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

[skydiver30960 0]

...that clicking on "Speaker's Corner" seems to imbue the clicker with the ability to generalize broadly and make sweeping judgements on huge portions of the national populace, right from the comfort of their own couch?

Elvisio "it DOES go both ways " Rodriguez

[lawrocket 3]

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?

As opposed to those who want the government to have the ONLY arms?

Think of this: it's big controversy about how the present admin is expanding its ability to kill Americans. At the same time it's seeking to disarm many/most/all of them.

Kinda chilling...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[toolbox 0]

I feel much the same way you do.

[toolbox 0]

>Think of this: it's big controversy about how the present admin is expanding it's ability to kill americans. At the same time it's seeking to disarm many/most/all of them.

Kinda chilling......

Yes,that whole drone over US turf thing along with the expanding ability to kill americans is kinda scary.
That along with the big attack being brought against the 2nd amendment,kinda makes a questioning mind go Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

...that clicking on "Speaker's Corner" seems to imbue the clicker with the ability to generalize broadly and make sweeping judgements on huge portions of the national populace, right from the comfort of their own couch?

Elvisio "it DOES go both ways " Rodriguez

What part of "for the most part" is it that you don't understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

I think our defense budget should be massively slashed. I don't think it makes any sense to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a few people who will obviously ignore such laws. What benefit do you think will come from restricting my rights (a legal gun owner who is not mentally ill)? I'd argue that no benefit will result from restricting my rights. It's a lose, and then lose some more proposition with nobody gaining anything.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

I think our defense budget should be massively slashed. I don't think it makes any sense to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a few people who will obviously ignore such laws. What benefit do you think will come from restricting my rights (a legal gun owner who is not mentally ill)? I'd argue that no benefit will result from restricting my rights. It's a lose, and then lose some more proposition with nobody gaining anything.

Blues,
Dave

I haven't suggested restricting the rights of non-felonious, mentally healthy people. As far as I'm concerned they can own RPGs and anti-tank guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydiver30960 0]

Quote

What part of "for the most part" is it that you don't understand?

Not sure, but I DO understand that it's used much in the same way that people use "no offense, but" (followed by something offensive) and "I don't mean to complain, but..." (followed by something bitchy).

In other words, someone says it to imply less than complete generalization, then generalizes completely.

Elvisio "just an observation" Rodriguez

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

I haven't suggested restricting the rights of non-felonious, mentally healthy people.

But you have lost the argument on mental health... that is without "panels of experts" that infringe on everyone's rights.

Quote

As far as I'm concerned they can own RPGs and anti-tank guns.

Really?

[popsjumper 2]

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?

Nope. The reasons are identical...just a matter of targeting.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

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?

Nope. The reasons are identical...just a matter of targeting.

Clueless, as usual.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Softball PA, as usual.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

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?

Nope. The reasons are identical...just a matter of targeting.

Clueless, as usual.

Yes, you are John. You are dangerous because you have a long history of bending truth and outright misrepresentation and this is just another example of it.

I'll explain it for you, sir.
Defending yourself at home is quite different than soldiers defending us in other countries. Apples/oranges. One does not preclude the other.

One would want weapons for personal defense and one would want our defenders to have the most, biggest, strongest and best arms that taxpayer money can buy. Same concept, different arena.

Pretty simple. Maybe too simple for your "education".
*shaking head*

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[champu 1]

Or 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.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Or 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.

You said it better than I did. Thanks.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Or 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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Or 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.

You said it better than I did. Thanks.

That isn't hard to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dmcoco84 4]

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?

This is an idiotic thread... and no, No Paradox.

Having the biggest, strongest and best arms... does not equate to a government who has hundreds of bases all over the world (and Germany needs to take care of itself), intervenes into anything it damn well pleases...

...And Certainly Not arming AQ in Libya and Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bush should be in jail for a laundry list of shit... including everything with the NSA.

Obama should be in jail for Treason for arming AQ.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Or 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.

[toolbox 0]

[dmcoco84 4]

Not to mention...

Quote

As far as I'm concerned they can own RPGs and anti-tank guns.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Not to mention...

Quote

As 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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.