‘The Bullet Box’ Is an Option If the Ballot Box Fails, Says Gun-Rights Advocate

[TurtleDude]

More noise from the Peanut gallery I see..........:lamo

REALLY.....have we lowered thy self to that as a rebuttal............:rofl

your posts are dishonest and poorly reasoned and even more poorly written. The crap you spew about guns is nothing more than the impotent railings of a gun banner who is mad that both the facts and scholarship is against you. and honest posters quote the person they are responding to

 

[LaMidRighter]

No I think if folks think the 2A was included in the Bill of Rights allowing revolution to take down the legally elected government just because yall don't like the government are @$$holes who deserve long sentences in jail if they try that kind of BS

Try reading the constitution and the writings of the people who constructed it, then get back to us. You may at that point realize that you are on the wrong side of this argument, you may not, but either way you are on the wrong side of the argument. Oh, and calling people "assholes" for supporting the laws of this land properly as written shows you are indeed uninformed on so many aspects of this country and constitution. Don't like the country as founded, tough, no one is forcing you to stay, trust me.

 

[Renae]

No I think if folks think the 2A was included in the Bill of Rights allowing revolution to take down the legally elected government just because yall don't like the government are @$$holes who deserve long sentences in jail if they try that kind of BS

Your opinion of the 2A, much like your labeling of yourself as a Conservative, or your use of such hackery partisan sites such as "polticsusa.com" are as usual, laughably wrong. One suspects you are playing a caricature, but you've been consistent enough that I think you might actually believe the **** you post.

Threads like these should lead sane people to regard your opinions as more humorous asides rather than serious discussions.

 

[imyoda]

Not delicate at all, just tired of crap like yours.

Well that was the case...............why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[imyoda]

Try reading the constitution and the writings of the people who constructed it, then get back to us. You may at that point realize that you are on the wrong side of this argument, you may not, but either way you are on the wrong side of the argument. Oh, and calling people "assholes" for supporting the laws of this land properly as written shows you are indeed uninformed on so many aspects of this country and constitution. Don't like the country as founded, tough, no one is forcing you to stay, trust me.

It is not a matter of being on the "right side"........it is a matter of history.....and one can only understand our constitution if you have studied the history of the how/why it was written and the issues/concerns of the time and the how/who were debating them.........

I have devoted many years of study to the subject...........Have you?

 

[imyoda]

Your opinion of the 2A, much like your labeling of yourself as a Conservative, or your use of such hackery partisan sites such as "polticsusa.com" are as usual, laughably wrong. One suspects you are playing a caricature, but you've been consistent enough that I think you might actually believe the **** you post.

Threads like these should lead sane people to regard your opinions as more humorous asides rather than serious discussions.

Do you have any idea of what a real conservative is? Or what, as one, believes?

I think not.........

 

[iguanaman]

I don't belong to this organization, but as a scholar of American history I am not of "two-minds" on the ultimate purpose behind the Second Amendment. It was to guarantee citizens the option of exercising that famous segment of the Declaration of Independence:



People like the OP dismiss this possibility, always arguing that citizens would have to be crazy to think any armed rebellion could ever succeed against the might of the U.S. Army.

Strangely, that argument is an echo of the same argument used by both Tories and neutral colonials before and during the Revolution. After all, Great Britain was the pre-eminent military power in the world at that time. Had the revolutionaries bought into this argument, our nation would not exist today.

Still, it does not matter if a revolt fails. The right to keep and bear arms does not guarantee success any more than it did at the time the Declaration was written. It merely provides access to the wherewithal to TRY, rather than continue meekly submitting.

As I said, I've never heard of this organization. Yet I know that as long as I have the right to keep and bear arms, I have the final say as to whether or not I wish to continue to accept my current form of government.

Supporting "bullet-box" ideology is not "insane," it is a matter of rational practicality. :coffeepap:

I love how you believe that military weaponry has not progressed in 300 years so you can make that analogy with your revolutionary war "brothers". There is no validity to the claim that you could "take back" this country by force. It is a ludicrous claim made by very foolish people. Should any of you even try you would be met with overwhelming force like any terrorist would be. Dream on if you must but always remember you are just dreaming.

 

[Moon]

Well that was the case...............why didn't you say so in the first place?

Thought I'd try and see if you could respond with something approaching logic and reason. My take on your posts is you're just looking for validation, and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[imyoda]

Thought I'd try and see if you could respond with something approaching logic and reason. My take on your posts is you're just looking for validation, and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

What logic can be an answer for fuzzy thinking?


I need no validation...........and will always respond in kind to those who have their facts out of whack...........

BTW

Let's try to stay on subject.........

 

[Renae]

Do you have any idea of what a real conservative is? Or what, as one, believes?

I think not.........

Yeah, that from you is the most amusing of comments. We get that you think you're being snarky with your definitions... here's a free hint, no ones buying it.

 

[imyoda]

Yeah, that from you is the most amusing of comments. We get that you think you're being snarky with your definitions... here's a free hint, no ones buying it.

So you are saying indirectly............you do not know what a real conservative is...... Would you like to have a giggle about that too?

 

[Renae]

So you are saying indirectly............you do not know what a real conservative is...... Would you like to have a giggle about that too?

A real conservative, by what definition? The UK Breed is different than the US Breed. Technically, if you want to get snarky about it, the GOP (as a general rule) is the party of Classical Liberals.

But do go ahead, educated me, educate us on what a "Real" conservative is.

 

[flogger]

A real conservative, by what definition? The UK Breed is different than the US Breed. Technically, if you want to get snarky about it, the GOP (as a general rule) is the party of Classical Liberals.

But do go ahead, educated me, educate us on what a "Real" conservative is.

Bullets have no politics. They are totally impartial killer

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Do you have any idea of what a real conservative is? Or what, as one, believes?

I think not.........

The gun-banning Trump-hater Hillaryphile thinks he knows the definition of Conservative...

Here I thought I'd seen it all.


























:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[countryboy]

Bullets have no politics. They are totally impartial killer

Bullets are "totally impartial killer"? Wow, when did inanimate objects start coming alive? That's some scary ****. :shock:

 

[Captain Adverse]

I love how you believe that military weaponry has not progressed in 300 years so you can make that analogy with your revolutionary war "brothers". There is no validity to the claim that you could "take back" this country by force. It is a ludicrous claim made by very foolish people. Should any of you even try you would be met with overwhelming force like any terrorist would be. Dream on if you must but always remember you are just dreaming.

I love how you forget that military weaponry has always progressed and that 300 years before the American Revolution weapons were not as advanced, and 300 years before that etc. etc. etc.

You also assume that rebels will try to face superior military forces in set piece battles like the Civil War. Hardly. Rebellions are often fought as a guerilla war, and the worst kind of guerilla war is one fought amongst one's own citizenry where you can't tell friend from foe until he shoots you.

You also assume that members of the military would all be loyal to the central government in the event of a true rebellion. Again a false assumption because if it ever came to a true rebellion many native sons serving in the military might opt to join, just like back during the Civil War. Beyond that there is the fact that I, and many of my peers who believe in the "bullet box," are ex-servicemen and women. We know what we would be facing and we know how best to counter it.

Finally, every rebellion in history has occurred despite the fact that the central government usually has more "overwhelming power" than the rebels do. It is why most rebellions fail...but happened anyway. As stated, a rebellion has no guarantee of success, but that does not stop people from trying.

This is exactly why gun-rights supporter's like myself argue so vociferously against the movement to disarm citizens. The fact that citizens in both the successful Revolution, and unsuccessful Civil War had access to personal firearms the equal of those used by the military allowed the people in each rebellion some chance of success. This is why nations like our own supply arms to rebels we support in foreign nations, and our opponents do the same for rebels they support.

Claiming that citizens have NO chance to successfully defend themselves and rise up in rebellion as a justification for disarming them is the worst form of statist sophistry.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It is not a matter of being on the "right side"........it is a matter of history.....and one can only understand our constitution if you have studied the history of the how/why it was written and the issues/concerns of the time and the how/who were debating them.........

I have devoted many years of study to the subject...........Have you?

And historically you are completely wrong, you even chose sources that confirm your bias and as has been pointed out were written by a failure who also happens to be a complete idiot. You basically don't know **** about the topic and found the rantings of a fool to confirm your worldview, that should be your cue to bow out.

 

[Moon]

What logic can be an answer for fuzzy thinking?


I need no validation...........and will always respond in kind to those who have their facts out of whack...........

BTW

Let's try to stay on subject.........

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Bullets have no politics. They are totally impartial killer

That may be the most uninformed statement to date on the topic. Bullets are very partial about their targets, specifically anyone in the line of fire is a target, a bullet doesn't change direction without being directed, that is just basic ballistics, which are an extension of physics. The only thing that affects the trajectory is resistance, such as a dense object or wind. As long as a bullet is at terminal velocity wind is rarely a factor. Now, if you want to argue about the shooter, that's another story, but at least get your talking points right.

 

[imyoda]

A real conservative, by what definition? The UK Breed is different than the US Breed. Technically, if you want to get snarky about it, the GOP (as a general rule) is the party of Classical Liberals.

But do go ahead, educated me, educate us on what a "Real" conservative is.

Thank you for your sharing

 

[imyoda]

The gun-banning Trump-hater Hillaryphile thinks he knows the definition of Conservative...

Here I thought I'd seen it all.
























:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

BRAVO............you have used all of the NRA and RW slanders of those who hold a differing opinion all in one sentence..........





















BRAVO............you have used all of the NRA and RW slanders of those who hold a differing opinion all in one sentence..........

 

[imyoda]

Thanks for proving my point.

and what point was that?

 

[TurtleDude]

BRAVO............you have used all of the NRA and RW slanders of those who hold a differing opinion all in one sentence..........





















BRAVO............you have used all of the NRA and RW slanders of those who hold a differing opinion all in one sentence..........

........not


a...........different opinion


...........but rather............................fact


your silly posts...................are leftwing silliness


nothing....................conservative in the ........................

crap..........you spew

 

[Moon]

and what point was that?

Try to keep up. Its not my job to hold your hand in your own fail thread.

 

[flogger]

That may be the most uninformed statement to date on the topic. Bullets are very partial about their targets, specifically anyone in the line of fire is a target, a bullet doesn't change direction without being directed, that is just basic ballistics, which are an extension of physics. The only thing that affects the trajectory is resistance, such as a dense object or wind. As long as a bullet is at terminal velocity wind is rarely a factor. Now, if you want to argue about the shooter, that's another story, but at least get your talking points right.

The point you missed is that only in the US is this a party political issue rather than an obvious health and safety one