• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

They and them and how one issue can divide us into the theys and thems, any kind of attempt at gun control will do it.

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
60,193
Reaction score
49,854
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So I'm on my way this morning to buy a basil and dill plant since I was totally unsuccessful trying to grow my herbs from seed this years and I see a bumper sticker that made me think, who is they and them? Are we not all Americans for the most part? So the bumper sticker read, If THEY come for your guns, give THEM your bullets first. How am I supposed to interpret the meaning of that bumper sticker?

Are we not all they and them on one issue or another?
 
When any shooting actually starts, the chest thumping idiot with the bumper sticker will be nowhere to be found.
 
Not exactly the same as the bumper sticker offers only violence where as that poem tells us that we should speak of injustice rather than ignore it.
 
I would interpret it as the usual hypocritical stupidity of the pro gun crowd. They claim they are law abiding so no need to take their guns. Then they tell us that they will pick and choose which laws they will obey. But the only people who choose for themselves which laws they will obey are criminals.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not exactly the same as the bumper sticker offers only violence where as that poem tells us that we should speak of injustice rather than ignore it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But it's got the same "they/them" who are "coming" for something or someone, with the threat of, if not actual violence to get what they are coming for.

"They" should be resisted, with speech preferably, violently if need be. Merely speaking up about the socialists and trade unionists being marched away won't help much if it doesn't stop it.
 
Without the right to defend yourself from the government that would take your means of defense away, no other rights matter.
 
No it really does not. The poem was written to point out that when politicians start killing people they disagree with then something should be done. However passing laws that regulate gun use is hardly in the same league as disappearing people that the government disagrees with.
eman623 said:
Without the right to defend yourself from the government that would take your means of defense away, no other rights matter.
Click to expand...
The bumper sticker is the fantasy of the weak minded who cannot come up with a good reason for the 2A. Either that or your admitting that the american form of governance is so corrupt and weak that it really needs to be replaced. Your on a loosing streak with either argument.
 
eman623 said:
Without the right to defend yourself from the government that would take your means of defense away, no other rights matter.
Click to expand...
What government are you defending yourself against with a firearm? Be realistic? If you are telling me the federal government, I think you would be on the losing end of that scuffle.
 
Stop reading bumper stickers.
 
Yes we are and in this case the meaning is clear. I'm sure it's just as clear in most all other situations as well, they are the opposition and giving them the bullets first refers to sam.
 
Chock Full o Nuts said:
It's interpreted as 'a tough guy' that probably wouldn't do shit.
Click to expand...
The wonderful about this country, you can interpret it anyway you like as long as you don't break the law or infringe upon anothers freedom.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not exactly the same as the bumper sticker offers only violence where as that poem tells us that we should speak of injustice rather than ignore it.
Click to expand...
The poem doesn't suggest specific response. It's from WWII and I'm sure the response intended was inclusive of a violent response if necessary..
 
Well there are the they'ems and the them'ems which are interchangeable. As is the us'ems and we'ems. and you can forgive the spellings if you don't overthink it.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not exactly the same as the bumper sticker offers only violence where as that poem tells us that we should speak of injustice rather than ignore it.
Click to expand...
Oh like us poor dumb GUN NUTS? You N.Zers should clean up your own house first. Wait your PM is trying by laying down more gun laws. Guess it could take years huh?
 
Integrityrespec said:
Yes we are and in this case the meaning is clear. I'm sure it's just as clear in most all other situations as well, they are the opposition and giving them the bullets first refers to sam.
Click to expand...
Sam? Son of Sam? Uncle Sam?
 
Integrityrespec said:
The poem doesn't suggest specific response. It's from WWII and I'm sure the response intended was inclusive of a violent response if necessary..
Click to expand...
What you see as a prophecy I would call a warning. Not to let it get to the stage where violence is necessary. Or at least if it ever does get to that stage then try not to take the rest of the world down with you, please.
 
zsu2357 said:
Oh like us poor dumb GUN NUTS? You N.Zers should clean up your own house first. Wait your PM is trying by laying down more gun laws. Guess it could take years huh?
Click to expand...
You really are out of touch. We moved over to a right wing government months ago. Laws are getting fewer and fewer over guns now. Hard to clean house and litter the place with guns at the same time.
 
eman623 said:
Without the right to defend yourself from the government that would take your means of defense away, no other rights matter.
Click to expand...
This is by far among the most ridiculous argument of the frightened 2nd amendment cult. The silly notion that their pea shooters can defend them "from the government". This fallacious argument hasn't been true since before the Vietnam war, and it gets weaker every year. No civilian, no matter how well armed, can resist the US government. Anyone who believes otherwise is a complete fool.

When the 2nd Amendment was written by the founders, a person, or small militia, could fight off "the government" with nothing more than muskets and blunderbusses. But for all the advantage modern guns have now, including full-auto assault rifles, they might just as well still be using black powder against the US government. That's how huge the technological disparity is now.

Even stupider still is the notion that its the Democrats who are the biggest threat to their gun rights, completely in denial of the fact that it was the Republicans who suspended habeas corpus under Bush the Lesser's regime. He and the GOP made it possible for them to declare anybody a threat to national security, so instead of confronting anyone in their bunker to try to take their guns away, they can just pick them up at the big box store while their buying 36 rolls of toilet paper. Then take them away and hold them without charges, go to their homes at the governments leisure, and remove all their firearms and ammo. BOOM - No more 2nd Amendment ! - in the blink of an eye, and without even one shot being fired. Their huge gun and ammo repositories rendered completely useless!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…