******Official politics thread ******

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by suptoofs [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is not at all the point, and you know this.

They are applying for a job knowing full well that they have a high chance of being killed in action.

The same for soldiers in the military, but you evaded and ignored that post.

You quote "people won't do the job if there's a high chance of getting murdered."

Sorry but reality completely negates and contradicts your inane claim.

I would consider being a cop.

I would never consider going door to door to round people up if they are potentially hostile and with guns. The more guns out there, the more I wouldn’t want to do it.

Simple relationship there.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Think of the feasibility of what you are suggesting.

A tyrannical government is going to send a single p99 poster around a neighbourhood to blindly 'round up' 'people'.

Firstly, that's never going to happen. Such an operation would have WAY more intel on its targets than just knocking on doors and asking if the occupants are dissidents. The government forces would know where to expect targets and where to expect resistance.

Secondly, the people doing the rounding up are going to be viewed as disposable by the government, either as mercenaries or fanatics.

Thirdly, there have been plenty of rounding ups resulting in massed murders in countries where there are very limited gun controls. The idea that a resident and his hand gun is going to stop your tyrannical government and their lackeys from rounding up whoever they please is nothing short of a diversionary fantasy.

Sadly this is where cognitive dissonance takes place. You must not do a lot of history research or understand gun laws at all.

If you are a private citizen and have a CHL in the state of Texas, there is no law that requires you to submit a gun for any registry. They have absolutely no idea how many guns are out there. People can also sell private individual to private individual. Thus, you now can't even track guns you knew where they used to be.

When Sheriff's have been asked to do round ups when Beto was voicing his opinion. A large majority were telling him to go fuck himself. Majority of the police and military are on the side of the idea of the second amendment and that doesn't only apply to muskets like some idiot here stated. The sheriffs stated that it would be an open suicide mission because they don't want their officers fighting citizens over a right to defend themselves. It would cause more violence then mass shootings.

On your third point. You are completely neglecting that we are a country that came from a Tyrannical government and was overthrown by allowing citizens to own firearms. Since they had seen what tyrannical governments are capable of over an individual, they realized that individual freedoms trump the government. A mass shooter can kill maybe hundreds of people, a government can kill millions.

If it were ever to come down to people having to defend their civil liberties, you would quickly find that majority of the police and military would be on the side of the civilians (they want to own firearms as civilians as well) and it wouldn't be a lopsided battle for the citizens to regain the upper hand since there are as many guns in the US as people.

No government is going to immediately drone strike their people otherwise they would get the same treatment as the uproar from the boston massacre.

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Could be worse. You could be a democrat and literally support pedophiles and murderers.

Yeah man. Hypothetical Boogeymen vs actual convicted criminals. Totally.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like the 2nd amendment sanctuary cities cuz it exploits the same states rights type baloney regular sanctuary cities do. It's a good retort to openly donning the Grey. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also weed

Except one is in the bill of rights but yeah.

[suptoofs]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would consider being a cop.

I would never consider going door to door to round people up if they are potentially hostile and with guns. The more guns out there, the more I wouldn’t want to do it.

Simple relationship there.

You have a bad habit of jumping track and again, that is not the point.

I'm not asking your personal opinion on what you would do.

We are attempting to establish the whether or not "people would sign up for a job knowing full well they might be killed due to that job.

Military, police officers, fire fighters, linemen, loggers. The list goes on bud.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by suptoofs [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a bad habit of jumping track and again, that is not the point.

I'm not asking your personal opinion on what you would do.

We are attempting to establish the whether or not "people would sign up for a job knowing full well they might be killed due to that job.

Military, police officers, fire fighters, linemen, loggers. The list goes on bud.

To be honest, I feel like the point Teppler is trying to make is not that they give a shit about getting murdered (maybe some) but moreover, a large percentage of those occupations strongly disagree with your premise.

[feniin]

Guns are for people who don't know how to defend themselves or their viewpoints otherwise.

Can we get back to the topic at hand: Your cult is falling apart. More of the criminals are going to jail.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guns are for people who don't know how to defend themselves or their viewpoints otherwise.

Can we get back to the topic at hand: Your cult is falling apart. More of the criminals are going to jail.

If Trump goes to trial and the trial ends in impeachment, we can talk about that.

Until then I want to hear your dumb logic about guns and how you are alive today and living in this country that fought for you freedom with guns and you are calling them a coward.

Failed logic. Criminal has a gun. Criminal holds up law abiding citizen and shoots him in front of his son. Son now wants to own a gun to defend himself. You are saying he is wrong. You are a dumbass.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Huh? Federal supremacy. It's an interesting bit to relitigate the conflict divorced from the context of humans as property.

Guess I am not following you but the point was that you shouldn't need sanctuary cities with guns because it is already under the Supremacy Clause. Majority of the other things such as weed or anything else are luxuries that are not protected. But if ask my opinion on weed or other things, I completely agree it should be state rights.

But not only that majority of states have state laws as well that protect the right to bear arms.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by suptoofs [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a bad habit of jumping track and again, that is not the point.

I'm not asking your personal opinion on what you would do.

We are attempting to establish the whether or not "people would sign up for a job knowing full well they might be killed due to that job.

Military, police officers, fire fighters, linemen, loggers. The list goes on bud.

Lol am I not a person?