Civilization.
In a nutshell.
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
This is not Braveheart.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
This is not Braveheart. [/quote]
No, this is real life where the tree of liberty needs to be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots every now and then.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
Inspires others? To what? Take up arms agaisnt the LAPD? That is the worst possible outcome for LA and the country as a whole.
Knowing what you know about America, in 2012, you think this would end well as it relates to the freedoms we have left?
Every gun in the nation would be confiscated, tyranny would be complete.
I’m saying it is a hard position to argue with because your premise that power rules, and the sword is power is spot on, so for me to argue it would be silly.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
This is not Braveheart. [/quote]
No, this is real life where the tree of liberty needs to be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots every now and then. [/quote]
Or, you know, we could use the Constitution as it was intended and file suit after suit and bring about order the way our government was intended to allow that to happen.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
Inspires others? To what? Take up arms agaisnt the LAPD? That is the worst possible outcome for LA and the country as a whole.
Knowing what you know about America, in 2012, you think this would end well as it relates to the freedoms we have left?
Every gun in the nation would be confiscated, tyranny would be complete.
I’m saying it is a hard position to argue with because your premise that power rules, and the sword is power is spot on, so for me to argue it would be silly. [/quote]
Actually, I dont think that you can escape this path.
You have entangled yourself in a web of bureaucracy and PC bullshit and I doubt that you can dial it back to a sustainable level.
I also do not get the fear of “them”.
“They” are in the minority.
“They” are surrounded.
“They” live off of your money.
“They” are replacable.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
But if I do as lanky suggests and go over to PWI and post something about drone strikes being wrong for the same reason, I better not see you defending them.
V[/quote]
I’ve already said they were bullshit in the thread that is there about them. Should be on page 1 and 2 if I recall correctly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
This is not Braveheart. [/quote]
No, this is real life where the tree of liberty needs to be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots every now and then. [/quote]
Or, you know, we could use the Constitution as it was intended and file suit after suit and bring about order the way our government was intended to allow that to happen. [/quote]
The second amendment is part of the constitution, and that part isn’t about the right to hunt.
V
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Civilization.
In a nutshell. [/quote]
Okay fine. I know where you are coming from and it isn’t an easy position to argue.
But, do you seriously contend that one person, taking up a sword agaisnt a more powerful organization already known to lay the heavy hand, is going to prompt the organization to lessen its use of force on the citizenry?
[/quote]
If he stays the only one, no.
If he inspires others, yes.
Plus, it is not an easy position now to argue, but for the ones that did it it was self evident.
[/quote]
This is not Braveheart. [/quote]
No, this is real life where the tree of liberty needs to be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots every now and then. [/quote]
Or, you know, we could use the Constitution as it was intended and file suit after suit and bring about order the way our government was intended to allow that to happen. [/quote]
The SCOTUS “reinterpreted” the constitution from the word “go”.
No, you cant.
[quote]orion wrote:
Actually, I dont think that you can escape this path.
You have entangled yourself in a web of bureaucracy and PC bullshit and I doubt that you can dial it back to a sustainable level.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong, well I certainly hope you are.
The moon waxes and wanes and all that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Actually, I dont think that you can escape this path.
You have entangled yourself in a web of bureaucracy and PC bullshit and I doubt that you can dial it back to a sustainable level.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong, well I certainly hope you are.
The moon waxes and wanes and all that. [/quote]
It does.
It is red when it rises.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
But if I do as lanky suggests and go over to PWI and post something about drone strikes being wrong for the same reason, I better not see you defending them.
V[/quote]
I’ve already said they were bullshit in the thread that is there about them. Should be on page 1 and 2 if I recall correctly.[/quote]
There is a large gap between “they are bullshit” and “the people ordering them are enemies of freedom and the values the United States stands for and should be tried in a court of law as such, regardless of their current position within the government”. No one in the government is supposed to be above the law, and in fact, their actions as representatives of the government are meant to be held to a higher standard not a lower one.
V
THEY FOUND HIM.
HE is in a cabin in Big Bear, surrounded.
There was a shootout, 2 cops wounded.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
The second amendment is part of the constitution, and that part isn’t about the right to hunt.
V[/quote]
It isn’t about calling yourself judge jury and executiner either.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
But if I do as lanky suggests and go over to PWI and post something about drone strikes being wrong for the same reason, I better not see you defending them.
V[/quote]
I’ve already said they were bullshit in the thread that is there about them. Should be on page 1 and 2 if I recall correctly.[/quote]
There is a large gap between “they are bullshit” and “the people ordering them are enemies of freedom and the values the United States stands for and should be tried in a court of law as such, regardless of their current position within the government”. No one in the government is supposed to be above the law, and in fact, their actions as representatives of the government are meant to be held to a higher standard not a lower one.
V[/quote]
Read my posts on the topic homie.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
The second amendment is part of the constitution, and that part isn’t about the right to hunt.
V[/quote]
It isn’t about calling yourself judge jury and executiner either. [/quote]
Then why have a gun at all if you are not ready to use it?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
The second amendment is part of the constitution, and that part isn’t about the right to hunt.
V[/quote]
It isn’t about calling yourself judge jury and executiner either. [/quote]
Then why have a gun at all if you are not ready to use it?[/quote]
Using it to defend yourself from attack, and using it to hunt down and kill people because you feel they should die, are two different things. Being fired or lied about in court isn’t the type of “attack” that warrents murder.
Part of freedom is responsibility. Part of responibility is knowing what teh difference between murder and self defense is in a case as obvious as this.
it still belies explanation as to how LITTLE coverage the cops opening fire on multiple false targets is getting. makes me want to scream.