Page 70 of 74 FirstFirst ... 20 60 68 69 70 71 72 ... LastLast
Results 2,071 to 2,100 of 2191

Thread: Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

  1. #2071
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,646
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)

  2. #2072
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)

    Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swykk View Post
    Stooge for NRA gets shot by gunnut. Fellow gunnuts point at/blame Dems for their "rhetoric."

    I don't type LOL much but I am actually laughing out loud at this. They STILL can't admit their huge role in this. Sad!
    Yeah. What seems to be a politically motivated shooting is funny because the people who got shot are basically the victims of their own policy. If they supported the other policy carried by the other party maybe they wouldn't have been shot, and it definitely wouldn't be funny then. It's funny because they basically shot themselves!

    Quick, someone get Gabby Giffords and ask her what Dem policy proposals ever have a chance of stopping any of the shootings the policies follow in the wake of.

    Maybe we can laugh at the victims of the Orlando shooting too because of their stance on self defense. Because these things are funny guys.

  3. #2073
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    1,755
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    It was knee jerk. I deleted it because it was in poor taste (and because more details were released that shed more light on the situation) but at least I got the right's reaction to it correct. Being in the NRA's pocket fucked them directly this time. I'm laughing at their response, not at Scalise, for the record.

    I think Giffords might point to the Dems' desire to get gun control on the slate for discussion.

    I saw several hot takes by right wing gunnuts about Pulse saying "they just needed good guys with guns." Because that is a GREAT SOLUTION THAT WORKS EVERY TIME.

    As for the shooter, it seems that maybe Congress trying to muscle a repeal of healthcare without giving a fuck in the least nor disclosing what's in the repeal might've been a bad strategy?
    Last edited by Swykk; 06-14-2017 at 11:53 AM.

  4. #2074
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Yeah. What seems to be a politically motivated shooting is funny because the people who got shot are basically the victims of their own policy. If they supported the other policy carried by the other party maybe they wouldn't have been shot, and it definitely wouldn't be funny then. It's funny because they basically shot themselves!

    Quick, someone get Gabby Giffords and ask her what Dem policy proposals ever have a chance of stopping any of the shootings the policies follow in the wake of.

    Maybe we can laugh at the victims of the Orlando shooting too because of their stance on self defense. Because these things are funny guys.
    I think you're being a bit po-faced here. Ever heard of laughed at the Darwin Awards emails?

  5. #2075
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    @Swykk - i missed the delete. I was surprised that it was you posting it, honestly. A lot of people are saying what you are though, so it's worth at least mentioning.

    My giffords point was that gun control proposals that follow high profile shootings are almost always something that would have had zero impact on that shooting. Background checks after the shooter passed a background check, etc.

    In this case, good guys with guns (Scalise's security team) sounds exactly what stopped the shooting early. Nobody says it works EVERY time though. Keep in mind, a lot of the people saying this are the very people who were at the field when the shooting unfolded. ex: rand paul: https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/874965298960412672
    It's one thing to make these claims from afar, as politicians usually do, but being involved in one of these shootings is probably going to test your ideologies.


    And yes, there are a lot on the right trying to point out motives and identity of the shooter. Supposedly a Bernie guy who is very anti-Trump or something. It's a mistake to assume this is motivated by a defense of their gun policy. The right would be doing the exact same thing if a bomb was used, or a truck, or a knife. Many of the pro gun control side will immediately fixate on gun control during a shooting and mistakenly assume everyone else has such a simple perspective... that everything said somehow connects to gun control.

  6. #2076
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    1,755
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Okay but in fairness, those guys are trained. That's not a be all end all statement, either because for example, look at all of the inefficient police that have killed unarmed people. They're supposedly trained as well.

  7. #2077
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Yup. Exactly. I have frequently mentioned that when you compare police vs citizen gun use, the police have a higher rate of injuring bystanders, etc. Police are usually "trained" in the laziest and cheapest way possible. Many of the citizens who carry take it much more seriously, which is probably why their average results are better when it comes time for it to matter.

    I have no idea what the security detail here looks like though, so I can't comment.

  8. #2078
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,478
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    3 dead in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco. Shooter shot himself afterwards.
    Tough day in the US.

    Fuck ... I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.

  9. #2079
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepvoid View Post
    3 dead in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco. Shooter shot himself afterwards.
    Tough day in the US.

    Fuck ... I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.
    Yeah. We got the usual SMS notification that there was "police activity" in the area like there is every week. Thanks so much for the info assholes. Now im watching startup owners post on Facebook about how sad it is because they went to that UPS building to get a box and the people were really nice. I'm tempted to get a UPS profile overlay and start a #StandWithBrown campaign but I don't want to get fired quite yet.

  10. #2080
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Jesus. Bernie Sanders is now having to make statements after learning that the shooter worked for his election campaign.

  11. #2081
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)

  12. #2082
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    You don't actually think this goes beyond a shallow quipp, right? I have a funny feeling you do though.... The only thing that draws a parallel here is the phrasing. It's not like one Bernie campaign worker with a gun is an insurrection about to overthrow the government. You'd need a whole lot of people. And that is one of the many things that tempers that process.

  13. #2083
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    You don't actually think this goes beyond a shallow quipp, right? I have a funny feeling you do though.... The only thing that draws a parallel here is the phrasing. It's not like one Bernie campaign worker with a gun is an insurrection about to overthrow the government. You'd need a whole lot of people. And that is one of the many things that tempers that process.
    You realize that people rally around shallow quips, right? They make for sound bytes, then people buy into them. Hundreds of thousands of people spent last summer screaming "lock her up", dressing in prison jumpsuits, and making an entire line of "Hilary for Prison" merchandise based on a shallow quip.

    One - especially a person in a political leadership position - does not get to suggest shooting government agents and then go "haha jk guys don't b so serious".

  14. #2084
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    You realize that people rally around shallow quips, right? They make for sound bytes, then people buy into them. Hundreds of thousands of people spent last summer screaming "lock her up", dressing in prison jumpsuits, and making an entire line of "Hilary for Prison" merchandise based on a shallow quip.

    One - especially a person in a political leadership position - does not get to suggest shooting government agents and then go "haha jk guys don't b so serious".
    I was actually referring to your post as the quipp. And I was right. You actually do think resurrecting his comment holds actual value against what happened today. Holy shit.

  15. #2085
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)

    Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

    For a small group of anarchists, they make some amazing videos

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5cwP1HmEGo

  16. #2086
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Turtle Island
    Posts
    594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Edit: Didn't see this was already posted in the Random news thread.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...tival-shooting

    A gunman who fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip has killed more than 50 people and wounded more than 200, police say. Two of the dead are believed to be off-duty police officers who were attending the concert. The suspect in the case is also dead.
    Last edited by Wolfkiller; 10-02-2017 at 07:03 AM.

  17. #2087
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,573
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Oof.

  18. #2088
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Moved from the wrong thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eichalvindore View Post
    a lot of our ground pounder enlisted and veteran service men and women develop varying degrees of hearing damage/loss due to the nature of their job. suppressors are another protective measure against permanent hearing damage/loss.

    our American Constitution 'safe guards' uprising against tyranny.
    having these types of tools available to the public (cause these same tools and worse will always be readily available to the private sector) help to keep the playing field level so-to-speak; the people vs state/gov't
    Here is the 2nd AMENDMENT to the Constitution, in its entirety (emphasis mine):

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The 2nd Amendment is often confused with Article VI of the Constitution and the "Oath of Office."

    Any idea about the 2nd Amendment helping against an "uprising" of "tyranny" is not supported by the language of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment LITERALLY related to a MILITIA.

    Also note that when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there was a "free state" and a "slave state." So the 2nd Amendment specifically provides for arms for the highly-regulated STATE Government militias (private citizens fighting for the STATE Government) to fight and keep slaves.

    It has since grew to be interpreted by the SCOTUS to protect States' rights regarding gun control, free from the Federal Government and Congress.

    There are, literally, HUNDREDS of court cases that challenge the language of the 2nd Amendment. The scope and type of "arms" has been defined and has changed with the times; since our founding fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as a brief (one singular sentence) declaration, law knows that this was intentional to avoid originalist interpretation and to allow each State to define their own laws.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Heller, grew the language to now include handguns for home protection. But Heller (which cites the former Miller decision) specifically states:

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    This concept has been supported and reinforced this year by a Federal Appeals court, see here.

    The most striking part of Tuesday’s decision is a concurrence written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee. Wilkinson joined the majority opinion, but he wrote separately to express his discomfort with the gun lobby’s strategy of using the courts to increase access to dangerous firearms:

    As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say.
    Wilkinson also criticized the dissenting judges, as well as the plaintiffs in this case, for attempting to take gun regulation out of democratic sphere almost entirely. His panegyric to judicial restraint with regard to Second Amendment interpretation is quite moving:

    Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

    In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done. Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-03-2017 at 11:57 AM.

  19. #2089
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    855
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    I'll remind people that even amendments have limits, i don't want to take away guns but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's, i think that's reasonable, there's really no reason to own 20+ gun unless you are expecting a zombie Apocalypse of some kind. also not to make this sexiest but men tend to like to use their toys. if you buy a Lamborghini you're probably going to get a speeding ticket. I know a lot of gun owners. hell I've even shot full auto weapons in Las Vegas, no less def-con used to have a gun day. I would like to see reasonable legislation. and the NRA to get it's blood money out of our political system, and live in a country where i have a better chance at winning the lottery than being shot to death for being out in public
    -Louie

  20. #2090
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    the 2nd Amendment LITERALLY related to a MILITIA.
    Just so people don't read this part as *requiring* that the people be part of a militia (a very popular misunderstanding lately)... it's to allow all the citizens to form a militia as needed.

    From Scalia in the Heller case:
    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.

  21. #2091
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louie_Cypher View Post
    but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's
    Many states DO have that. And there is a Federal law preventing people with domestic relations convictions from owning or purchasing guns or ammo.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-03-2017 at 12:07 PM.

  22. #2092
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Just so people don't read this part as *requiring* that the people be part of a militia (a very popular misunderstanding lately)... it's to allow all the citizens to form a militia as needed.
    Well, yes, the Militia isn't required. But a very good (primary) example of a State militia is the Civil War, with the Confederate States of America (a new country which the CSOA formed separate from the U.S.) being supported by a Militia against the Federal Government in the interest of preserving state's rights to own and trade slaves.

    Scalia was an originalist and while I greatly respect many of his opinions, I feel that many of his opinions were too strict in originalist interpretation and he often contradicted himself in straying from his own strict originalist views.

    But, yes, CONTEXT is the key, and the Revolution toward a free state (Federal) is/was Scalia's view as to "State" (but then he'd turn his views to interpret state as LITERALLY state's rights), and those state's rights, per Scalia, grew to include owning a handgun at home to protect your property and family.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-03-2017 at 12:08 PM.

  23. #2093
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    The other issue that I think is going to be a key issue regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment relates to "terrorism" - both foreign and domestic - and controlling guns in the interest of "National Security."

    Our founding fathers weren't up against one guy who could have enough guns and ammo to shoot nearly 600 innocent American citizens in about 20 minutes

  24. #2094
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    I think @Eichalvindore's general idea about leveling the power between the people and the govt has a good amount of truth in it. Maybe not as it was specifically stated though. To rephrase what he said for more accuracy: the 2nd amendment is heavily to keep the power in the hands of the states, especially in comparison to the federal govt.

    Back in the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists there was debate over a standing federal army and how it would risk the freedom of the states. That fear going back to the Crown being able to use a standing army to push something on the people and circumvent Parliament. They decided not to have a standing federal army and that state run militias were the right way. Granted, they then gave control over the militias to Congress... so wtf. Even back then, it was continually contested who really had the power over the militias. I think it's still a better balance over a standing federal army though. Else, you get situations like we see in Catalonia where the national police are beating the shit out of citizens for simply holding their own vote while the locally funded fireman and police are defending the people.

    This right here justifies the originalist intent against federal power:



    Anyway, to actually make my opening case: We now have a standing federal military. In the spirit of keeping the power in the hands of the states, the people of the states should poses enough power to resist the federal power. To that people will say "that this is too much weaponry"... and to that I say "then reduce the power of the federal govt and remove the standing armies"

  25. #2095
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    the 2nd amendment is heavily to keep the power in the hands of the states, especially in comparison to the federal govt.
    Well, except we kinda don't have a standing Federal army; we have a limited army which has been proven with the draft being instituted many times in the past; Scalia cites the Revolutionary War against King George and his Proclamation of Rebellion.

    We have the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

    See also, for example, Switzerland:

    One of the best known and ancient militias is the Swiss Armed Forces. Switzerland has long maintained, proportionally, the second largest military force in the world, with about half the proportional amount of reserve forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, a militia of some 33% of the total population. Article 58.1 of the April 18, 1999, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (official, French version) provides that "Switzerland has an army. It is primarily organised according to the principle of a militia." However, under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel. In 1995, the number of soldiers was reduced to 400,000 (including reservists, amounting to some 5.6% of the population) and again in 2004, to 200,000 (including 80,000 reservists, or 2.5% of the population). However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of most of the adult male population (with voluntary participation by women) who are required to keep an assault rifle at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training. The militia clauses of the Swiss Federal Constitution are contained in Art. 59, where it is referred to as "military service"
    We can say that our citizens aren't "required" to be in a "militia," but that's not true.

    A draft is the mandatory enrollment of individuals into the armed forces. Although the United States military has been an all-volunteer force since 1973, the government maintains the ability to start a draft in case of a national emergency. The Selective Service System is the agency responsible for the draft.

    Who Must Register for the Draft

    Almost all men 18-25 who are U.S. citizens or are immigrants living in the U.S. are required to register with Selective Service.

    Men in the U.S. on student, visitor or diplomatic visas and women are not required to register. For other exemptions, see the Who Must Register chart.
    If we entered into another Vietnam, Korea, or World War, the U.S. would most definitely require a draft. If the U.S. was invaded by a foreign government on the ground, the U.S. could institute a draft, but each state could specifically site the 2nd Amendment wherein citizens could defend the U.S. using their own guns. And this is one of the primary arguments of 2nd Amendment proponents.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-03-2017 at 12:57 PM.

  26. #2096
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    ^ wait what? How do we NOT have a standing army? We have all the federal armed forces doing their thing without any Congressional declaration of war. If they are doing anything outside of the declaration of war, they are a standing army.

    re: draft. of course, That certainly supports state power over federal when it comes to the physical force.

  27. #2097
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    ^ wait what? How do we NOT have a standing army? We have all the federal armed forces doing their thing without any Congressional declaration of war. If they are doing anything outside of the declaration of war, they are a standing army.
    They don't have to be "fighting" to be an army or a militia. There are many stationed in bases across the world solely for protection of allies and our country.

    See U.S. Armed Forces.

    But, also, SEE THIS.

    But it was not until September 29 [1789], the last day of its first session, that Congress passed a bill empowering the president “to call into service, from time to time, such part of the militia of the states, respectively, as he may judge necessary.” Before that, states could refuse to send along their men.
    The 2nd Amendment was added in 1791.

    Even with our HUGE armed forces, we have still needed to institute the draft in pretty much all wars against foreign countries.

    But, when viewing the context of the original text of the 2nd Amendment: It was intended for STATES to have rights over their own militias. Like the National Guard, per U.S. Code relating to reservists vs. State Defense forces.

    Unless you also view it from the originalist context of free state vs. slave state, as well as free state from King George.

    So, yeah, we contradict shit all the time.

    A-M-B-I-G-U-I-T-Y is intentional.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-03-2017 at 01:22 PM.

  28. #2098
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    If we aren't at a time of war (as created by congression declaration), and there is still a military operating, and they still have the ability to operate on US soil, they they are a threat to the states. Things like the Posse Comitatus Act keeps getting messed with and there isn't a 100% exclusion of the military on US soil.

    Honestly, I think most proponents of heavy gun control are also the types who would agree to us massively scaling back our military. They just don't see the connection with the 2A because they don't understand it beyond "everyone gets guns and stuff."

  29. #2099
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    At Lunch
    Posts
    9,303
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    If we aren't at a time of war (as created by congression declaration), and there is still a military operating, and they still have the ability to operate on US soil, they they are a threat to the states. Things like the Posse Comitatus Act keeps getting messed with and there isn't a 100% exclusion of the military on US soil.

    Honestly, I think most proponents of heavy gun control are also the types who would agree to us massively scaling back our military. They just don't see the connection with the 2A because they don't understand it beyond "everyone gets guns and stuff."
    Well, yeah and yeah.

    One example that comes to mind is the book and now TV Series based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, "A Handmaid's Tale." She wrote it during and was inspired by the U.S. religious right during the Reagan administration. But, lots of it is still scary stuff that could be applied to modern times; a theocratic and totalitarian armed military kills everybody in the U.S. government, hacks into the banking system and shuts down every debit card with an "F" for "Female" in it to prevent escape, and the citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the new ultra-religious totalitarian government that replaced the United States of America. Except, too, that the awful new government consists of a private militia that was armed to the teeth. So, yeah, depends on how you view it.

  30. #2100
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    fuck yesssss
    allegro is woke as fuck and actually gets the full implication behind books like Atwood's. So used to seeing the shallow and overly simple feminist interpretations of the new age.

    and yeah, militias can go sour, but if we have them decentralized into 50 different states... there can be some added democracy and damage control. IMO, the states of today are way too big, but thats a whole different topic.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions