ACA Ruling Creating New Anxieties For Consumers

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not singling you out because the attitude you expressed hardly applies to just you. You're just repeating things as a member of the rank and file. And it's obviously applied to conservatives as a whole. There's always the disclaimer that a malicious stereotype doesn't apply to all. Like "Aspies lack empathy and have a predisposition towards violence to the point of serial murder. not that I'm not saying all aspies are potential killers".

No, I clearly stated I'm talking about racist, homophobic personality cultists.

I usually see that kind of rhetoric applied to conservatives as a whole. Don't shy away from what it's intended as. It's a great liberalism propaganda tactic.

I've heard of plenty of conservatives who accuse all liberals of wanting to end gun rights, limit freedom of speech with political correctness, and enslave blacks with social programs, etc.

the fact that every other advanced western nation covers its own citizens with relatively little fuss and for far less money than we spend on a system which systematically gouges the working class, tells me there is something drastically wrong with us as a nation, that after DECADES we still can't figure it out.

That sounds a lot less harsh than what I have read said about conservatives here. Liberalism is against private citizens owning guns, that's a very clear political stance. Political correctness does limit speech, that's the definition of it. I've never read conservatives here say liberals want to enslave blacks with social programs. But I would imagine too many hand-out programs have a tendency to make people (regardless of race) dependent upon government freebies rather than seeking self reliance and contributing towards society.

No, Democrats want common sense gun control.
The threat of political correctness is overblown. In the end, it's opinion, not law.
That is what the right calls enslavement. And as a matter of fact, people aren't going to get jobs if no one will hire them. And getting government help sure beats starving to death.

I used to think political correctness while real, was overblown, that it amounted to no more then a few kids on a few campuses and all the talk about it was a roundabout way of silencing the free expression of ideas by liberals. I have changed my mind. While the phrase "political correctness" is still often used a weapon to silence progressives it is beyond a few kids on campuses. Having the wrong ideas in trendy influential companies gets you in trouble or fired, songs banned, descriptive diagnosis names changed, speakers no-platformed, IRL and online often successful intimidation campaigns.

There’s no such thing as common sense gun control and if it did exist we are well past it.
What’s common sense to me isn’t common sense to you. There’s no common sense. That’s just away of making your side look high and mighty.

If someone says we just want common sense black control. Does it make racism ok?
Banning people’s guns isn’t common sense.

I'm hardly a gun control zealot, and I've come to realize that there is far too much anger on either side for me to get involved in an issue that holds little interest for me. That said, the literal interpretation of the constitution speaks of the right to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. I think the founders might have been thinking something more along the lines of what Switzerland has rather than individuals stocking up on weaponry - - but then again, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar. And even though I have no problem with responsible people owning firearms, I doubt anyone was ever meant to have a rocket launcher for private use.

Still that's considerably less dramatic and caustic than what I have read and heard liberals saying about conservatives and republicans. I'd list some of those, but I know that I'd get that standard "we don't mean that about every single one of them" disclaimer.

A militia is a group of civilians who get together to fight. In order to form a militia civilians need to own arms thus the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own arms so if the need comes they can form a militia. This is how the revolution was fought as well as the war of 1812.
People got together with their own arms and formed militias. Private people
Owned cannons and rifles and provided them as well. This is why they made it the 2nd right behind freedom of speech.
Then in 1900s Supreme Court upheld that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own whatever arms the infantry in the military possess, so rifles, machine guns, anti tank weapons, grenades etc whatever the infantry carry. That is why nukes aren’t protected as infantry aren’t issued nukes.

A well regulated(being in proper working order.) Militia(a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms(weapons, swords are arms, bows are arms, guns are arms), shall not be infringed.

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

You can not use modern definitions and grammar to read text from 1700s anymore then you can use it to read 12 century text.
Words had different meanings back then then they do today, words used back then aren’t today words today didn’t exist back then.

Every single one of the bill of rights is about individuals not groups.

For someone who says they don’t care about it you talk about it a lot and take the anti gun side every time.

We were meant to have rocket launchers to fight the government military in a revolution.
If you anti gun people didn’t Infringe on our rights we’d not be so crippled then you use your infringement to justify more infringements saying look you couldn’t possible win a revolution and why can’t we? Cause you stripped our rights to own the weapons needed to fight one more efficiently, but only for the poor. See rich people do own rocket launches, tanks, fighter jets, submarines, war ships, if you have enough money you can legally own all of that. Some rich people will even let you drive their tanks , shoot their rocket launches, shoot their artillery , and fly In their fighter jets. All for a fee of course.
The point being it’s all still legal but gun control is only about the poor and average persons rights being removed, rich people are always exempt. Why do you suppose the rich and elit don’t want the peasants to own weapons? How do you expect to rise up and defeat the rich eventually as you think will be needed? The rich have all those weapons and private militaries. Once we are disarmed with your help they will have complete power over us. You can kiss all your rights good bye. A gun free USA will be a corporate hell hole.
If you are ok removing one right then you should be ok removing them all just walk down to dc and burn the bill of rights

He’s using 2018 definitions to read a historical document. This is why the Supreme Court uses 1700 definitions when deciding if something is constitutional or not.
Imagine if countries decided to read the Genova rules with 2018 definitions or better yet using their own countries definitions.
Says no hollow points well just redefine hollow points. Now hollow points are full metal Jack bullets so we can use them
And still abide by the rules. Just define fmj as any bullet with a copper jacket, hollow points have copper jackets. Bam
What other laws or rules can we bypass using modern definitions?
What’s torture? Redefine it
What’s inhuman treatment? Redefine it
No those laws are enforcered using the definitions from the period it was written.
It’s ridiculous to use modern definitions with historical documents, of course you’ll be able to get them to say whatever you want but that’s not what the writers meant

What really boggles my mine to is they ignore the Supreme Court decisions when they don’t like it but always bring them up for ones they like, but all those decisions are made using 1700s word use and definitions.
And you can easily google 1700 word definitions.

We have free government. We keep it by making it work for us, not by threatening to overthrow it. The reason why the American Revolution happened was because we had been denied taxation by representation. That changed with the new American Republic. If you want to protect the American experiment in democracy, then vote, take part in politics, make your voice known. All that is worth a hundred rocket launchers.

The 2nd is around for when the 1st doesn’t work.
For someone who complains about voting suppression, government overreach etc yiu oddly defend it a lot.
The Revolution happen cause the other methods of change failed and they knew it’d fail again that any government eventually becomes totalitarian. They knew in all likely hood future generations would need to overthrow a corrupt government again. They just fought one and last thing they wanted was a powerful government like we have today and like the one they fought against.
They believed in individuals not an all mighty government.
Washington could have ran forever he stepped down. He would have gave up his arms over his dead body. Anti gun people would have been the loyalist fighting for crown and country against Washington and the founders.

The people of Ukraine wish they had a 2nd amendment

We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy We aren’t a democracy we aren’t a democracy

Sure, there is voter suppression, but that's hardly the federal government, but state governments.
Our system of government is hardly perfect, but participation is more likely to make changes than violence.
Just a few years after the American Revolution the country saw the Whiskey Rebellion, and armed uprising the founders put down by military might. No government is going to allow itself to be destroyed, even if the Whiskey rebels believed they were being taxed to death (it was still taxation WITH representation).