Poll of the Day > Woops

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on

The point is that theres always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.

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.

noun

1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.

noun

1. a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

noun

1. a supply or quantity of bullets and shells.

If Trump had said this, it would be taken as a threat. Biden needs to study his constitution, or amend it, because as its written, arms can be anything. Scary times, Presidents talking about using American citizens to attack other American citizens. This is 2021, not 1861.

zebatov posted...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on

The point is that theres always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.

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.

noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
noun
1. a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
noun
1. a supply or quantity of bullets and shells.
If Trump had said this, it would be taken as a threat. Biden needs to study his constitution, or amend it, because as its written, arms can be anything. Scary times, Presidents talking about using American citizens to attack other American citizens. This is 2021, not 1861.

Trump literally encouraged American citizens to try to violently overthrow an election because he lost fair and square.

---

Why does he think we want to take on the Government?

What the fuck is wrong with him

---

papercup posted...

Trump literally encouraged American citizens to try to violently overthrow an election because he lost fair and square.

1. But , but! You did it too!
2. I watched everything on this and I didnt see him encouraging it at all.

Soup_or_Science posted...

Why does he think we want to take on the Government?

What the fuck is wrong with him

Its a shorter list to go with What isnt? I mean, this is the guy you had to replace the horrible Trump? Ha!

zebatov posted...

1. But , but! You did it too!
2. I watched everything on this and I didnt see him encouraging it at all.

1) You very much do not understand what he's saying if you think Biden is encouraging violence against the government.
2) You must not have been paying attention at all if you think Trump wasn't encouraging the January 6th attack.

---

papercup posted...

1) You very much do not understand what he's saying if you think Biden is encouraging violence against the government.
2) You must not have been paying attention at all if you think Trump wasn't encouraging the January 6th attack.

If it was Trump saying it, thats exactly how the left would word it.

I already stated I saw everything on it. He did not encourage it. Obviously you didnt understand what Trump was saying if you think he encouraged people to violently overthrow an election (I think you meant the government).

But hey, enlighten me. Quote exactly what he said that makes you think that, and cite the source.

papercup posted...

Trump literally encouraged American citizens to try to violently overthrow an election because he lost fair and square.

no
---

https://bit.ly/2TZOdaN

Some of the children complained of spending up to 60 days in the shelters, even though an Obama administration-era decision puts a 72-hour limit on how long minors can stay in United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. The Biden administration has skirted this requirement by moving migrant children who are captured along the United States-Mexico border out of CBP facilities and into facilities run by the Health and Human Service Department.

Biden's just stating the obvious that we've known for decades now

---

Gotta love that anti-Trump mob mentality where a post shows up slandering him and all the little guys show up to high-five each other, but you link a couple articles that show that Biden is just terrible and nobody wants to come talk about how theyre wrong and what they can do to improve.

Biden sucks shit dude it's just Trump is way worse

---

zebatov posted...

Gotta love that anti-Trump mob mentality where a post shows up slandering him and all the little guys show up to high-five each other, but you link a couple articles that show that Biden is just terrible and nobody wants to come talk about how theyre wrong and what they can do to improve.

Maybe a lot of users here are ignoring you?

Your topics tend not to get many responses.

---

papercup posted...

Trump literally encouraged American citizens to try to violently overthrow an election because he lost fair and square.

Literally? OK, to be fair...no, not literally. I can't think of a case where Trump said anything policy-related or otherwise meaningful in "literal" clear English. Everything that comes out of his mouth is designed to work exactly as planned on his base at an emotional level...but not be taken literally. Demagogue 101.

Soo...yes, he whipped up a group of people into a raving frenzy with tales of stolen elections and told them that the people who were persecuting him so badly were just over there. But he didn't TELL them to attack them! I guess it's OK to yell fire in a packed theater after telling everyone on the way in that a fire is possible.

And as long as we're on the subject, read this again:
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 right loves to forget the first half of that sentence. The whole amendment is written in the context of a well-regulated militia! If that had been written in anything close to modern English is would read something like "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed with the goal of maintaining a well-regulated militia". Do you think the founders would allow unstable Joe Sixpack to own a dozen cannons? No - that doesn't sound very well-regulated to me. Biden is exactly on point.

---

Sarcasthma posted...

Maybe a lot of users here are ignoring you?

Your topics tend not to get many responses.

Its because of the thing I mentioned. Lots of the people here voted for this guy, and all this stuff hes been doing doesnt really say much good about them as voters. He should be enjoying his final days in retirement, not poorly running a country. Otherwise the regulars have no problem seeing my posts in other threads. I only have two users blocked that argue everything I say anyways, even if theyre wrong.

They ignore you the way you ignored me? For shame.

---

wpot posted...

The right loves to forget the first half of that sentence. The whole amendment is written in the context of a well-regulated militia! If that had been written in anything close to modern English is would read something like "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed with the goal of maintaining a well-regulated militia". Do you think the founders would allow unstable Joe Sixpack to own a dozen cannons? No - that doesn't sound very well-regulated to me. Biden is exactly on point.

@wpot
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-checking-joe-bidens-misleading-second-amendment-claims

So no, he isnt. And yes, you can.

wpot posted...

They ignore you the way you ignored me? For shame.

Dunno who you are, but theres a zero percent chance that if I did, it was the same way.

zebatov posted...

So no, he isnt. And yes, you can.

What that link says is that the amendment was not followed up by laws that specifically regulated cannons/etc. What that link DOESN'T address is the central point: i.e. whether the language of the amendment ALLOWS for the government to pass such a law if they wanted to. In the context of a REGULATED militia, yes, it appears to...which would be the Democrats' point. There's no reason whatsoever to use the word "regulated" in that sentence if such laws were not foreseen by the founders.

We could possibly argue about whether the word "regulated" applies to individuals versus groups (militias), however, given that individuals turn into groups constantly the distinction is likely meaningless in practice.

---

The people can regulate themselves, as the people together would be the militia. I found this definition A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist ( ) activities in opposition to a regular army. I added the quotes in brackets because technically by definition, the government is a terrorist organisation. And heres the definition for that: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Not all laws are just.

zebatov posted...

The people can regulate themselves

I seriously doubt that: they're going to pass on self-interest in order to address a greater good? I don't see much evidence for that. Regardless, the word "regulated" in a constitution would heavily imply a government role in said regulation.

As for the definition, sure, it's a group of people that form a military force for...some reason. That is a broad enough definition to encompass more or less any group of people getting together with weapons.

As for the government and "terrorist", now you're touching on the absolutism that is ruining everything right now. Both right wingers and left wingers are guilty here. Yes, the government has problems that would meet the definition of some bad things: outright "terrorist" is a stretch, but whatever.

Point being: it took hundreds of years to build the government and traditions that we have. Do you see an alternative to our system that is something you would like to have? If not, it would be wise to focus your rhetoric on the portion of the government you believe is in need of reform. There are certainly options available.

I don't want to see a mob of people who were whipped up by incendiary - but limited - issues (abortion, guns, whatever from either the left or right viewpoints) break our entire system and destroy everything that DOES work without a plan for something better. But nobody appears to think any further than "I hate these issues: burn the whole thing down!" Life isn't that easy.

Of course, the reality is that the system is going to break on it's own under the weight of greed and partisanship unless there's another WWII or something to remind us why we need to get along.

---