IGX

tough old man wrote:

Leave it to a Canadian to be reasonable! This is a get fired up and plan the overthrow thread isnt it?

Not really at all. Did you even read the OP? even the biggest gun supporters on here said its not likely at all

Nope, dont really care enough to.

So you posted the picture on the first page of this thread but hadn't read it?

Most of the gun loonies here either work for the gov or are on welfare, they're the last people the gov is worried about.

If you want to worry the gov organize a boycott or sumthin'. Get the banks worried and then you'll see action.

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Okay, so you guys have all these guns, but you've also got the TSA, Homeland Security, indefinite detention, no-knock warrants, no-warrant wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the War on Drugs, and Obamacare.

According to my calculations if you were going to take up arms and defend your liberty you should have started ten or eleven years ago. What's the holdup?

Those are all necessary to national defense and public safety.

Yeah, those things are all bad, but let's give the same entity behind them the power to force mental health checks and eliminate medical privacy to exercise constitutional rights. Makes sense

Much better to leave it in the capable hands of the folks posting online about armed rebellion.

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Okay, so you guys have all these guns, but you've also got the TSA, Homeland Security, indefinite detention, no-knock warrants, no-warrant wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the War on Drugs, and Obamacare.

According to my calculations if you were going to take up arms and defend your liberty you should have started ten or eleven years ago. What's the holdup?

Those are all necessary to national defense and public safety.

Yeah, those things are all bad, but let's give the same entity behind them the power to force mental health checks and eliminate medical privacy to exercise constitutional rights. Makes sense

Much better to leave it in the capable hands of the folks posting online about armed rebellion.

IF YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION, GTFO!

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Okay, so you guys have all these guns, but you've also got the TSA, Homeland Security, indefinite detention, no-knock warrants, no-warrant wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the War on Drugs, and Obamacare.

According to my calculations if you were going to take up arms and defend your liberty you should have started ten or eleven years ago. What's the holdup?

Those are all necessary to national defense and public safety.

Yeah, those things are all bad, but let's give the same entity behind them the power to force mental health checks and eliminate medical privacy to exercise constitutional rights. Makes sense

Much better to leave it in the capable hands of the folks posting online about armed rebellion.

Leave what in their hands? Deciding who gets to own what guns? It's already been decided dumbass, and the govt is trying to circumvent that decision.

Now run along and make some more threads being outraged about the govt legalizing propaganda, entering African nations and killing people under false pretenses, using drones on US soil, and otherwise attacking amendments 1 and 3-10. Then turn around and agree with the same executive branch attacking amendment 2. Fuck consistency, bro

Terry B. wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Okay, so you guys have all these guns, but you've also got the TSA, Homeland Security, indefinite detention, no-knock warrants, no-warrant wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the War on Drugs, and Obamacare.

According to my calculations if you were going to take up arms and defend your liberty you should have started ten or eleven years ago. What's the holdup?

Those are all necessary to national defense and public safety.

Yeah, those things are all bad, but let's give the same entity behind them the power to force mental health checks and eliminate medical privacy to exercise constitutional rights. Makes sense

Much better to leave it in the capable hands of the folks posting online about armed rebellion.

IF YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION, GTFO!

You, being a yuppie endurance faggot, should understand incrementalism from your "training". Amendments 1-10 are being chipped away in small increments, but like most people, you only care about your favorite ones. If some pornographer or "artist" you like had their rights infringed upon, you'd be down at Starbucks or the sushi place with your fabulous freinds planning your own rebellion.

Herv100 wrote:You, being a yuppie endurance faggot, should understand incrementalism from your "training". Amendments 1-10 are being chipped away in small increments, but like most people, you only care about your favorite ones. If some pornographer or "artist" you like had their rights infringed upon, you'd be down at Starbucks or the sushi place with your fabulous freinds planning your own rebellion.

I agree with Herv. In just a short 230-ish years, look how far incrementalism has eroded each of the amendments. Its near impossble to find a place where you can exercise free speech. Nobody's allowed to keep any guns anymore. And so it goes

Its simple empirical objective science. At this rate, incrementalism will quickly make slaves of us all - and the sun burning out will make those slave days even worse

BucketHead wrote:I agree with Herv. In just a short 230-ish years, look how far incrementalism has eroded each of the amendments. Its near impossble to find a place where you can exercise free speech. Nobody's allowed to keep any guns anymore. And so it goes

Its simple empirical objective science. At this rate, incrementalism will quickly make slaves of us all - and the sun burning out will make those slave days even worse

Hey look, another inconsistent pick and chooser.

Yeah, the Patriot Act and NDAA alone haven't picked away at the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment all. LMAO

So your answer is that you'd like to use some nefarious term like incrementalism incorrectly based on some relatively recent bad policies. Okay.

The easy to see fact, however, is that throughout our history we have had short-term ebb and flow on certain rights for certain people but an immense overall trend toward more rights and freedom to more people - always.

So, I propose that there is no evidence of incrementalism or "slippery slope" politics in any facet of human rights or constitutional rights.

*edit
Edited because my post made even less sense than usual.

Shoot, maybe questioning the patriotism of anyone who questioned their earlier excesses wasn't such a great idea after all...

For @ and it's @lter ego.

http://www.irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtop ... 9&start=25

Poor Trd.

Herv100 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Okay, so you guys have all these guns, but you've also got the TSA, Homeland Security, indefinite detention, no-knock warrants, no-warrant wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the War on Drugs, and Obamacare.

According to my calculations if you were going to take up arms and defend your liberty you should have started ten or eleven years ago. What's the holdup?

Those are all necessary to national defense and public safety.

Yeah, those things are all bad, but let's give the same entity behind them the power to force mental health checks and eliminate medical privacy to exercise constitutional rights. Makes sense

Much better to leave it in the capable hands of the folks posting online about armed rebellion.

IF YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION, GTFO!

You, being a yuppie endurance faggot, should understand incrementalism from your "training". Amendments 1-10 are being chipped away in small increments, but like most people, you only care about your favorite ones. If some pornographer or "artist" you like had their rights infringed upon, you'd be down at Starbucks or the sushi place with your fabulous freinds planning your own rebellion.

:snigger

Terrance Bee really is the worst.

BucketHead wrote:So your answer is that you'd like to use some nefarious term like incrementalism incorrectly based on some relatively recent bad policies. Okay.

The easy to see fact, however, is that throughout our history we have had short-term ebb and flow on certain rights for certain people but an immense overall trend toward more rights and freedom to more people - always.

So, I propose that there is no evidence of incrementalism or "slippery slope" politics in any facet of human rights or constitutional rights.

One thing that I like about IGx is the opportunity for diverse thought. I've been thinking about the long arc of freedoms enhanced and freedoms attacked....Dred Scott / Civil War Draft Riots / Sedition Acts / Miranda Warnings / Abortion / Gun laws & rulings / Warrantless Wiretaps / DAA

I'm still thinking about your comments about overall trends. However, regarding trends, I think there is always a group of powerful interests that absolutely wants to severely limit your freedoms in some regard. The groups change and the restrictions they want change...freedom of speech and association in the red scare days...gun rights now....etc.

I think the reasons for the trend you see lie in the BoR and the American people. It's in our nature to scream loud and long and that's what people are doing right now regarding 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment abuses - and they are serious abuses IMO. Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

The problem with what you say is, there is no such thing as compromise in matters of the constitution and bill of rights. Something is either constitutional or it is not. Unless you want to amend the constitution, then as PL54 said, good luck.

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

The problem with what you say is, there is no such thing as compromise in matters of the constitution and bill of rights. Something is either constitutional or it is not. Unless you want to amend the constitution, then as PL54 said, good luck.

And how do we decide whether something is or is not Constitutional? Seems everyone is a Constitutional scholar these days, so I guess if you or I say it, it must be true. To arms!

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

The problem with what you say is, there is no such thing as compromise in matters of the constitution and bill of rights. Something is either constitutional or it is not. Unless you want to amend the constitution, then as PL54 said, good luck.

And how do we decide whether something is or is not Constitutional?

Well, determining the legality of something doesn't usually involve "compromise", Your Honor. LOL.

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

The problem with what you say is, there is no such thing as compromise in matters of the constitution and bill of rights. Something is either constitutional or it is not. Unless you want to amend the constitution, then as PL54 said, good luck.

And how do we decide whether something is or is not Constitutional?

Well, determining the legality of something doesn't usually involve "compromise", Your Honor. LOL.

You misguidedly injected the Constitution into this. Compromise happens waaaay before we get to the Supreme Court's doorstep. With everyone declaring everything they don't like as "unConstitutional" or one step along a slippery slope to despotism, we wind up with the poisoned political atmosphere we have now, where compromise and even-handedness is equated with tyranny.

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Whether incrementalism is a real danger or not, it should be considered a danger and resisted - always and passionately.

The problem is when any compromise is seen as incrementalism, which is essentially where we're at now as a country.

The problem with what you say is, there is no such thing as compromise in matters of the constitution and bill of rights. Something is either constitutional or it is not. Unless you want to amend the constitution, then as PL54 said, good luck.

And how do we decide whether something is or is not Constitutional?

Well, determining the legality of something doesn't usually involve "compromise", Your Honor. LOL.

You misguidedly injected the Constitution into this. Compromise happens waaaay before we get to the Supreme Court's doorstep. With everyone declaring everything they don't like as "unConstitutional" or one step along a slippery slope to despotism, we wind up with the poisoned political atmosphere we have now, where compromise and even-handedness is equated with tyranny.

No I didn't, you asked how to determine if something is Constitutional. It seems you are confusing interpreting the Constitution, which (should) involve no compromise, and writing Legislation, which usually requires it.

protobuilder wrote:You misguidedly injected the Constitution into this. Compromise happens waaaay before we get to the Supreme Court's doorstep. With everyone declaring everything they don't like as "unConstitutional" or one step along a slippery slope to despotism, we wind up with the poisoned political atmosphere we have now, where compromise and even-handedness is equated with tyranny.

You really ought to study some US history some time.

The whole "interpreting the Constitution thing is bullshit made up by whore politicians, lawyers and cunts who don;t like it to get their way against it. It's "wordspeak" like Orwell wrote about.

The Bill of Rights is pretty clear, the 2nd is in no way vague.

And it's pretty clear it applies to Americans and those from outside here legally and is not intended for outside enemies to be able to hide behind and use against us.

If we honored and opperated as it says. Let alot of the social and entitlement arguments be at the state and local level and made sure that you had to take civics every year from 4th to 12th grade we would be the nation the Founder's dreamed for us and did their best to put the blueprints and guiglines in place.

Now someone is going to jump out like a teenage cunt " What about slavery? Huh?"

Well back when this nation was founded, very, very few people looked at them as fully human and most looked at them as farm equipment or a sub species to be sent back to where they came if they had religious objections to slavery.

Now we know better.