WHY would the government trick us?

You support any children you have also getting grabbed by the foot and getting stamped.

Again, this is a quite rare practice.

You support higher taxes and more laws

Reasonable people support a progressive tax system, so the rich which exploit the poor for the wealth have to pay it back.
And laws are needed to protect people.

You probably support gun control

As all reasonable people would.
Do you want a convicted mass murderer to be allowed to buy guns?
Even the constitution supports it, a well regulated militia, not just a bunch of crazy people with guns.

You probably support the government taking people's houses and giving it to migrants.

Is that their only house, or do they have 10?

You probably support police arresting people for little or no reason. But also support defunding them to replace them with "community leaders" who ar ex-convicts

Not at all.
Why would you think that?

I can reasonably expect you to fully support government having the right to tell you where to live, where to work, who to vote for, and what you can say or do online.

No, you can't. That is entirely unreasonable.

But of course, all of these rules are for other people.

You mean what you want?
Where you want rules to stop other people doing things, but you want to be free to do whatever you please?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 30, 2024, 12:07:21 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2024, 10:39:18 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 30, 2024, 10:15:57 AM

You can fly over Antarctica. You can also apply to work in Antarctica and work with govt expedition teams. You've never met someone who has worked in Antarctica? Globe as a prison makes zero sense to me, that's for sure.

Hooray! You can apply to work for the very same people who are the jailers to this globe prison.

I'm sure they wouldn't make you sign something like this or anything.


Meanwhile, when you get your birth certificate, they grab you against your knowledge or will and stamp your feet and index fingers in ink.

You think you're not a prisoner, you think you're not a slave? Explain that.

There is only one group of people on this planet more stupid than flat Earthers. They are called sovereign citizens and you tick that box too, don't ya, Bulma? Just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't get much lower, you lower it another ten levels.

You just keep on drinking the cool aide and don't ya? I bet you are a huge believer in the Mandela effect. With your brain power, you'd have to be.

Unfortunately, it isn't an offence to be a flat earth half-wit, but I take immense pleasure arresting idiotic sovereign citizens. So, when are you planning on visiting Australia?

Tell ya what. You're not "dumb enough" to be sovereign as a member of what was founded as a free country (I assume you're not European, in which case you're already screwed by the EU). This means...

• You support any children you have also getting grabbed by the foot and getting stamped.
• You support higher taxes and more laws
• You probably support gun control
• You probably support the government taking people's houses and giving it to migrants.
• You probably support police arresting people for little or no reason. But also support defunding them to replace them with "community leaders" who ar ex-convicts
• I can reasonably expect you to fully support government having the right to tell you where to live, where to work, who to vote for, and what you can say or do online.
• But of course, all of these rules are for other people. You don't carry a gun, but you probably have armed guards in your gated community. Democracy is "two foxes voting for what to have for dinner". But what happens once there are no chickens? (Homework: study the fall of the French Revolution and the rise to power of Napoleon)
  
  
  Yes, you sound really brilliant there. Now, maybe you might want to tell me what is so stupid about wanting to be a sovereign under a country that wad founded as "By the people, for the people, and of the people". Or was that all just talk?
  
  Also, the word is Kool-Aid. No 'c' and no 'e'. People who don't pay attention to detail think the Mandela Effect isn't real. It really was "Luke, I am your father", it's Berenstein Bears, and it's Fruit Loops. We live in a world of dumb misspelled brand names and slogans, thanks in part to the Large Hadron Collider creating miniature time/space wormholes.  The bears were named after their author Stan & Jan (same name), but Berenstain is not a name. The -stein suffix is a common feature of German names.
  https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/4ar9l2/does_anyone_else_personally_remember_any_last/
  There is no way in hell anyone would have a name -stain because such suffixes are not regular to any nationality. This is due to being sent to a Biden dumbass universe, where everyone thinks it's obvious this senile fool was elected. But some of us notice things in those spot the difference puzzles, and notice when everyone else seems to remember a different timeline.
  
  Oh, and on the topic of Australia, this was another case of not paying attention. This was news media mixing up Antarctica and Australia, either intentionally (to avoid people making the connection that maybe North Pole is the center and there is no South Pole, except on the underside) or because media is made up of dumbasses who widely get details wrong (adding to the Mandela Effect). It's Antarctica that doesn't exist. I know for a fact that Australia was a penal colony, and that I can expect to find deserts, cattle, and people who are remarkably defiant of their nation's gun control laws. What I won't find, however is upside-down cities like RE seem to think is logical. And there is no Arizona.
  
  

Which country do you reside in? (If you say Africa, I know you are lying because someone as backwards as you in Africa, would have been snuffed long before now)

It's because Australia has world class gun control laws that Australia doesn't have an active armed offender scenario with multiple dead people, almost every second day of the week. In fact, you just have a look at Australia's stats in that regard.....

Australia has "world class" gun control laws, which aren't followed the closer one gets to the outback.

Also, world class is a silly misnomer. Gun control laws are a mark of a repressive state. Rather than world class, that's bush league. And they aren't even capable of enforcing them outside their big cities.

Go back in time and ask American Revolutionaries why the British are coming. "They're coming to take our weapons. They're coming to get us to pay taxes by force. They're already stationed in our homes in some cases."

America was shocking at the time. They were a "city on a hill" to quote John Winthrop, a nation that led others. American policy until somewhere between the 60s and 90s tended to be the trendsetter for other countries. Then Americans became embarrassed of their exceptionalism, and started taking cues first from Europe, then Asia and Africa.

When did we start thinking that backwards countries should set our policy? Gun control laws? What is this crap? Gun control is about controlling people who now don't have guns. "Hunting" is often used as a justification for having guns, but hunting is only a part of larger freedom, which is to have a government not able to force you to do stuff or take what you have. You shouldn't even be required to keep your gun in a safe (unless you have small children), as if someone breaks into your home with intent to rape your wife, then kill you and steal what you have, ummmm "Holdon, I need to turn this combination" isn't gonna do you much good. The Magna Carta, widely considered one of the greatest documents after the Bible, claims that a king is subject to his people. Now it was abolished by Pope Innocent III, but this document served as inspiration for the next most important document. No, not our Constitution (yes, I am an American) but our Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution are far more important, so much so that when the constitution was drafted, it wouldn't be agreed upon without those, fearing it would become exactly like the tyranny that caused the American Revolution in the first place. Well, I'm here to tell you that their fears are real. Instead of being proud of laws that give us the right to hunt, shoot down random birds flying outside our window, or kindly tell that politician to move along before he gets hurt, you would prefer to follow cucked Belgium which probably has no gun rights even for basic self-defense against terrorists actively trying to rape and kill you.

So many amazing things...



Bill of rghts?
Which part?

So, a typical American, “Mu rights!” head burying, fuck the children, Jesus told me to tell you, flag waving, ammosexual, that it has to be a joke, but due to the heat there and an appalling education system, probably isn’t.

Australia has "world class" gun control laws, which aren't followed the closer one gets to the outback.

Also, world class is a silly misnomer. Gun control laws are a mark of a repressive state. Rather than world class, that's bush league. And they aren't even capable of enforcing them outside their big cities.

Go back in time and ask American Revolutionaries why the British are coming. "They're coming to take our weapons. They're coming to get us to pay taxes by force. They're already stationed in our homes in some cases."

America was shocking at the time. They were a "city on a hill" to quote John Winthrop, a nation that led others. American policy until somewhere between the 60s and 90s tended to be the trendsetter for other countries. Then Americans became embarrassed of their exceptionalism, and started taking cues first from Europe, then Asia and Africa.

When did we start thinking that backwards countries should set our policy? Gun control laws? What is this crap? Gun control is about controlling people who now don't have guns. "Hunting" is often used as a justification for having guns, but hunting is only a part of larger freedom, which is to have a government not able to force you to do stuff or take what you have. You shouldn't even be required to keep your gun in a safe (unless you have small children), as if someone breaks into your home with intent to rape your wife, then kill you and steal what you have, ummmm "Holdon, I need to turn this combination" isn't gonna do you much good. The Magna Carta, widely considered one of the greatest documents after the Bible, claims that a king is subject to his people. Now it was abolished by Pope Innocent III, but this document served as inspiration for the next most important document. No, not our Constitution (yes, I am an American) but our Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution are far more important, so much so that when the constitution was drafted, it wouldn't be agreed upon without those, fearing it would become exactly like the tyranny that caused the American Revolution in the first place. Well, I'm here to tell you that their fears are real. Instead of being proud of laws that give us the right to hunt, shoot down random birds flying outside our window, or kindly tell that politician to move along before he gets hurt, you would prefer to follow cucked Belgium which probably has no gun rights even for basic self-defense against terrorists actively trying to rape and kill you.

Australia's world class gun laws are followed, even in the out back. Well, at least 98% of the time. That's why Australia has such few mass shootings. Our gun laws are sbout to tighten up even more, to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs such as yourself.

As a flat earther, you make the most uneducated of comments. To you, we here in Australia are hanging by our feet. To us here in Australia, you in America are the ones hanging like bats by your feet. It's relative to where yo are on Earth's surface. You still haven't a clue how gravity is supposed to work on a planetary globe. Wikipedia describes you to a T. Even shown diagrams,
you would fail to grasp the concept.

As for the Magna Carta, only a sovereign citizen like yourself would bring that up, as if the Magna Carta is still relevant today. Before you say it, yes, the term, "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

So according to you, Bulma, by your own words, anybody who works in Government is genius level, and capable of fooling the entire planet, the true shape of the Earth. So, you think all Government employees are genius level and into the trickery? No dissidents on the trickery of the shape of the entire planet, huh? Not even one Government employee of all the countries of the world, have ever stepped out to announce the world is not a globe.

Do you see the problem with your argument, Bulma?

he's a walking oxy moron

trans who is a religious conservative
environmentalist in favour of big oil and burning plastic

he's a walking oxy moron

trans who is a religious conservative
environmentalist in favour of big oil and burning plastic

You picked up what I was putting down.

But hey, I'm a government employee with a gun on my hip as I type this. Bulma thinks I'm a genius who can fool the whole world, and who upholds his crazy gun laws views.

really interested in seeing hte part of the Bill of Rights that says you, bulmba, get a gun.

Quote from: Username on April 30, 2024, 04:57:16 AM

There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.

To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.

They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.

To hide the truth of the Bible.

To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.

unfortunately, the book is a work of fiction.

No shit, sherlock.

That doesn't mean it isn't about very real aspects of reality and themes that are ridiculously relevant still today. Its warnings around surveillance, authoritarianism and in this case the manipulation of truth seem pretty relevant recently, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure you haven't heard this before, but fiction can act like a mirror to reality much as art mimics life.

But yeah, good point you dunce lol.

FYI, the Magna Carta was reissued under King Henry III in 1216, 1217 and 1225. Under Edward I the reissue of 1225 became law, when it was copied on to the statute roll in 1297. Three clauses of the 1225 Magna Carta still stand as part of English law. These three clauses originally formed four clauses of the 1215 Magna Carta.

so... trump does NOT get immunity

cool

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 30, 2024, 10:24:20 AM

Quote from: Username on April 30, 2024, 04:57:16 AM

There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.

To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.

They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.

To hide the truth of the Bible.

To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.

unfortunately, the book is a work of fiction.

No shit, sherlock.

That doesn't mean it isn't about very real aspects of reality and themes that are ridiculously relevant still today. Its warnings around surveillance, authoritarianism and in this case the manipulation of truth seem pretty relevant recently, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure you haven't heard this before, but fiction can act like a mirror to reality much as art mimics life.

But yeah, good point you dunce lol.

Instead of reading works of fiction as a mirror of reality, why not read books which are actually about reality?

It's because Australia has world class gun control laws that Australia doesn't have an active armed offender scenario with multiple dead people, almost every second day of the week. In fact, you just have a look at Australia's stats in that regard.....

No it isn't.
It is because of the different mentality of the people there.
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has an American problem.

Also, world class is a silly misnomer. Gun control laws are a mark of a repressive state.

No, they aren't.
Gun control laws are a mark of a state which values the life of their people, and it is a careful balance between allowing people to have weapons vs protecting others from those weapons.

Go back in time and ask American Revolutionaries why the British are coming.

To have you serve the king instead of a democratically elected group of people, and to pay the king money when it provided nothing in return.

Nothing like modern gun control laws or modern taxes.

Gun control is about controlling people who now don't have guns.

No, it is about stopping criminals getting guns and killing people with them.

Belgium which probably

Instead of just wild speculation to fuel your fantasy, why don't you try checking?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 02, 2024, 05:50:49 AM

Also, world class is a silly misnomer. Gun control laws are a mark of a repressive state.

No, they aren't.
Gun control laws are a mark of a state which values the life of their people, and it is a careful balance between allowing people to have weapons vs protecting others from those weapons.

Wrong.

The rhetoric of "lives of the people" likes to point out random kids playing with guns and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. "Won't you think of the children?" No, I won't. That's a fucking parenting problem. Teach children that guns are not a toy, teach them how to use them properly. Teach them not to use them in anger or sorrow, only to defend themselves and others.  I do not own a gun. My dad does (I'm an antique weapons nut), but I bothered to learn to use a revolver at least. I'm absolutely rubbish with a pistol, as the damn thing jammed on me, but the point is that I have a healthy respect for guns. Even though I often am depressive, I wouldn't try to use a gun. Because I know that if I missed, I'd likely be disabled for life.

Guns, when properly used, save lives of citizens from attacks from rapists, murderers, terrorists, violent thieves, wild animals (not as big a concern today, but if you are homeless in a rural area, yeah kinda), and an oppressive government. You hear this rhetoric about protecting lives... bullshit. You want to protect lives? Improve the gun licensing system to be at least as good as auto licenses. They need to be trained to use these weapons effectively to defend their lives. And part of the condition for owning both ought to be psychological. If you have a suicide bomber mentality, are depressive, or psychopathic you shouldn't own a gun.  Likewise, anyone on suicide watch shouldn't be able to start their car.   

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2024, 05:26:07 PM

Go back in time and ask American Revolutionaries why the British are coming.

To have you serve the king instead of a democratically elected group of people, and to pay the king money when it provided nothing in return.

Nothing like modern gun control laws or modern taxes.

The pre-United States was a colony. They considered themselves British citizens, they were proud of being British, and ideally they were not only patriotic, they had reason to be. As a colony, items like tea, cards, and other sundries were shipped to them, and Britain did what they could to help out. We toured a historical site in South Carolina, where they were talking about how the size of glass in window panes changed post-American Revolution. You see, the colony was supplied these things but Britain prior to the Revolution. Also? No tea meant they switched to berry, root, and other makeshift teas. US independence was contingent on them figuring out to make things work without this "help".

You think your taxes are helping you out. But there are plenty of ways that taxes supposedly helped these early Americans out. But you know who they really helped out? The British. Just as taxes really help out those in power today. Nothing has changed, as long as the Bill of Rights is ignored. Your backwards gun laws and your backwards tax laws only serve to enable your oppressors.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 02, 2024, 05:50:49 AM

Gun control is about controlling people who now don't have guns.

No, it is about stopping criminals getting guns and killing people with them.

More bullshit. Gun control laws do not stop criminals, who have access to illegal arms dealers.

The only people it stops is legal purchasers. You can look online for weapons, and it clearly says in the shipping print, "Cannot be shipped to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, (etc)." In other words, when someone on the street waves a gun around at you, and tells you in graphic detail that he is going to come to your house, he is gonna hunt you down, and he going to hurt your loved ones, you would sensibly do two things. Get a door viewer, so you can see who it is before opening (and thus arm yourself), and something to arm yourself with. Only you can't, because your state or city has banned shipment.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 02, 2024, 05:50:49 AM

Belgium which probably

Instead of just wild speculation to fuel your fantasy, why don't you try checking?

Alright then. I looked it up.

Belgium, it turns out, has fairly low gun crime. Guess what else?

https://brussels-express.eu/owning-guns-belgium-whats-law/

The main point is therefore about purchasing weapons subject to conditions. The “Services provinciaux des armes”  will check whether a citizen fits the criteria for ownership. The applicant must not be under 18 years-old, must have no criminal record, must not be mentally unstable, and must not live with someone who would be restricted to weapons. After filling in the additional documents, the “Services provinciaux des armes” will answer within four months. If approved initially, you will need to undergo theoretical and practical tests to assess whether you can be entitled to have weapons.

They have similar conditions to what I mentioned. Licensing works. Banning does not.

While we're on the topic of government tricking us, any government that says not having guns is for your protection is lying to your face.

The rhetoric of "lives of the people" likes to point out random kids playing with guns and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. "Won't you think of the children?" No, I won't. That's a fucking parenting problem.

And those parents shouldn't be able to have guns.

Teach children that guns are not a toy

So you are telling me you want to control guns so kids don't think they are a toy?
In your fantasy of no gun control, why can't kids use them as a toy?

Guns, when properly used, save lives of citizens

And notice the key part?
"When properly used".
Gun control is about ensuring they are properly used, and not misused.

Do you feel the same way about cars?
That there shouldn't any control for that?

You want to protect lives? Improve the gun licensing system to be at least as good as auto licenses.

So implement gun control?
Gun nuts typically are opposed to any kind of mandatory training or licensing to get guns, as that is a gun control.

The ideal world for these anti-gun control nuts is that anyone can purchase any firearm and openly carry it, without any need for a license or training.
Putting in limitations is then controlling guns.
Because if you implement licensing, so they claim, then the government can arbitrarily try to deny you a license to prevent you getting a gun.
Especially with things like psychological tests.

Placing conditions on the ownership of firearms is controlling guns, i.e. gun control.

So yet again you have directly contradicted yourself.
Yet again you want regulation and laws and control, while claiming to reject that and wanting that to be gone and that being a bad thing.

The pre-United States was a colony. They considered themselves British citizens, they were proud of being British, and ideally they were not only patriotic, they had reason to be.

For how long?

As a colony

For the most part they were neglected by the British, as long as they kept sending money.

You think your taxes are helping you out.

And they are, just not as much as they could be, because of people like you supporting those that want to help the rich.

Gun control laws do not stop criminals, who have access to illegal arms dealers.

No law is perfect.
But it does significantly reduce criminal access to firearms.
And more importantly, it can stop heat of the moment type things.

Alright then. I looked it up.

And you saw that you can get a firearm relatively easily, with a simple reason, with reasonable gun control laws.

They have similar conditions to what I mentioned.

Yes, they have gun control laws.

So much stupid...



Ill pick one thing:

Legal purchases?

No
It helps legal sellers.
And thats all big gun lobby cares about.
So spectacularly stupid.



Also
Bill of rights.
What part says you get a gun for self defense.





https://youtube.com/shorts/WDEJv9lw-rk?si=TBkEvzheso7Nd-dp

Yes, they have gun control laws.

They have gun ownership laws.

These are already on the books in America.

Some leftist famously tried to do this thing where he thought he could own guns bought in an auction that day, and wound up getting the last laugh at him, as the auction enforced the law. He had to wait two weeks or whatever.

What is actually the case is that there are tons of these stage incidents (by that I mean, yes psychos definitely do kill people, but they and their friends do so to further disarm their opposition). Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook. All of these are high profile events. If there happens to be a concealed carry person on premises who blows the guy's brains out before he shoots 50 people, the whole plan falls apart.

Now, I realize that I am probably speaking to a radical Marxist. But for all of you non-radical Marxists on this forum, here's how the thing happens.

(Yes. Yes, it is)
1. A state or city with robust gun ownership laws and thus little crime is targeted by terrorists. George Soros hires some actors. Usually at least one "disturbed teen", one or two "witnesses", and one or two "mothers of the victim". If you want to get slightly original, they might even hire a "mother of the killer" to say something like, "my son was such a sweet kid, but when he touched guns, all of a sudden, them demons possessed him and he had the fear of God knocked clean outta him." Right...   
2. The place is chosen. It's usually a place where concealed carry is not allowed. Like a school or movie theater. While law-abiding citizens are told they can't bring their guns in, the "disturbed teen" suddenly is able to bypass all of that, as the gun is smuggled in.
3. Real filming of the event is usually disabled. They happen to have a "live clip of the event" which shows the "disturbed teen" right as he snaps and starts killing people.  Actually, the crisis actors already killed every that needed killing, mopped up the scene, and brought in the actors to recreate it. Or filmed it in a lookalike location. Sometimes no real people are actually hurt, and it's a whole cloth hoax. But usually these sick fucks martyr a few Christians or patriotic Americans.
4. Welp, that's the end, right? Wrong. Then you have "survivors" talking to news media about how if only tougher gun laws were put into place. Not just gun ownership laws but laws banning guns. Oh right, except that particular location already banned guns. For added measure, we get the mother of these victims (who kinda looks young for her age) to speak out against teen bullying and the presence of gun in schools, where guns were already in schools. You know what schools the terrorists don't target? Ones like this one.

5. Following that state or city banning guns, crime mysteriously spikes. Imagine that! You banned guns, yet violent crime is at a rise. And these shootings aren't always that random. A type of cleansing goes on, only it isn't ethnic cleansing, but along political and ideological lines. Blacks kill other blacks that tend to be conservative, for example. All to change demographics for things like voting.



Here she is again, crying after the brutal murder of the dinosaurs.

The mothers of those dinosaurs say that we need to stop the use of weapons or it may be too late for other dinosaurs.

In your fantasy of no gun control, why can't kids use them as a toy?

Is your father's check book a toy? If you go around pulling out pages and writing checks to some random kid on the street for $1000 each, is your dad gonna be like "Good job, son"? Thankfully checks are harder to use than a pistol, and he can probably get those transactions canceled.

The absurd thing about all this is that guns actually have safeties. And you could probably create a gun with a four digit number code safety (this is my patent idea, do not steal!) if you wanted. Hell, you could make a voice activated safety in this day and age.
You're telling me that the parent left the gun on the center coffee table, no safety on, and that a kid with random playing around managed to do the maximum amount of hurt?

Where have I heard this before? Oh right.

Now, if you are actually asking, yes, you can fill a gun normally with blanks so the kid can go pew pew pew at random objects without hurting anything. But that wasn't what you were asking.

Bill of rights.
What part says you get a gun for self defense.

"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 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me. By the way, a militia is not an army. It's not made of government paid hired group of warriors.
Wikopedia defines it as a "fighting organization of non-professional and/or part-time soldiers; citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel; or, historically, to members of a warrior-nobility class." In other words the idea is regular citizens are armed in order to.... let's read the rest, the purpose of being armed is...

being necessary to the security of a free State

This doesn't mean security like guard duty. In today's English, you would say this: "A well organized group of armed citizens, being necessary to maintain a free country, the right of the people to possess and use weapons is not to be taken away."

Regardless of modern or old terms, it plainly says under no circumstances (not stupid kids blowing stuff up, not schools shooters, not no way, not no how, nothing is to prevent my right to have a weapon). But I should only have one in my house, you say. That's not what the founders intended. Open carry is what they intended. In order to have a free country, once again, even a little woman who hates guns has something with her to fend off a rapist.

So yes, in a very real way, for that woman to be living in a free state, she has to be able to defend herself. Gun ownership laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.

Gun free zones are unconstitutional, just as having areas on college where free speech is not allowed is unconstitutional.

So muchstupid in the nithungstopabadguy in the first half
Just so...much



Anywho

"For the security if the State."
In respect to its soverignty against the Fed.
You are nit the State.

Show me the line where personal Self Defense is mentioned.

New level of dumb named after bulimabrief.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22386105

Quote

Yes, they have gun control laws.

They have gun ownership laws.

These are already on the books in America.

Some leftist famously tried to do this thing where he thought he could own guns bought in an auction that day, and wound up getting the last laugh at him, as the auction enforced the law. He had to wait two weeks or whatever.

What is actually the case is that there are tons of these stage incidents (by that I mean, yes psychos definitely do kill people, but they and their friends do so to further disarm their opposition). Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook. All of these are high profile events. If there happens to be a concealed carry person on premises who blows the guy's brains out before he shoots 50 people, the whole plan falls apart.

Now, I realize that I am probably speaking to a radical Marxist. But for all of you non-radical Marxists on this forum, here's how the thing happens.

(Yes. Yes, it is)
1. A state or city with robust gun ownership laws and thus little crime is targeted by terrorists. George Soros hires some actors. Usually at least one "disturbed teen", one or two "witnesses", and one or two "mothers of the victim". If you want to get slightly original, they might even hire a "mother of the killer" to say something like, "my son was such a sweet kid, but when he touched guns, all of a sudden, them demons possessed him and he had the fear of God knocked clean outta him." Right...   
2. The place is chosen. It's usually a place where concealed carry is not allowed. Like a school or movie theater. While law-abiding citizens are told they can't bring their guns in, the "disturbed teen" suddenly is able to bypass all of that, as the gun is smuggled in.
3. Real filming of the event is usually disabled. They happen to have a "live clip of the event" which shows the "disturbed teen" right as he snaps and starts killing people.  Actually, the crisis actors already killed every that needed killing, mopped up the scene, and brought in the actors to recreate it. Or filmed it in a lookalike location. Sometimes no real people are actually hurt, and it's a whole cloth hoax. But usually these sick fucks martyr a few Christians or patriotic Americans.
4. Welp, that's the end, right? Wrong. Then you have "survivors" talking to news media about how if only tougher gun laws were put into place. Not just gun ownership laws but laws banning guns. Oh right, except that particular location already banned guns. For added measure, we get the mother of these victims (who kinda looks young for her age) to speak out against teen bullying and the presence of gun in schools, where guns were already in schools. You know what schools the terrorists don't target? Ones like this one.

5. Following that state or city banning guns, crime mysteriously spikes. Imagine that! You banned guns, yet violent crime is at a rise. And these shootings aren't always that random. A type of cleansing goes on, only it isn't ethnic cleansing, but along political and ideological lines. Blacks kill other blacks that tend to be conservative, for example. All to change demographics for things like voting.



Here she is again, crying after the brutal murder of the dinosaurs.

The mothers of those dinosaurs say that we need to stop the use of weapons or it may be too late for other dinosaurs.

Quote

In your fantasy of no gun control, why can't kids use them as a toy?

Is your father's check book a toy? If you go around pulling out pages and writing checks to some random kid on the street for $1000 each, is your dad gonna be like "Good job, son"? Thankfully checks are harder to use than a pistol, and he can probably get those transactions canceled.

The absurd thing about all this is that guns actually have safeties. And you could probably create a gun with a four digit number code safety (this is my patent idea, do not steal!) if you wanted. Hell, you could make a voice activated safety in this day and age.
You're telling me that the parent left the gun on the center coffee table, no safety on, and that a kid with random playing around managed to do the maximum amount of hurt?

Where have I heard this before? Oh right.

Now, if you are actually asking, yes, you can fill a gun normally with blanks so the kid can go pew pew pew at random objects without hurting anything. But that wasn't what you were asking.

Quote

Bill of rights.
What part says you get a gun for self defense.

"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 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me. By the way, a militia is not an army. It's not made of government paid hired group of warriors.
Wikopedia defines it as a "fighting organization of non-professional and/or part-time soldiers; citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel; or, historically, to members of a warrior-nobility class." In other words the idea is regular citizens are armed in order to.... let's read the rest, the purpose of being armed is...

Quote

being necessary to the security of a free State

This doesn't mean security like guard duty. In today's English, you would say this: "A well organized group of armed citizens, being necessary to maintain a free country, the right of the people to possess and use weapons is not to be taken away."

Regardless of modern or old terms, it plainly says under no circumstances (not stupid kids blowing stuff up, not schools shooters, not no way, not no how, nothing is to prevent my right to have a weapon). But I should only have one in my house, you say. That's not what the founders intended. Open carry is what they intended. In order to have a free country, once again, even a little woman who hates guns has something with her to fend off a rapist.

So yes, in a very real way, for that woman to be living in a free state, she has to be able to defend herself. Gun ownership laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.

Gun free zones are unconstitutional, just as having areas on college where free speech is not allowed is unconstitutional.

This is off - topic, Bulma. Even for you.

You don't appear to understand gun control. Gun control controls the types of guns that can be legally purchased, for types of reasons they can be purchased, by types of suitable people, for types of suitable storage.

So, legal gun ownership is controlled and all weapons and owners are on a firearms registry. If a gun owner becomes mentally ill, like for instance becomes a flat earther, or perpetuates domestic violence requiring a court order to protect someone, the firearms licence is revoked, the firearms seized. We aren't talking about all the stolen guns floating around, or the 3d printed guns from home, or the guns illegally entering countries on the black market.

Gun control generally prohibits all semi automatic weapons and automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. You know, the types of weapons preferred by your typical American active armed serial killer that can be easily purchased over the counter at the local Wal-Mart while buying your groceries?

Gun control in Australia has worked extremely well since Martin Bryant massacred all those people in the broad arrow cafe at Port Arthur.

So, no Bulma. Nothing you have said about gun laws suggests why a government would trick the people about the shape of the Earth.

 

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2024, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 30, 2024, 10:24:20 AM

Quote from: Username on April 30, 2024, 04:57:16 AM

There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.

To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.

They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.

To hide the truth of the Bible.

To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.

unfortunately, the book is a work of fiction.

No shit, sherlock.

That doesn't mean it isn't about very real aspects of reality and themes that are ridiculously relevant still today. Its warnings around surveillance, authoritarianism and in this case the manipulation of truth seem pretty relevant recently, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure you haven't heard this before, but fiction can act like a mirror to reality much as art mimics life.

But yeah, good point you dunce lol.

Instead of reading works of fiction as a mirror of reality, why not read books which are actually about reality?

Weird false dichotomy. Obviously the best choice is to do both.

Leave it to round earthers to argue against reading.

Quote from: gnuarm on May 02, 2024, 01:07:14 PM

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2024, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 30, 2024, 10:24:20 AM

Quote from: Username on April 30, 2024, 04:57:16 AM

There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.

To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.

They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.

To hide the truth of the Bible.

To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.

unfortunately, the book is a work of fiction.

No shit, sherlock.

That doesn't mean it isn't about very real aspects of reality and themes that are ridiculously relevant still today. Its warnings around surveillance, authoritarianism and in this case the manipulation of truth seem pretty relevant recently, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure you haven't heard this before, but fiction can act like a mirror to reality much as art mimics life.

But yeah, good point you dunce lol.

Instead of reading works of fiction as a mirror of reality, why not read books which are actually about reality?

Weird false dichotomy. Obviously the best choice is to do both.

Leave it to round earthers to argue against reading.

I'm trying to ask why you don't use real information in the debates here, rather than dealing with parallels. 

"Just the facts, ma'am"   

Quote from: Username on May 03, 2024, 01:26:19 PM

Quote from: gnuarm on May 02, 2024, 01:07:14 PM

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2024, 12:22:20 PM

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 30, 2024, 10:24:20 AM

Quote from: Username on April 30, 2024, 04:57:16 AM

There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.

To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.

They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.

To hide the truth of the Bible.

To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.

unfortunately, the book is a work of fiction.

No shit, sherlock.

That doesn't mean it isn't about very real aspects of reality and themes that are ridiculously relevant still today. Its warnings around surveillance, authoritarianism and in this case the manipulation of truth seem pretty relevant recently, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure you haven't heard this before, but fiction can act like a mirror to reality much as art mimics life.

But yeah, good point you dunce lol.

Instead of reading works of fiction as a mirror of reality, why not read books which are actually about reality?

Weird false dichotomy. Obviously the best choice is to do both.

Leave it to round earthers to argue against reading.

I'm trying to ask why you don't use real information in the debates here, rather than dealing with parallels. 

"Just the facts, ma'am"   

And what a strong point it was! You are right, its completely ridiculous to draw parallels to fiction for conversational and illustrative purposes.  /sarcasm 

You guys get funnier every day.

They have gun ownership laws.

Which is a form of gun control laws.

Again, while claiming to oppose gun control, you are advocating for it.

These are already on the books in America.

And they are fairly recent in terms of American history.

All of these are high profile events.

Yes, because a crazy person killed a bunch of people.
Why was that person allowed a gun?

If there happens to be a concealed carry person on premises who blows the guy's brains out before he shoots 50 people, the whole plan falls apart.

Which is a big if.
It wouldn't have helped at all for the Aurora shooting, because that was initially thought to be either wearing a costume, or part of a publicity stunt for the film's premier.
So until he starts shooting he is unlikely to be taken down by anyone. And even then, he was wearing protective gear so it would have been quite difficult to take him down.

(Yes. Yes, it is)

No, it isn't. You are desperate for it to be fake, so you look for whatever dishonest BS you can.
Do you have any evidence it is the same girl, or just superficial similarity?

Yet again you go straight to delusional BS with no justification at all.

Is your father's check book a toy?

If the father allows it, why not.
Who are you to try to CONTROL it?

The issue here is that control aspect.
You say you oppose gun control, yet preventing children having guns is a form of gun control.
If you want to commit to the delusional BS of irrational opposition of gun control, you cannot be opposed to children having guns as that would be controlling guns and controlling who can have them.

If you are saying children shouldn't have guns, then you are for gun control, not against it. And it is merely a matter of what forms of gun control are acceptable and what are not.

And you could probably create a gun with a four digit number code safety (this is my patent idea, do not steal!) if you wanted. Hell, you could make a voice activated safety in this day and age.

Firstly, if you want it to be a patent, you actually need to make it, not just have an idea.
Secondly, that is a stupid idea, quite prone to failure, and considering you opposed the idea of storing a gun in a safe, do you really think this would be any better?
That wouldn't be a safety, that would a combination lock.

If it was mandated, people like you would oppose it for the same reason you would oppose needing to store it in a safe.

But more importantly, a safety is not designed to stop little kids playing with it.
A safety is designed to prevent accidental discharge.
So how about you tell the parents to do the responsible thing and store their gun in a safe?

You're telling me that the parent left the gun on the center coffee table, no safety on, and that a kid with random playing around managed to do the maximum amount of hurt?

Are you telling me the safety is a child lock?
That a kid who can pull the trigger can't turn off the safety?

Now, if you are actually asking

It was more a rhetorical question, pointing out your contradiction between opposing gun control, and then suggesting to control guns.

you can fill a gun normally with blanks so the kid can go pew pew pew at random objects without hurting anything.

And in your fantasy, why can't the gun be loaded with actual rounds?
That way the kid can actually shoot.
Again, in your fantasy of no gun control, who are you to CONTROL what the kid and its parents can do with the gun?

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Only because you are desperate for it to be.

The "right to keep and bear arms" does not indicate you can do it for self defence against someone breaking into your house to rob you; or even someone trying to murder you.

By the way, a militia is not an army. It's not made of government paid hired group of warriors.
Wikopedia defines it as a "fighting organization

And notice the key part?
ORGANISATION!
A militia is NOT an individual.
A well regulated militia is not an individual keeping a gun beside their bed to shoot anyone trying to break in and rob them.
A well regulated militia is a group organised to protect a certain location, typically from outsiders trying to get in and take over.

Regardless of modern or old terms, it plainly says under no circumstances

No, it doesn't.
It appeals to an existing right, and all rights have limitations.
It says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say you have a right to keep and bear arms however and wherever you like with no possible exceptions.

Open carry is what they intended.

No, it isn't.
They intended to allow citizens to form a group to overthrow or oppose a tyrannical government.
i.e. to keep the state free.

It was not for self defence of an individual.

In order to have a free country, once again, even a little woman who hates guns has something with her to fend off a rapist.

So your idea of a free country is forcing someone who doesn't like guns to carry a gun?
How is that free?

Gun ownership laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.

No need to pervert words. Say it honestly:
Gun CONTROL laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.

Gun free zones are unconstitutional, just as having areas on college where free speech is not allowed is unconstitutional.

No, they aren't.
You having the right to bear arms doesn't mean you get to bear them anywhere you want. e.g. I can tell you to not take them into my house and refuse you entry if you don't comply.
The only way you could even come close to arguing that is if you are forced to enter that area where guns are prohibited. The closest you get to that are people sent to prison. Are you suggesting guns should be allowed in prison?

Another example would be schools, where children are required to attend schools or be home schooled.
Are you suggesting that by preventing these children from keeping and bearing guns in school their right to keep and bear guns is being infringed?

Saying you can't take your gun into a certain location is not saying you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. You can bear them, just not there.

And we also see this represented by the wording, or more important the lack of key words. It says you have the right to bear arms, not you have the right to bear them wherever you please.

Just like it says you have the right to keep arms, not keep them wherever and however you please.
Requiring you to store your firearms in a safe is not infringing your right to keep arms.

How the hell did this go to an all-out gun control war?

How the hell did this go to an all-out gun control war?

This is the flat earth society. Weird shit like this happens all the time. Don't worry, the argument will flatten back down to on-topic. It's just a bump in the road. They don't call it the flat earth society for nuthin!

The entire United States has car ownership laws. Your cars are not being schemed to be possessed, except maybe by socialists, who want to trick ppl into trading for a substandard EV car then "shows over, we decided EV doesn't work (but now we have your previous car for free)." Texas has gun ownership laws. Apply for a gun license, have a waiting period to check that you're maybe sane enough to use one... and after that, unless the state goes blue one day, it's open carry.

Gun ownership laws provide a framework for properly owning a gun. If I were to talk about car control laws, you would immediately know that my end goal is to take away the car that you have. That's what gun control laws are about. Licensing for guns being widely accepted after background check is a far different kettle of fish than trying to actively prevent people from having them. But since you don't get it, here's a pretty picture.



This is what life is like when you accept the world the globalists want. It's a literal prison. Which I suppose brings us back to the earlier point!

Round Earth is a prison, because we are told we just have to accept on faith that the scientists are not all lying to us about globalism and climate change, and we are told Antarctica is easy to visit but when we try to do so, we are told that the price is way higher than it should be. Or that we can't visit certain areas because of endangered species.

Hold on a sec, let's do some actual thinking. Why in the HELL would anything near Antarctica be endangered? There aren't enough people there to put a dent in the population of any animal. So these environmental zones are basically an excuse for not being allowed except to certain areas, where you probably can't see the Wall properly. Yes, there are egg laying zones for flightless birds. You know what though? Any explorer dumb enough to go through a penguin momma next deserves all the pecking they get. What this is really about is making a minfield of historical and environmental zones, until the area id mostly off limits. You don't get to see what's beyond the southern edge.

Amazing!


Infact the auto industry IIISSS scheming.

Shutting down bussing keeps people car taxes and gas depenency.

More cars means more local businesses for repair and larger employers for assembly.

All mothing to do specically to the EV.
But to individual ownership.




Guns
"Hurts law abiding".
Meand the sellers.
Tedcruz and co doesnt give two shits unless youre a donor.
He be happy to use culturewar for dramatic voter click baiting (the correct term avoids me a the moment)
But selling guns keeps the gun lobby happy.

And its called Gun Laundering (like money laundering).

Guns bought by legit dealers.
Resold to smaller and smaller dealers until you get to the gunshow garagesale guys.
These guys arent registered dealers and dont have to do the formal checks.
Then the guns are shipped to criminals.


"Lawabiding" sellers.





"Scientist not lying to us".
Well other scientists can debunk.
Thats science.
However your family relies economically on convincing people that your DAD knows what the Supreme Leader wants.
How should we debunk such authority?
We could say, he does moral and ethical things that contradict the teachings...well ok.
Then by that measure Trump is a horrible person.
Margorie is a horrible person.
All your favorite things about the antiRINO group are horrible persons.
Make more sense.
You are consistently INconsistent.

The entire United States has car ownership laws. Your cars are not being schemed to be possessed, except maybe by socialists, who want to trick ppl into trading for a substandard EV car then "shows over, we decided EV doesn't work (but now we have your previous car for free)." Texas has gun ownership laws. Apply for a gun license, have a waiting period to check that you're maybe sane enough to use one... and after that, unless the state goes blue one day, it's open carry.

Gun ownership laws provide a framework for properly owning a gun. If I were to talk about car control laws, you would immediately know that my end goal is to take away the car that you have. That's what gun control laws are about. Licensing for guns being widely accepted after background check is a far different kettle of fish than trying to actively prevent people from having them. But since you don't get it, here's a pretty picture.



This is what life is like when you accept the world the globalists want. It's a literal prison. Which I suppose brings us back to the earlier point!

Round Earth is a prison, because we are told we just have to accept on faith that the scientists are not all lying to us about globalism and climate change, and we are told Antarctica is easy to visit but when we try to do so, we are told that the price is way higher than it should be. Or that we can't visit certain areas because of endangered species.

Hold on a sec, let's do some actual thinking. Why in the HELL would anything near Antarctica be endangered? There aren't enough people there to put a dent in the population of any animal. So these environmental zones are basically an excuse for not being allowed except to certain areas, where you probably can't see the Wall properly. Yes, there are egg laying zones for flightless birds. You know what though? Any explorer dumb enough to go through a penguin momma next deserves all the pecking they get. What this is really about is making a minfield of historical and environmental zones, until the area id mostly off limits. You don't get to see what's beyond the southern edge.

Have you learned how to separate your living man from your straw man yet?