Brandon Strikes Again

[AU9377 5,039]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

You should read more thoroughly. The premise that we are already in an armed revolution against the government was the background of the discussion. You stated that a bunch of good ol' boys couldn't stop the army. I showed exactly how that could/would happen. Not all hunters would participate? No, but not all shooters are hunters either. It would more than balance out, numbers-wise.

Thankfully, unless Bungling Biden gets elected again we aren't likely to have the government turn the army against American citizens.

And... I might not last more than four seconds after I shot my man, but in all likelihood I'd get him first. 1/10 of us do that and as I stated, the army is ruined before it crosses the Appalachians.

You realize that is bat s*** crazy talk right?  You all are so scared of a man in a dress that you make laws against them walking down the street and you want me to believe that you are ready for an armed revolt?  To accomplish what exactly?

Many of you do want to re-elect a man that was more than ready to suspend the Constitution to remain in power.  That says more than anything really.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, AU9377 said:

You realize that is bat s*** crazy talk right?  You all are so scared of a man in a dress that you make laws against them walking down the street and you want me to believe that you are ready for an armed revolt?  To accomplish what exactly?

Many of you do want to re-elect a man that was more than ready to suspend the Constitution to remain in power.  That says more than anything really.

Your sensationalism grows old after a while. I've never heard one person advocate for a law banning a crossdresser or trans person walking down a street. Sexual themed performances  with children present vs walking down a street, big distinction there, chief.

And again, in a discussion that doesn't involve Trump, a liberal brings up Trump! 

No one wants any armed revolt. But many of us can see the writing forming on the wall that we are going to be pushed in a corner someday. God forbid when that time comes, you think the military will just unilaterally choose to take up arms against civilians? I don't think it'll be that clean, it'll be messy, ugly, and splintering for everyone, including fracturing the military. 

But thats almost beyond the point,  and hopefully avoidable. I for one believe one of the reasons we didn't see the left start locking up unvaxxed during covid like we saw in other countries is because we still have guns and lots of them. Thats the difference in us and Australia and new Zealand. Guns keep the govt in check. Sure it doesnt mean we can or cant survive some large scale conflict, but it forces them to use overwhelming force to enact some of their more extreme ideas, which in itself becomes a deterrent. 

[AU9377 5,039]

4 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Your sensationalism grows old after a while. I've never heard one person advocate for a law banning a crossdresser or trans person walking down a street. Sexual themed performances  with children present vs walking down a street, big distinction there, chief.

And again, in a discussion that doesn't involve Trump, a liberal brings up Trump! 

No one wants any armed revolt. But many of us can see the writing forming on the wall that we are going to be pushed in a corner someday. God forbid when that time comes, you think the military will just unilaterally choose to take up arms against civilians? I don't think it'll be that clean, it'll be messy, ugly, and splintering for everyone, including fracturing the military. 

But thats almost beyond the point,  and hopefully avoidable. I for one believe one of the reasons we didn't see the left start locking up unvaxxed during covid like we saw in other countries is because we still have guns and lots of them. Thats the difference in us and Australia and new Zealand. Guns keep the govt in check. Sure it doesnt mean we can or cant survive some large scale conflict, but it forces them to use overwhelming force to enact some of their more extreme ideas, which in itself becomes a deterrent. 

People in Australia go to the polls and change leaders when they want to change something.  We also have that option. They are, in every way, as free as we are. They just live longer and have better health care options.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Health

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, AU9377 said:

People in Australia go to the polls and change leaders when they want to change something.  We also have that option. They are, in every way, as free as we are. They just live longer and have better health care options.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Health

They weren't as free during covid. Locked up, surveiled by drones constantly, forced vaccines, thrown in quarantine camps and arrested when they didn't comply or escaped. Politicians gaslighting their constituents about it. It got very 1984 over there.

[auburnatl1 5,038]

16 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Your sensationalism grows old after a while. I've never heard one person advocate for a law banning a crossdresser or trans person walking down a street. Sexual themed performances  with children present vs walking down a street, big distinction there, chief.

And again, in a discussion that doesn't involve Trump, a liberal brings up Trump! 

No one wants any armed revolt. But many of us can see the writing forming on the wall that we are going to be pushed in a corner someday. God forbid when that time comes, you think the military will just unilaterally choose to take up arms against civilians? I don't think it'll be that clean, it'll be messy, ugly, and splintering for everyone, including fracturing the military. 

But thats almost beyond the point,  and hopefully avoidable. I for one believe one of the reasons we didn't see the left start locking up unvaxxed during covid like we saw in other countries is because we still have guns and lots of them. Thats the difference in us and Australia and new Zealand. Guns keep the govt in check. Sure it doesnt mean we can or cant survive some large scale conflict, but it forces them to use overwhelming force to enact some of their more extreme ideas, which in itself becomes a deterrent. 

“Pushed into corner”?  And what is that corner and who decides when to start an armed attack on American soldiers and start a “god forbid” civil war.

Can’t believe this is on friggin AU fan website.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

“Pushed into corner”?  And what is that corner and who decides when to start an armed attack on American soldiers and start a “god forbid” civil war.

Can’t believe this is on friggin AU fan website.

You know what? I don't really appreciate what you're trying to insinuate with your quotes around 'God forbid'.

I know you tend to get 'primal' on these topics, so try and remain calm.

[Didba 5,256]

People be getting real crazy these days. 

[auburnatl1 5,038]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

You know what? I don't really appreciate what you're trying to insinuate with your quotes around 'God forbid'.

I know you tend to get 'primal' on these topics, so try and remain calm.

Whats just occurring to me is that real reason we can’t have a discussion about mass attack weapons is that some want access to them in case they feel the need to begin an armed insurrection against a government that they might not agree with.  It’s not really about hunting or home protection. So the more potential mass killing firepower the better, regardless of the cost happening in the real world.

Am I wrong or missing something? 

[KansasTiger 3,256]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Whats just occurring to me is that real reason we can’t have a discussion about mass attack weapons is that some want access to them in case they feel the need to begin an armed insurrection against a government that they might not agree with.  It’s not really about hunting or home protection. So the more potential mass killing firepower the better, regardless of the cost happening in the real world.

Am I wrong or missing something? 

First of all, I've covered before ARs aren't some magical killing machine compared to many other rifles. You're building them up to be some auto firing machine gun.

But I am against the restriction of arms any further because yes, the whole point of the damn 2nd Amendment is to be able to rise up against a tyrannical govt.

[aubaseball 2,652]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

“Pushed into corner”?  And what is that corner and who decides when to start an armed attack on American soldiers and start a “god forbid” civil war.

Can’t believe this is on friggin AU fan website.

Hell, I can’t believe you went to Auburn.   You sound more  like Cal Berkeley.   

[auburnatl1 5,038]

7 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

First of all, I've covered before ARs aren't some magical killing machine compared to many other rifles. You're building them up to be some auto firing machine gun.

But I am against the restriction of arms any further because yes, the whole point of the damn 2nd Amendment is to be able to rise up against a tyrannical govt.

No. The 2nd amendment specifically and only pertains to protecting personal life and property.  What youre alluding to is dealt with in the constitution itself: article 3 section 3. 

[auburnatl1 5,038]

17 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Hell, I can’t believe you went to Auburn.   You sound more  like Cal Berkeley.   

Well at least you know of a college. Any college. Actually I voted straight republican for 30 years.  What’s going on with some on this board is something … else.

Edited July 20, 2023 by auburnatl1

[KansasTiger 3,256]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

No. The 2nd amendment specifically and only pertains to protecting personal life and property.  What youre alluding to is dealt with in the constitution itself: article 3 section 3. 

Regardless, if it's in the constitution I don't know why this is a discussion.

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Well at least you know of a college. Any college. Actually I voted straight republican for 30 years.  What’s going on with some on this board is something … else.

It’s called many things but to put it politely, it’s nationalism. 

[auburnatl1 5,038]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

Regardless, if it's in the constitution I don't know why this is a discussion.

Because it’s not. I don’t think you’ve read the article.

[auburnatl1 5,038]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

It’s called many things but to put it politely, it’s nationalism. 

That is a nice way to put it.

[AU9377 5,039]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

They weren't as free during covid. Locked up, surveiled by drones constantly, forced vaccines, thrown in quarantine camps and arrested when they didn't comply or escaped. Politicians gaslighting their constituents about it. It got very 1984 over there.

Quarantine camps were actually hotels used primarily for people traveling to Australia that had to be quarantined for a set number of days before being granted entry.  They also had them for people that were incapable of isolating that had someone they live with test positive.  We had those here as well.  I realize that you believe everything Covid related was either fake or some government plot to do whatever it is you are still so concerned about, but most of the time it was just government agencies trying to respond to something that we had never dealt with before.  It was always going to be clumsy and mistakes were going to be made, but assuming some evil purpose is just imparting the worst fears of people into an already difficult situation.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

10 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Because it’s not. I don’t think you’ve read the article.

Ah I see. I made the mistake at taking you at your word. Won't make that mistake again.

[AU9377 5,039]

39 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Hell, I can’t believe you went to Auburn.   You sound more  like Cal Berkeley.   

Maybe, just maybe, you should try not to compartmentalize everyone into one camp or the other.  People can be good people and simply have a different opinion on a subject.

[auburnatl1 5,038]

16 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Ah I see. I made the mistake at taking you at your word. Won't make that mistake again.

I think you misunderstood me. Regardless, there is no provision anywhere in the US constitution or the amendments that condones attacking the government or military because you don’t like their policies.  It’s the exact opposite and there’s a really bad term for it.

This is what the whole voting/ majority rule thing is kinda all about. Suggestion. Before people start saying they’re Constitutionalists and wrapping themselves up in it, they might want to consider actually reading it.

Edited July 20, 2023 by auburnatl1

[KansasTiger 3,256]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think you misunderstood me. Regardless, there is no provision anywhere in the US constitution or the amendments that condones attacking the government or military because you don’t like their policies.  It’s the exact opposite. That’s what the whole voting/ majority rule thing is kinda all about.

Suggestion. Before people start saying they’re Constitutionalists and wrapping themselves up in it, they might want to consider actually reading it.

You know, you argue like a liberal more and more the longer you're on this board. You're twisting my words.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Maybe, just maybe, you should try not to compartmentalize everyone into one camp or the other.  People can be good people and simply have a different opinion on a subject.

Many on your side also need to take this advice then.

[auburnatl1 5,038]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

You know, you argue like a liberal more and more the longer you're on this board. You're twisting my words.

Hardly, First there are the classic liberals who think there’s no wrong or injustice that government shouldn’t try to solve - and then make it worse. That type imo is hopelessly naive and causes big gov train wrecks - but they think they mean well. Then there’s the smaller radical element that are basically Marxists. Shining Path stuff who aren’t naive, don’t mean well, and fundamentally have contempt for capitalism and the constitution itself. They’ve always been around, they just yap more loudly now.

However, just because I disagree strongly with them doesn’t mean that I believe I have a right to try to overthrow it with deer hunters with scary guns. Sounds like Venezuela. 

[KansasTiger 3,256]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Hardly, First there are the classic liberals who think there’s no wrong or injustice that government shouldn’t try to solve - and then make it worse. That type imo is hopelessly naive and causes big gov train wrecks - but they think they mean well. Then there’s the smaller radical element that are basically Marxists. Shining Path stuff who aren’t naive, don’t mean well, and fundamentally have contempt for capitalism and the constitution itself. They’ve always been around, they just yap more loudly now.

However, just because I disagree strongly with them doesn’t mean that I believe I have a right to try to overthrow it with deer hunters with scary guns. Sounds like Venezuela. 

Thanks for the lesson on liberalism. I wasn't referring to core beliefs but argument tactics on this board, but I'm not going to explain it any further. I feel like it would be like trying to explain a joke to Data from star trek.

I have never advocated for overthrow of a govt I disagree with. I have been stating since we started that this is not desirable and hopefully avoidable. No one on the right is looking to start some war over trans rights. You continue to twist my words so you can argue the point YOU want to make.

People will stand up when the govt comes to take their kids or guns. And if this board is any indication to how liberals like you think, I can see how both of those things are not that far away.

No one wants to overthrow the govt cause they disagree. They want to be left alone, but will defend themselves from said govt when they come to take away what is not the govt's to take away.

Edited July 20, 2023 by KansasTiger

[auburnatl1 5,038]

4 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Thanks for the lesson on liberalism. I wasn't referring to core beliefs but argument tactics on this board, but I'm not going to explain it any further. I feel like it would be like trying to explain a joke to Data from star trek.

I have never advocated for overthrow of a govt I disagree with. I have been stating since we started that this is not desirable and hopefully avoidable. No one on the right is looking to start some war over trans rights. You continue to twist my words so you can argue the point YOU want to make.

People will stand up when the govt comes to take their kids or guns. And if this board is any indication to how liberals like you think, I can see how both of those things are not that far away.

No one wants to overthrow the govt cause they disagree. They want to be left alone, but will defend themselves from said govt when they come to take away what is not the govt's to take away.

My 2 cents.  When someone repeatedly states that the reason they need paramilitary weapons (30 rounds in 30 secs has only one purpose ) is just in case they need to challenge a “tyrannical” government (who knows what the heck that means) and that civil war may be inevitable - no matter how voice of reason you put it - it comes across as … spooky.  And against the  constitution.

Moving on.