Home News Events Bands Labels Venues Pics MP3s Radio Show Reviews Releases Buy$tuff Forum   Classifieds   News   Localband   Shows   Show Pics   Polls      OT Threads   Other News   Movies   VideoGames   Videos   TV   Sports   Gear   /r/   Food      New Thread   New Poll Miscellaneous Links E-mail Search login

New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by ShadowSD at 2012-12-19 09:26:13 I think I'm sticking to my vow in not arguing anymore w/people about the second amendment in this thread to just say I completely agree that article is really awful. Where he really loses it, and the worst line: "Today, we are not likely to need to organize local militias for our defense now we have something called the Pentagon." Has the guy heard of Thomas Jefferson and the need of each generation to have the right to define its own destiny? It's one thing to acknowledge the history of the second amendment as an insurance policy against government intrusion but argue we realistically *couldn't* overcome the Pentagon's intelligence, manpower, and firepower today, and entirely another for this guy to suggest that even if we could overcome it, we're 100% sure we'd never need to someday in the future; in doing so, his article pretends what the Founders were saying about the second amendment as a counterbalance to tyranny never existed, and actually diminishes his own arguments against rapid fire weapons. The guy may as well have titled his article How Not To Write An Argument For My Own Side Of The Debate: 1. raise the topic of the second amendment by talking about local militias for defense while not even acknowledging the counterbalance to tyranny and the history of that - and then in the same fucking article, 2. make a case to take guns on *national security* grounds without a clue as to the chilling impression the combination of those two factors leaves. FAIL

[default homepage]

[print][

11:02:46am Apr 18,2024 load time 0.03416 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]