Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of us think that Trump and his supporters poking fun at Biden over a supposed lack of mentality acuity is--well--the perfect example of the person with glass windows throwing stones.
I look forward to their first debate to see Trump tie Sleepy Joe into knots. Heck, Joe will tie himself into knots without DJT's help.
Regarding my post a few hours ago about the local authorities refusing to follow their political bosses' orders, I saw this article shortly after I wrote that about 4 county sheriffs in Michigan who just stated publicly they would not follow the governor's orders.
"Four sheriffs in northern Michigan declared Wednesday they would not be enforcing recent executive orders signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer implemented to slow the spread of the novel Wuhan coronavirus in the state.
Citing concerns over violating civil liberties, sheriffs Mike Borkovich, Ted Schendel, Ken Falk, and Kim Cole who protect counties along Lake Michigan in the northwest part of the mitten said in a joint statement that the governor “has created a vague framework of emergency laws that only confuse Michigan citizens.”
“As a result, we will not have strict enforcement of these orders,” the sheriffs said. “We will deal with every case as an individual situation and apply common sense in assessing the apparent violation… We believe that we are the last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties.” "
I look forward to their first debate to see Trump tie Sleepy Joe into knots. Heck, Joe will tie himself into knots without DJT's help.
Hillary won every debate and went on to lose the election. I doubt Joe will lose, but even if he does, the debates won't necessarily determine the outcome.
I suppose you could call that close but Trump is far more with it than Biden is. Biden's got some kind of mental deterioration going on.
Maybe he pushed himself too hard on the campaign trail, I don't know. He's always been a bit of a flake, though.
Remember, this is like the 3rd or 4th time he's trying for the Presidency; the other times, he went down in flames.
Biden is probably the worst candidate the Democrats have come up with in decades. Maybe worse than Hillary Clinton (but they're neck-and-neck, really).
Jimmy Carter was a generally incompetent President but he was very electable. Even Walter Mondale was smarter and more capable, and Reagan crushed him in the biggest landslide of the century.
Biden's had quite a few gaffs, but they pale in comparison to Trump. He slurs MANY words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfOQBY5BrUA
.
Also consider that Trump is 73, never exercised since he was in college (citing that you're wasting limited energy you got when you were born), and eats a fast food diet all the time. During his time in India where Trump may have gotten served a vegetarian meal, an aid was worried because he's never seen Trump eat a vegetable.
.
Those in poverty get criticized for their poor diets, but Trump being (supposedly wealthy), should be doing a lot better than fast food!
That's not because people like him!, His briefings have high ratings because people want to know what's going on with the pandemic
That post was in response to another one that said Trump knew what he was talking about. Clearly, him bragging about ratings in the middle of a pandemic left many confused. And technically, Obama has twice as many followers on Facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by miquel_westano
Why? I already told you quite simply, I think it might. I don't owe you an explanation. But in any event, why don't you tell me how it can hurt my chances of standing up to a tyrannical government to be armed rather than disarmed? At worst, it makes zero difference, and at best it may protect me from harm. It also protects me from looters, predatory criminals and other dangers better than being disarmed.
The 2nd Amendment did not become obsolete because the government got more powerful and more heavily armed over the years. In fact the opposite is true. I don't remember which book it was, but a survivor of one of the oppressive government regimes, Cambodia I believe, summed it up well. He/she said, but the soldiers had guns and we didn't. That pretty much summed up the situation in every massacre committed by tyrannical governments in modern times.
I don't care about you at all. My statement I wouldn't protect you was tongue and cheek humor. I wish you well, but we will never agree. I have a very hard time believing you are anything but an anti gunner trying to portray yourself as some middle of the road voter. Again, may you have a long and happy life.
Your original argument was guns fight government tyranny. Your argument was the 2A was to fight tyranny. It's that simple when we point out, that, just, doesn't, work, this day in age. I know liberals and conservatives alike who use them for hunting, protection (people have pointed out that when you're in a state like Montana that only has 6 cops for the whole state, then that's another matter).
Your original argument was guns fight government tyranny. Your argument was the 2A was to fight tyranny. It's that simple when we point out, that, just, doesn't, work, this day in age. I know liberals and conservatives alike who use them for hunting, protection (people have pointed out that when you're in a state like Montana that only has 6 cops for the whole state, then that's another matter).
Nope, my statement was that the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment were not about hunting or recreation. That the 2nd Amendment was there to protect us from a tyrannical government. My statement wasn't about whether we could fight the government or not, but rather the intent of the Amendment.
This is my last comment on this, but it is clear to me the United States has become a nation where a good majority of it's citizens are lazy dependent cowards. They are willing to give more and more of their rights away in exchange for the scraps tossed to them by the politicians who are taking the lion's share for themselves. People who want to remove the 2nd Amendment are either fools who believe the government will protect them in dire times, or people so afraid to be responsible for themselves they will cede power to the politicians out of fear. Being armed with small caliber weaponry will no doubt leave citizens under equipped to fight a huge oppressive government. But, it will still be much better than being disarmed.
I am old, and likely wont be here for the day this nation falls. But, it will fall. The USA is already so far in debt it can not possibly get out. We are spending more and more everyday that is simply created digitally. Our currency is no longer secured with an asset like gold. It is simply paper with a waning value based on faith. This spending is diluting the value of our dollar more and more. This latest relief spending will dilute the value of our dollar massively before all the spending stops. When the US dollar stops being the world reserve currency, the collapse of our economy will happen almost overnight.
If I am alive then, I sure hope I am well armed. Because when the nation falls, our own government will be the one that turns on us, trying to implement a socialist style regime under the guise of saving the nation. They have seen in this pandemic how scared and desperate fools will just give away their freedom in exchange for promises of protection and small token payment handouts. The politicians will never forget how easily and instantly we handed over our rights.
Nope, my statement was that the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment were not about hunting or recreation. That the 2nd Amendment was there to protect us from a tyrannical government. My statement wasn't about whether we could fight the government or not, but rather the intent of the Amendment.
This is my last comment on this, but it is clear to me the United States has become a nation where a good majority of it's citizens are lazy dependent cowards. They are willing to give more and more of their rights away in exchange for the scraps tossed to them by the politicians who are taking the lion's share for themselves. People who want to remove the 2nd Amendment are either fools who believe the government will protect them in dire times, or people so afraid to be responsible for themselves they will cede power to the politicians out of fear. Being armed with small caliber weaponry will no doubt leave citizens under equipped to fight a huge oppressive government. But, it will still be much better than being disarmed.
I am old, and likely wont be here for the day this nation falls. But, it will fall. The USA is already so far in debt it can not possibly get out. We are spending more and more everyday that is simply created digitally. Our currency is no longer secured with an asset like gold. It is simply paper with a waning value based on faith. This spending is diluting the value of our dollar more and more. This latest relief spending will dilute the value of our dollar massively before all the spending stops. When the US dollar stops being the world reserve currency, the collapse of our economy will happen almost overnight.
If I am alive then, I sure hope I am well armed. Because when the nation falls, our own government will be the one that turns on us, trying to implement a socialist style regime under the guise of saving the nation. They have seen in this pandemic how scared and desperate fools will just give away their freedom in exchange for promises of protection and small token payment handouts. The politicians will never forget how easily and instantly we handed over our rights.
While I don't disagree with anything you stated, it does sound like "worst case scenario". Hopefully it will not end as badly as you and I both fear.
You might be surprised to find out just whose side the local cops and US Military are on. If you think they're going to blindly carry out orders of some tyrannical leader to gun down their neighbors and fellow citizens with whom many of them agree, you'll be in for a surprise. The typical rank-and-file police officer is much more aligned with those fighting for freedom and constitutional rights than they are their own political bosses who are kissing some politician's a$$ in an attempt to keep his own job.
History does not exactly back you up, and being popular and liked by your community (or not) would have a significant effect. There are examples of gun owning Americans being gunned down by enforcement personnel on behalf of the government. It is very easy to say, if they become a target for whatever reason, that they were justified in shooting them because they were criminal in some way. Maybe that has been true and maybe not.
But I tell ya. What you're saying, I would bet my next months' worth of paychecks that you are not a black man saying that.
"Are you kidding, cops and military and feds and other government enforcers would never gun down members of their communities" Huh. Be a black guy with a gun and tell me how that works out for you. Let alone the examples like Waco, Ruby Ridge, and other out-of-the-norm "intentional community" groups that have been taken down by the government. Nah, we don't even have to go to those examples. Just be a black guy with a gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miquel_westano
Why? I already told you quite simply, I think it might. I don't owe you an explanation. But in any event, why don't you tell me how it can hurt my chances of standing up to a tyrannical government to be armed rather than disarmed? At worst, it makes zero difference, and at best it may protect me from harm. It also protects me from looters, predatory criminals and other dangers better than being disarmed.
The 2nd Amendment did not become obsolete because the government got more powerful and more heavily armed over the years. In fact the opposite is true. I don't remember which book it was, but a survivor of one of the oppressive government regimes, Cambodia I believe, summed it up well. He/she said, but the soldiers had guns and we didn't. That pretty much summed up the situation in every massacre committed by tyrannical governments in modern times.
I don't care about you at all. My statement I wouldn't protect you was tongue and cheek humor. I wish you well, but we will never agree. I have a very hard time believing you are anything but an anti gunner trying to portray yourself as some middle of the road voter. Again, may you have a long and happy life.
I think I know what my own positions and politics are better than you do. But you're a damn good example of a guy who has been pushed to an extreme where you're fairly paranoid and sure that people are against you, even when they're not.
I've got a little tinfoil hat theory goin' on, too. I think that global powers are sick to death of America's crap. Our interference in everything from world governments, conflicts, economies, the works. And the end-game goal, as you say, is the destruction of America as we know it. But it won't come about because we were invaded by an overt hostile force. They can get this done without even having to deal with our military at all. It will happen because they've fractured American society and ideology so deeply that we are at one another's throats. The way this is going, this country will break apart into multiple nation-states eventually. The power broken up, at the least we won't be barking up everybody else's trees...and at the worst, they'd then be able to use force against us far more easily.
I might be a snarky b-word sometimes, and some of that has definitely come out in my communications towards you, but when and where it counts, I still defend your rights. Whether you believe me about that, or not. And whether I agree with your reasoning, or not. I want America to keep on being America. Deep down, I believe that the right to bear arms is part of our heart and soul as a nation. And I wish you, and your many grandchildren, long and prosperous lives as well. I mean that.
Also, I'm not pretending to be a moderate voter right now. I admit my liberal leanings at this point and time. But overall I do consider myself independent, because my alignment shifts a lot from time to time. And there are elements, bits and pieces of ideology, of conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism and even socialism that I can agree with...but I have huge trust issues about any politician walking their talk with anything they say they stand for, though. So my assessment of "never mind what they are saying, what will they DO" comes into play with who I back.
But none of this exchange between you and I has really been on-point for this conversation. I was really trying to talk about why gun ownership, as it applies as a common divide between conservative and liberal leaning people, is very rightfully looked upon differently by residents of cities, and residents of rural areas. Because I see both sides of that conversation, and I think that both have points, and I don't think that either has really business telling the other what's what. It is a serious problem when a state whose population and voting is dominated by city-dwellers, forces gun restrictions on rural people. If it's what the city dwellers want, let them make rules for THEIR communities, but they need to leave other people whose needs differ, out of those regulations. At the very least.
It's mostly liberal boomers who hate the NRA, younger liberals tend to be indifferent about guns or even flat out in favor of gun rights.
Don't underestimate how despised the NRA is, even within the gun owning community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think they're going to blindly carry out orders of some tyrannical leader to gun down their neighbors and fellow citizens with whom many of them agree, you'll be in for a surprise. The typical rank-and-file police officer is much more aligned with those fighting for freedom and constitutional rights than they are their own political bosses who are kissing some politician's a$$ in an attempt to keep his own job. 
