Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-11-2024, 08:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2024, 08:26 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]There are less than a million police officers in the country.  I think a well-armed public, with a 100 to 1 advantage, would do okay. 

"General ruckus"?  Thanks for dropping the insurrection talk and finally admitting what it really was.

Your well armed neighbors would have to really like you and believe in your cause and be willing to stop their normal jobs and organize for that numerical advantage to mean anything.

And yes it was a general ruckus in the one place in the country during the one time every four years that a well timed ruckus can invalidate the continuation of the constitution.  Which makes it an insurrection.

No problem, those of us with guns believe in freedom from oppression and would respond to a call to arms.  Plus, we would have the National Guard backing us up.  Did you forget about the National Guard?  

If a simple ruckus can bring down the government, wouldn't you agree the Constitution needs a serious overhaul?  Activating the sprinkler system would also delay the process.  If one person had accomplished that in a non-violent manner, would that have been an insurrection?

(04-11-2024, 10:01 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2024, 08:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Your well armed neighbors would have to really like you and believe in your cause and be willing to stop their normal jobs and organize for that numerical advantage to mean anything.

And yes it was a general ruckus in the one place in the country during the one time every four years that a well timed ruckus can invalidate the continuation of the constitution.  Which makes it an insurrection.

No problem, those of us with guns believe in freedom from oppression and would respond to a call to arms.  Plus, we would have the National Guard backing us up.  Did you forget about the National Guard?  

If a simple ruckus can bring down the government, wouldn't you agree the Constitution needs a serious overhaul?  Activating the sprinkler system would also delay the process.  If one person had accomplished that in a non-violent manner, would that have been an insurrection?

The idiots who did January 6 also thought the national guard would back them up.

And yes, activating a sprinkler system would create a delay of a couple of hours.  If it was part of a larger plan including more threats and more distractions, the delays could last 24 hours.  If done at that time and place, it would indeed be an insurrection against the constitution.

Small spacecraft like x wings flew around the death star all the time.  They were not a threat, until they lined up with that exhaust shaft.  January 6th on years after Presidential elections is one of the exhaust shafts in our system.  January 1 is another one. Those are the two days you need a quorum in each house to continue the government. On January 20th, you only need the new President to be bodily safe with a judge and a camera broadcasting him taking the oath. On January 1 and 6 you need at larger number of people to be safe, together, and undistracted.

These types of discussions are depressing.

(04-11-2024, 06:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2024, 06:09 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]No.

---

So what you're saying is, delusions can have value.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all and I'm a little disappointed you would make such an effort to miss the point. 

Let me expand on that by asking you: Do you consider your deeply held beliefs as delusions?

Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

(04-12-2024, 07:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2024, 06:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]No, that's not what I'm saying at all and I'm a little disappointed you would make such an effort to miss the point. 

Let me expand on that by asking you: Do you consider your deeply held beliefs as delusions?

Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

So just give up and take it? Defeated before you try. What a great mindset. If you think other countries wouldn't provide weaponry (ya know like Ukraine) you clearly underestimate how much the world hates our government

(04-12-2024, 07:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2024, 06:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]No, that's not what I'm saying at all and I'm a little disappointed you would make such an effort to miss the point. 

Let me expand on that by asking you: Do you consider your deeply held beliefs as delusions?

Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

I did state that my thoughts weren’t presented as eloquently as I wished. 

What I’m saying is a government can’t choose to be tyrannical and then magically achieve it. That government would need the support of the military and the police because tyrannical governments rule from the barrel of a gun. 

The point I was making is if a majority of the police and military believe in the right of citizens to bear arms, how does said government achieve its tyranny.

(04-12-2024, 08:32 AM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 07:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

So just give up and take it? Defeated before you try. What a great mindset. If you think other countries wouldn't provide weaponry (ya know like Ukraine) you clearly underestimate how much the world hates our government

That's what a government rino cuckhold looks like..

If it ever comes to the point of average people defending the Constitution against a tyrannical Government my belief is....... I'd rather die a FREE MAN rather then living on my knees as a SLAVE!!!!!!!

(04-12-2024, 08:51 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 07:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

I did state that my thoughts weren’t presented as eloquently as I wished. 

What I’m saying is a government can’t choose to be tyrannical and then magically achieve it. That government would need the support of the military and the police because tyrannical governments rule from the barrel of a gun. 

The point I was making is if a majority of the police and military believe in the right of citizens to bear arms, how does said government achieve its tyranny.

Exactly right.  It's not just the guns themselves, it's what ordinary people in the police force and out everywhere in society believe about those guns, that makes tyranny unlikely.

Similarly, it's not so much the number of people who turned out on January 6 that is important, it's more important to note that the police and national guard they met didn't *believe* their claims about the election. But what if the police and national guard did believe them?

(04-12-2024, 10:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 08:51 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I did state that my thoughts weren’t presented as eloquently as I wished. 

What I’m saying is a government can’t choose to be tyrannical and then magically achieve it. That government would need the support of the military and the police because tyrannical governments rule from the barrel of a gun. 

The point I was making is if a majority of the police and military believe in the right of citizens to bear arms, how does said government achieve its tyranny.

Exactly right.  It's not just the guns themselves, it's what ordinary people in the police force and out everywhere in society believe about those guns, that makes tyranny unlikely.

Similarly, it's not so much the number of people who turned out on January 6 that is important, it's more important to note that the police and national guard they met didn't *believe* their claims about the election.  But what if the police and national guard did believe them?

Nationally or locally?

(04-12-2024, 10:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 10:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly right.  It's not just the guns themselves, it's what ordinary people in the police force and out everywhere in society believe about those guns, that makes tyranny unlikely.

Similarly, it's not so much the number of people who turned out on January 6 that is important, it's more important to note that the police and national guard they met didn't *believe* their claims about the election.  But what if the police and national guard did believe them?

Nationally or locally?

Specifically in DC, the ones there that day.

Although officers believing that kind of thing anywhere would be bad, I'm only talking about the ones who were there that day.

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/177879...AeQbQ&s=19

---

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status...lppyg&s=19

(04-12-2024, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 10:47 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Nationally or locally?

Specifically in DC, the ones there that day.

Although officers believing that kind of thing anywhere would be bad, I'm only talking about the ones who were there that day.

Highly unlikely something like that would ever happen. But if it did, moderate Democrats who believe in the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion and big government would have stormed the Capitol and saved democracy. 

*Cue patriotic music and background image of American flag waving nobly in the wind.*

(04-12-2024, 11:12 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Specifically in DC, the ones there that day.

Although officers believing that kind of thing anywhere would be bad, I'm only talking about the ones who were there that day.

Highly unlikely something like that would ever happen. But if it did, moderate Democrats who believe in the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion and big government would have stormed the Capitol and saved democracy. 

*Cue patriotic music and background image of American flag waving nobly in the wind.*

Bwwwwaaaahahahahaaaa. You really meant moderate Republicans, the shock troops of the left in America.

(04-12-2024, 11:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 11:12 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Highly unlikely something like that would ever happen. But if it did, moderate Democrats who believe in the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion and big government would have stormed the Capitol and saved democracy. 

*Cue patriotic music and background image of American flag waving nobly in the wind.*

Bwwwwaaaahahahahaaaa. You really meant moderate Republicans, the shock troops of the left in America.

Nope. They would have been immediately repelled by a fusillade of racist accusations.

(04-12-2024, 11:12 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 10:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Specifically in DC, the ones there that day.

Although officers believing that kind of thing anywhere would be bad, I'm only talking about the ones who were there that day.

Highly unlikely something like that would ever happen. But if it did, moderate Democrats who believe in the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion and big government would have stormed the Capitol and saved democracy. 

*Cue patriotic music and background image of American flag waving nobly in the wind.*

Seems unlikely now.
But the idiots who showed up believed it might happen, especially if Trump persisted in cheering it on.

(04-12-2024, 11:21 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 11:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Bwwwwaaaahahahahaaaa. You really meant moderate Republicans, the shock troops of the left in America.

Nope. They would have been immediately repelled by a fusillade of racist accusations.

Nah, that falls under the category of "don't interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." The racist accusations come AFTER the left gets what it wants from the Useful Idiots.

(04-12-2024, 08:51 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-12-2024, 07:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Of course I do not consider my deeply held beliefs as delusions.  If I considered them delusions, I wouldn't believe them.  

But I would say that if I believed that my gun would defend me from a tyrannical government, that would be delusional. 

So when you say, "...it's not so much about the guns themselves, but the mindset of the populace and the beliefs associated with gun ownership..." if you are including the belief that a personal weapon would defend you from a tyrannical government, I would say anyone who believes that is delusional.  And then I take it from your statement that you are saying that what I call delusional nevertheless has some value.  


 

I did state that my thoughts weren’t presented as eloquently as I wished. 

What I’m saying is a government can’t choose to be tyrannical and then magically achieve it. That government would need the support of the military and the police because tyrannical governments rule from the barrel of a gun. 

The point I was making is if a majority of the police and military believe in the right of citizens to bear arms, how does said government achieve its tyranny.

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now.