Meanwhile, this goon was actually running for president:

https://www.cnn.com/...tings-sot-newday.cnn

Alexander the Great was a mass killer.
Fischer and Ambati were in it for the chicks.
Braille liked to light his farts.
And, every single one of them would have eaten a Tide pod on YouTube if given the chance. Well, everyone but Joan of Arc -- that girl is a saint.

Now if you'd turned that into a poem I would have been impressed. I'm sure a kid could've.

How about a haiku?

Alex the Great loved killing
Moz liked lighting farts
Tide pods chewed by all but Joan

Not bad...

The once was a Great kid named Alex
Who killed all, from the Greeks to the Gallics
He loved his new fame
So wanted his name
Not in Braille, but instead in italics!

5-7-5, right. Oops.

Alex liked killing
Lou giggled lighting his farts
Joan passed on Tide pods

edit: Common ground is lovely.

Congrats, you have joined an amoral organization that kills children. And probably bunnies.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

In his defense, Planned Parenthood wasn't offering a pocketknife and a digital magazine.

And launders Russian mob money, allegedly.

Of course, that’s the only sign of a Real ‘Muricam!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

That's for sure! But they were offering half-off on pink p*ssy hats. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yeah, not too sure I want to leave the future of our republic in the hands of a bunch of folks who think eating laundry detergent on YouTube is an intelligent move on their part. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Amoral? I'm in! I mean, who am I to judge what's moral and not, right? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

No, THIS is the only sign of a Real 'Murican. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Just remember that that goes both ways.

As a young person, many older people see my views or opinions that I express as being worth less simply because I was born after them. And they will disregard it as childish, uninformed, or they will pay my on the shoulder and tell me to run along and go play with my friends while the “real adults” make the decisions.

On the other hand, if we don’t speak up, we inherit a world that was shaped by those in front of us, with no say from us. What’s worse is that in the scenario, we aren’t prepared by the older individuals to inherit this world. If we don’t have the ability to express our opinions, or if we are shut down simply because, “they are children,” then we will never have the skills necessary to be the ones leading as we grow older.

My last point is this. You state that,
“...we are supposed to accept their views as unimpeachable and that if we voice our disagreement with their views we are attacking children or are somehow scared of them.”
Think about it this way- we, the teenagers and 20-something’s of the world are “supposed to” accept their (the older individuals and generations of this world) views as unimpeachable and that if we voice our disagreement with their views, we are uneducated, misinformed, naive, and no one needs to bother listening to us.

I, for what it’s worth, do not agree with all of his points.

 
What's so political about joining America's oldest terrorist organization? Why do you hate freedom? ;-)

fixed it for you :)

Real 'Murican? Shooting a Russian firearm? Ya, that does fit the current narrative.

---

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Starting from scratch...

Hahahahahahaha! Hey! Where's my PLO neck scarf? That's all I wanna know. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Oh, you caught that, huh? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

This is an honest question.

I can understand having the 2A in today's world for protecting your home and family (even though after 46 years on this earth I've never even come close to ever wishing I had a weapon in any circumstance, but maybe I live a sheltered life).

I know the a big debate about the 2A is the part of "well regulated militia". The idea is that it would protect against the tyranny of government. How in today's world does that play out? Is the idea that individual gun owners would get together to march on DC to take over if they feel the government is tyrannical? Who controls the military in this case? Are a bunch of individual gun owners going up against the most advanced military on the planet? Although I've heard that if it got too bad then the military would not fight against the citizens.

I'm probably over simplifying this but I hear the argument around the interwebs about the 2A and the tyrannical government.

I don't usually get too down in the weeds about all that "well-regulated militia" and "tyrannical government" stuff and instead prefer to focus my argument more on the right to self-defense each of us is due because of our humanity. We have a natural right to the means and weapons with which to defend ourselves, in other words. One of those weapons is the gun.

That said, here are my thoughts on the militia and tyrannical government replies by 2A supporters (speaking as a retired military officer with several years' time behind the trigger of more than a few weapons during the course of my duties).

1. The National Guard soldiers and airmen are most commonly understood and accepted to be a PART of what the Constitution refers to as "the militia." But they're not the only component of said militia. They're actually components of the Army (Army National Guard) and Air Force (Air National Guard). In that regard, those folks legally belong to what's called "the standing military."

2. A common argument by pro-gun control folks is that private gun owners aren't "well-regulated" and therefore aren't of a militia, but that's in error. Congress regulates "the militia" through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution (“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia….”).

3. Congress already has decided what "well-regulated" means. It means our current level of regulation, since this is what Congress has imposed on us. Congress is also free to enact further regulation(s) if it wishes, too. For example, if Congress desired, it could decree that every member of the militia (which Congress can expand as it wishes to better reflect society) must be armed with an AR-15. That said, what if Congress decided to enact regulations that diminished or eliminated the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Ummm, not so fast, as it turns out:

4. The Founders were brilliant in writing 2A the way they did, because they ensured Congress was limited in its ability to DISARM "the people," so it can't decide to "well-regulate" the right to keep and bear arms out of existence, either.

As far as the tyrannical government reply goes, my thinking would be along these lines:

1. Over the last 20 years or so, gun rights have greatly expanded across the country via legislation undertaken by many state legislatures (with notable holdouts being California and New York), and faster and more thoroughly than has gay marriage, so the Constitution appears to be evolving towards recognizing MORE gun rights, not fewer.

2. Will our government always be benevolent? Hard to say. Right now, the unending series of revelations about government misconduct, including oppression of individuals solely for the views they hold, seems cacophonous. Also, since that fellow in the White House currently is, like, literally Hitler (literally) for real, wouldn't giving him and his government a monopoly on the use of force be a really bad idea?

3. I don't understand the line of reasoning about gun owners not being able to stand up to the power and might of the federal government, which in the view of the left would be backed by the standing military forces of the United States, at minimum.

First, I'll observe that I don't know a single gun owner -- many of whom are former or retired military like me -- who's champing at the bit to take on the US government and create a civil war. Violence is always, and ever will be, a last resort justifiable only in cases of outright, active violent tyranny where no political or judicial processes are available. We're nowhere close to that breaking point, at least in my estimation.

Second, Americans legally retain the right to use force to stop such a tyranny should it ever raise its ugly head. This could happen should the government, for instance, decide to round up Asian or Jewish citizens. Violence in those cases would be an appropriate last resort, I feel.

Third, fortunately for all of us our street-level law enforcement and military folks would never do such a thing, but that doesn't mean a situation could never arise where people acting under the color of authority might seek to grievously violate the Constitution and deprive citizens of their rights and their lives. The Founders were very wise to have enshrined citizens' rights to resist violent tyranny.

4. All the above said, could citizens effectively resist a violent tyranny? It's a complicated and very long story, but the short answer is, of course, "yes." Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam have all taught that a decentralized insurgency with just small arms can give a stand-up fight to a modern police/military force. And in the case of an American insurgency, police and military rank-and-file folks are probably much more likely to sympathize with their fellow Americans and with freedom than with some hypothetical tyrant. That makes the scenario highly unlikely, though not completely impossible.

Think about this: two untrained jihadists managed to shut down Boston during the course of that city's famous marathon race. What would 100 million armed Americans -- many trained and some of them tested in battles large and small -- be able to do with their rifles?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I too have thought the same, however, if you look at the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam conflicts, they inflicted some serious damage on us. The ability to slip back into the civilian population is an incredible tactic that benefited those conflicts and really made it difficult for us. I just don’t think it is going to come down to the US Military taking weapons from the civilian population of the US door to door. For one thing, the numbers are against the US Military, they are not going to have the ability to disarm the entire country, use heavy bombing, armor etc. (in my opinion) and their numbers are actually quite small in comparison to the population . Also the Posse Comitatus Act May prevent this? Also BK outlined it quite well in his post prior to mine. Also, I definitely don’t have the answer.

;-) ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."