-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Thank you for proving my point. You are quite willing to ignore what history has repeatedly demonstrated to be realistic fact based on nothing more than that you just don't like it. You clearly don't live in reality, therefore, it is indeed impossible to have a conversation with you.
Now, let's hear a fact/reason based explanation of why such an eventuality should be off the table as a prerequisite for conversation. I am sorry, but personal sensibilities of the type one would expect from a middle school student are not fact-based reasons. You have yet to offer so much as a general thought, let alone an actual explanation, justification, or *gasp* proof that your position has merit. Dismissing the thoughts of those who disagree does not get it.
That said, I know that you will not have such an answer because one does not exist. Have a nice day.
"It can't happen here" is always an excellent refutation, until it does.
It starts with the government trying to demonize a group, marginalize them, and generate social distrust. We aren't having a national dialogue on morality. It's a government backed movement to isolate devout Christians. And it seems to be working so far. Also a few bones thrown in on issues like the confederate battle flag, to stir emotions and create false connections.
The establishment clause seems under attack now. Once it's gutted, how much protection will the Constitution provide for the rest of the Bill of Rights (unless acknowledged by Justice Kennedy)?
Next up, gun owners? Or it can't happen here?
Oh well, that's better then. What's on TV tonight?
People always think they are special, and that things are different.
And no, he is not accusing you of having Nazi tendencies.
The Nazi party did not just happen one day.
They grabbed power slowly by various methods.
Then they were powerful enough people thought.... well what can you do. If I say anything....
Also, many people refused to even believe what was going on.
The entire population were not Nazis. Percentage wise, only a few were. But they were put into positions of power by people that thought, "WE ARE NOT LIKE THAT. IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE"
Regardless of my opinion on this ruling I find it funny that they can come to a ruling that says gay marriage is a constitutional right (which requires stretching things) yet also take an amendment as simple as the second and find that its legal for states to require permits/licenses for carrying. The right to keep and bear (carry) shall not be infringed.
Then again, I personally think the SCOTUS may be the most corrupted branch which is saying something if you even got me started on the executive branch right now.
Then again, I personally think the SCOTUS may be the most corrupted branch which is saying something if you even got me started on the executive branch right now.
Which is why they were supposed to be and should be the weakest branch of the government. No way should 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 people be trusted with the power they now exercise to legislate. It is much easier to corrupt those few, unaccountable people, than several hundred representatives and senators.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Where in the hell did you come up with the idea that I believe that you personally want to send me or anyone else to a prison camp? I am excoriating you for demanding denial of the possibility that such a thing could happen as a precondition of your idea of a civil conversation, not for itching to be the conductor on the train to the furnace.
Since you apparently missed the memo, although the Nazis are a convenient example by virtue of having occupied recent historical memory, they did not own the patent on evil, which has been with us since time immemorial. Similarly, evil was not disinvented at the onset of the civil rights movement, including but not limited to internment camps.
Social and ethnic cleansing are not new nor are they confined to the past by any force other than our own diligence.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but your delicate sensibilities will NOT protect you from this or any other onslaught once those who would do such things are in the position to act on their desires.
Ben Franklin answered the question of what had been created with "A republic, if you can keep it." This is what he was talking about. George Washington declared that government is not reason but force. He also said that, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Of course, there really isn't much point in discussing this--after all, since they are old white men they are necessarily dumber than owl sh*t and since they predate the civil rights movement they are irrelevant.
Human nature has been basically constant throughout history, right down to the ~3% of people who are sociopaths in the clinical sense. You can deny it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact, and by extension doesn't change the fact that anything that has happened in the past can happen again, only faster and more efficiently, and will happen if one or a group of those sociopaths manage to seize political power as was the case with most everyone who ran the Assyrian empire, several Egyptian Pharaohs, several Roman emperors, Antiochus IV, Tojo, Hitler & Co., Stalin & Co., Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, and the jackass running the Islamic State, just to rattle off a few past and present from memory. So far as he has revealed his personality, the present resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not seem so dissimilar. Now, tell me again how recognizing the possibility that such a thing could happen is 'not reality' and outside of the boundaries of civil conversation.
The problem with that is, you're not having a discussion with the possibility of internment. Unless someone has an AI that can consistently pass a Turing test, discussions take place between individuals. You can't divorce participation in internment from the individual; at a minimum, tacit approval is implied. And if you think I approve of sending you to a camp, then what is there to discuss?
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I don't know how to make this any plainer. I am NOT suggesting that you approve of it, nor do I understand how the denial of the possibility of something could be argued to constitute approving or supporting it. I am suggesting that you are denying that it is a possibility and demanding denial of the possibility as a precondition for your idea of a civil discussion. The plain truth is that I have come to the conclusion based on what you have said that you are psychologically fragile enough that you are unable to deal with the reality of the evil in the world that surrounds you and therefore insist on dismissing it such that you don't have to confront that reality. The bottom line is that the only thing that stops sociopaths from doing such things is the denial of the opportunity for them to do it, and it is pretty clear that relying on the government to do it isn't going to get the job done, and you aren't contributing as long as you dismiss and deny. Mr. D'Souza might have something to say to you right now about the lengths to which the government will go to force 'right thinking' on you. Do you really think that the DoJ that would present the charges and the judge who would issue the conviction followed up with shopping for headshrinkers until he finds one who will re-educate a man on account of his political beliefs would not send that same man to a camp afforded the opportunity?
No, I am not accusing you of supporting or approving such an eventuality. I am accusing you of having highly unrealistic views on the actions and implied intentions of evil people as a device of fostering your own personal sense of comfort.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
What is truly pathetic is that apparently 41% believe in forced servitude in violation to one's religions convictions which happen to be a significant part of the First Amendment.
It's just a snapshot in time. The numbers will eventually reverse and some day, a long time from now, people who would deny service to gays will be looked upon as we now look upon those who would deny service to blacks.
Or service to polygamists.
I am waiting for the first polygamous family-member visa applications. Where a married couple in the US marries and sponsors for legal permanent resident status an overseas non-citizen (or non-citizen couple). That is going to give rise to all sorts of new types of immigration fraud. At least among those who still actually go to the trouble of applying for a visa, which admittedly is declining to the point of insignificance.
This Administration is truly leaving future generations of Americans and crypto-Americans a project on the scale of the Augean stables.
I am waiting for the first polygamous family-member visa applications. Where a married couple in the US marries and sponsors for legal permanent resident status an overseas non-citizen (or non-citizen couple). That is going to give rise to all sorts of new types of immigration fraud. At least among those who still actually go to the trouble of applying for a visa, which admittedly is declining to the point of insignificance.
This Administration is truly leaving future generations of Americans and crypto-Americans a project on the scale of the Augean stables.
Everyone under the age of about 60 has grown up in a time where the government thinks it can make every body like one another if they pass enough laws.
Maybe. The court stepping in as they did in this case and short circuiting the peoples' will on abortion has not followed this route.
Logically speaking, if we're to judge one another based on how we treat people based on their sexual preferences, we must be permissive and tolerant of any and all. Those that think it was wrong to only accept one version are being illogical to assume 2 versions are all that need be accepted.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
GFGT is on a roll!
