Truth that the MSM needs to air

what if that government and its military was controlled by paid politicians of the rich, and no longer worked for the people?

if we can no longer say the second amendment was to defend against a tyrannical government without being placed on watch lists and losing due process, then we have no first amendment nor second amendment rights.

i am not advocating for insurrection, rebellion, nor treason against the American government as i am a supporter of non violent disobedience from the civil rights movement, i am just making a logical connection.

 

Because that worked out so well in Paris. Are you aware of the worst school massacre in US history and what weapon was used? The reason we should have access to these weapons is to defend ourselves from fighting forces effectively, that is why the founders secured it as a right. Lastly, gun deaths where someone is defending their lives or families lives is a good thing.

 

you're indulging in a fantasy that is right out of the pages of the NRA propaganda book...which has been disproved and disregarded by the rational and infromed.

- - - Updated - - -

You're Paris statement makes no sense.....and what has the school massacre have to do with the two recent ones? The rest of your statements are irrational.

 

You claim that an assault weapon ban would have prevented the orlando shooting. a complete gun ban didnt help at all in paris. I can explain it to you, I cant understand it for you.

Those determined to kill large groups of people dont need guns to do it, as evidenced. Also boston marathon. Again, can explain it... your comprehension notwithstanding.

The rest of my statements concern the constitution, which you evidently neither understand nor care about. It is understandable that you find it all irrational.

 

Wow. You are the perfect example of the uninformed pseudo intellectual so easily mesmerized by psychological operations conducted by mainstream media, like West Wing.

You have yet to even graduate to cable news, as proven by your admission that you have never heard the basic peasant interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and even they are actively working to keep their viewers as uninformed and misguided as possible, yet you still find the confidence to speak condescendingly to someone who is far and away your intellectual superior.

You have to actually put forth effort to learn things. Watching West Wing won't cut it.

 

You're just mouthing the same paranoid, myopic propaganda of the NRA in a round-a-bout way. See, right now YOU can organize a federal/state militia. No joke. And if you think that the slew of weapons available to the average person wouldn't be of concern to any diabolical scheme of some totalitarian types who would have to elicit the loyalty of a good size of the military...think again.

I get sick and tired of this BS that somehow mass weapon confiscation is going to take place with willing participation of all 50 states from local cops to individual state national guard to all the branches of the military. Give me a break and give it a rest. The OP stands.

 

Do you stop and think it through before you repeat these NRA/Fox News commentary mantras? What the hell does Paris have to do with all the nut jobs/home grown terrorists getting their hands on AR-15's in the last two decades? Different country, different circumstances, different type of assaults, etc.

Again, if you can't defend yourself with any number of shotguns, hunting rifles or handguns available, then you're just a bad shot.

 

Pay attention: I wrote that the Assault Weapon ban would have LESSENED the casualty list. I never advocated a complete weapons ban...so stop lying that I wrote any such thing.

Comparing the Boston bombing is stupid and does not change the fact regarding the killings that were done with AR-15's. You need to question the validity and competence of the Shrub's Homeland security as to how they just dropped the ball on the warnings and red flags on that one. The rest of your previous clap trap is a rehash of myopic, out of context NRA propaganda regarding the Constitution....disproved publicly time and again over the years by others more versed and educated on the subject that you and I.

 

And yet the subsequent link I provided sure as hell backed them up, didn't it? And you can't disprove that, no matter how much you ignore it.

 

I never claimed you advocated a complete weapons ban, I simply pointed out that this extreme measure made no difference in Paris, so stop lying and saying I did.

Simply saying something is "stupid" because you do not understand the context is not an argument. The point, again, is that if people want to kill multiple people in public, making doing so illegal by one measure or another will have ZERO effect on the ability to do so. They intend to commit murder. The notion that this tool or that being illegal will prevent them from doing so is so dense I wonder how the (*)(*)(*)(*) you manage to get online.

I have no idea what the NRA says. I am telling you what the constitution says, as you clearly do not comprehend it. I get that you don't believe it, but saying "I believe some people who don't believe you" is also not an argument.

Sack up. Wage an argument, and save the insults. All they serve to do is make you look desperate.

 

Backed what up? What challenge were you even talking about?

I'm the one here mocking you for believing West Wing made some brilliant political observation that the media hasn't reported.

I'm not interested in the gun debate that I have had and seen ON THE MEDIA thousands of times since I was a teenager. My point is about how you criticize the media for not doing something that they actually do damn near every week, and every single DAY after a shooting, like the recent one, which shows that you do not watch the news media, but get your politics from fictional shows like West Wing. I think that's funny because it is the orchestrated dumbing down of our society in action.

I'm just pointing that out, and have zero interest in debating guns with you. My guns are safe. When you outlaw them, which I understand is inevitable, there will be war, and you won't have any weapons to fight with. We will not be disarmed. We will not be conquered. Thousands of police and military support the 2nd amendment and are prepared to joined forces with armed citizens to overthrow the civilian government if it attempts to desecrate the Constitution they are all sworn to protect in this way.

There is no debate. What you are proposing means civil war.

 

Sorry son, but your self aggrandizing here can't change the facts of the chronology of the posts that is your undoing.

 

And here folks, is where Maytag becomes completely unglued......as the chronology of the posts shows, Maytag could NOT refute the OP pointing out they US gun death rate....of which I provided a valid, documented source to back it up. No one denied the OP uses a TV show to make a point...but the subsequent link I provided sure wasn't fiction or fabrication...something Maytag can't/won't deal with.

And with usual hubris, Maytag regurgitates the false mantra that any gun law that exercises the constitutional right of the federal gov't to limit what type of weapons are made available to the general public is opening the flood gates to total banning of all civilian weapons and subsequent confiscation.

I've been hearing that malarky for over 30 years now.....hasn't happened yet because NO GUN LAW provides that venue.

Maytag's got nothing but sour grapes and smoke. Unless he can do better, I'll leave him at that.

 

I dont follow the NRA, and I get my news from everywhere but fox and msnbc. Primarily I watch/listen to/read bbc, the guardian, wapo, nytimes, and I DO read zero hedge. In that order. You will not find a single fox/nra link in my extensive post history. I occasionally read them, and msnbc, and rt, and infowars when linked... because even if they are nuts, doesnt make them wrong. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that what I say is my opinion, and address it as such; even if that opinion is similar to others you disagree with. I will not be dismissed because you are prejudiced. Sack up, have the debate. I mean, its why you are here right?

 

"Even if they are nuts, doesn't make them wrong"....Yet when PROVEN WRONG FACTUALLY all you do is just ignore what you don't like and just regurgitate the SOS. That's kind of "nuts" in and of itself. The chronology of the posts shows that you CONSISTENTLY keep injecting your opinion as if it's fact, as I demonstrate with easy enough general references, links and analysis. Your silly little chest thump challenge to "sack up" is so school yard based it's pathetic. Bottom line: YOU CANNOT FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. But do continue your insipidly stubborn retorts....strangely entertaining.

 

You havent demonstrated anything but arrogance. You keep SAYING that what I am saying which has been upheld by the supreme court has been proven factually wrong, but you have not demonstrated a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing.

Come with facts and links, not your belief of facts, and we can debate. "Nuh uh" is not an argument.

 

Are you unable to address me directly for some reason? Is that some sort of mental illness?

 

Pershaps you're just NOT following the conversation in this thread. The chronology of the posts clearly shows where I've linked reports and studies (as well as other posters have) that clearly support the video message in the OP.

All you've done is call names and wail generalities. Let me divorce you of one delusion....the Heller case not only declared that you have a right to a gun, it also declared that the state has the right to set limits as to what type/number of gun(s) you have. The 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia"....do your homework as to the history of what those militia's required regarding weapon ownership.

Other than that, YOU have no argument.

 

The chronology of the posts is Maytag's undoing, folks. As I don't indulge cranks beyond a certain point, I'm done with him.