I admit it...

[Quality Start Machine]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.

To paraphrase the Onion, we've tried everything except that one thing that has worked everywhere else.

[flannj]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.  

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.

Although any level is unacceptable Stew.  The U.S homicide rate is actually at a 51 year low. The most recent FBI data available is from 2014.

[Chuck to Chuck]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.  

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.

Although any level is unacceptable Stew.  The U.S homicide rate is actually at a 51 year low. The most recent FBI data available is from 2014.

Unleaded gas.

[flannj]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.  

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.

Although any level is unacceptable Stew.  The U.S homicide rate is actually at a 51 year low. The most recent FBI data available is from 2014.

Unleaded gas.

huh?

[flannj]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.  

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.

Although any level is unacceptable Stew.  The U.S homicide rate is actually at a 51 year low. The most recent FBI data available is from 2014.

Unleaded gas.

huh?

Ok I see. Scroll to the top I suck at posting.
I make no conclusions I'm just posting the FBI results.

[SKO]

I don't play Pokémon Go (when the Pokémon cards were a fad when I was in 5th grade I got a whole bunch of them at Christmas and about a month later realized I didn't even like the game and just had them because everyone else did, so I sold all my cards as at the family garage sale where my mom would let us keep whatever money we made from selling our toys we didn't need anymore. I got like 150 bucks out of it, which felt like a fortune to a ten year old and later became a kickass dune buggy for my GI Joes. Look at this thing:
) but I've had several co-workers come up to me and say "Hey I think there's a pokemon downstairs saw a bunch of people with their phones there" so I'm glad to have earned my rep as "the fuckin' nerd"

[Powdered Toast Man]

I don't play Pokémon Go (when the Pokémon cards were a fad when I was in 5th grade I got a whole bunch of them at Christmas and about a month later realized I didn't even like the game and just had them because everyone else did, so I sold all my cards as at the family garage sale where my mom would let us keep whatever money we made from selling our toys we didn't need anymore. I got like 150 bucks out of it, which felt like a fortune to a ten year old and later became a kickass dune buggy for my GI Joes. Look at this thing:
) but I've had several co-workers come up to me and say "Hey I think there's a pokemon downstairs saw a bunch of people with their phones there" so I'm glad to have earned my rep as "the fuckin' nerd"

Nerds walking around with their phones scavenger hunting for Pokemon has to be the lamest of the douchelamiest things on this lame, douchey planet.

[SKO]

I don't play Pokémon Go (when the Pokémon cards were a fad when I was in 5th grade I got a whole bunch of them at Christmas and about a month later realized I didn't even like the game and just had them because everyone else did, so I sold all my cards as at the family garage sale where my mom would let us keep whatever money we made from selling our toys we didn't need anymore. I got like 150 bucks out of it, which felt like a fortune to a ten year old and later became a kickass dune buggy for my GI Joes. Look at this thing:
) but I've had several co-workers come up to me and say "Hey I think there's a pokemon downstairs saw a bunch of people with their phones there" so I'm glad to have earned my rep as "the fuckin' nerd"

Nerds walking around with their phones scavenger hunting for Pokemon has to be the lamest of the douchelamiest things on this lame, douchey planet.

As opposed to people walking around on their phone doing literally everything else. People are having fun with a game. Grow up and get over it. No one cares if you don't like it. I don't play it because I can never commit to actually being good at any video game whatsoever because I want to just be awesome immediately without having to work for it, but nothing about not playing any video game makes you better than people who do.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I don't play Pokémon Go (when the Pokémon cards were a fad when I was in 5th grade I got a whole bunch of them at Christmas and about a month later realized I didn't even like the game and just had them because everyone else did, so I sold all my cards as at the family garage sale where my mom would let us keep whatever money we made from selling our toys we didn't need anymore. I got like 150 bucks out of it, which felt like a fortune to a ten year old and later became a kickass dune buggy for my GI Joes. Look at this thing:
) but I've had several co-workers come up to me and say "Hey I think there's a pokemon downstairs saw a bunch of people with their phones there" so I'm glad to have earned my rep as "the fuckin' nerd"

Nerds walking around with their phones scavenger hunting for Pokemon has to be the lamest of the douchelamiest things on this lame, douchey planet.

As opposed to people walking around on their phone doing literally everything else. People are having fun with a game. Grow up and get over it. No one cares if you don't like it. I don't play it because I can never commit to actually being good at any video game whatsoever because I want to just be awesome immediately without having to work for it, but nothing about not playing any video game makes you better than people who do.

Shut up, SKO.

[SKO]

Shut up, SKO.

Your most popular board by activity is Mom's Basement, but by all means keep shitting on the nerds and their video games.

[Eli]

Shut up, SKO.

Your most popular board by activity is Mom's Basement, but by all means keep shitting on the nerds and their video games.

Yeah, but that's by activity, not posting. He was only lurking around Mom's Basement to get directions on how to get away from there.

[Tonker]

... I don't give a flying fuck about Pokemon Go.  I was out for a run yesterday and saw loads of people playing it.  They all seemed to be having fun whilst not harming or costing anybody else.  Good luck to them.

[SKO]

... I don't give a flying fuck about Pokemon Go.  I was out for a run yesterday and saw loads of people playing it.  They all seemed to be having fun whilst not harming or costing anybody else.  Good luck to them.

Ding.

[Canadouche]

Shut up, SKO.

Your most popular board by activity is Mom's Basement, but by all means keep shitting on the nerds and their video games.

Dawwwww! Don't fuck with admin, son!

[Quality Start Machine]

... I don't give a flying fuck about Pokemon Go.  I was out for a run yesterday and saw loads of people playing it.  They all seemed to be having fun whilst not harming or costing anybody else.  Good luck to them.

Yep. They'd probably think spending time on a fringe messageboard is a lot worse.