Why we DO need weapons of war...

[Certaindeaf]

I wonder if we could "logic-bomb" AI into acting irrationally... edit I think I read somewhere that someone was able to get an AI chatbot to display mental illness of some sort?

They've been doing that.. asking it for unethical and or illegal advice by saying they want to know so they don't/won't do it. There are many real world examples right now.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

So if common sense gun control is keeping military grade weapons out of the hands of civilians, who has the common sense in this case?

And now we circle back to the actual topic! The tongue-in-cheek OP was offered as a satirical jab at the antis who like to call MSRs "weapons of war" in a cynical attempt to make them easier to ban by manipulating public opinion, and to further suggest that the way to stop school shootings is to indeed ban them, as if the only way to perpetrate a school shooting is with an AR-15. They are so obsessively fixated on what is essentially a dressed-up semiautomatic varmint rifle to the exclusion of all else that their "solutions" will not only have no impact, but will also make things worse by shifting the balance of power. The facts don't matter to them and they have successfully swayed a large enough swath of useful idiots who will invariably vote for politicians who vow to strip us of our rights. Gen Z are frothing at the mouth over "assault weapons" and they are now old enough to vote. Just look at what happened here in Oregon and Washington.

So my satire calling for "weapons of war" available to civilians to fight swarms of AI drones is intentionally as ridiculous as Little Davey Attention Hogg and Sniffer-In-Chief Xoe Xiden calling my modular rifle with a safety a "WEAPON OF WAR." YMMV.

I am generally disinclined to be lectured about firearms by people who have likely never even held one.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And now we circle back to the actual topic! The tongue-in-cheek OP was offered as a satirical jab at the antis who like to call MSRs "weapons of war" in a cynical attempt to make them easier to ban by manipulating public opinion, and to further suggest that the way to stop school shootings is to indeed ban them, as if the only way to perpetrate a school shooting is with an AR-15. They are so obsessively fixated on what is essentially a dressed-up semiautomatic varmint rifle to the exclusion of all else. The facts don't matter to them and they have successfully swayed a large enough swath of useful idiots who will invariably vote for politicians who vow to strip us of our rights. Gen Z are frothing at the mouth over "assault weapons" and they are now old enough to vote. Just look at what happened here in Oregon and Washington.

So my satire calling for "weapons of war" available to civilians to fight swarms of AI drones is intentionally as ridiculous as Little Davey Attention Hogg and Sniffer-In-Chief Xoe Xiden calling my modular rifle with a safety a "WEAPON OF WAR." YMMV.

I am generally disinclined to be lectured about firearms by people who have likely never even held one.

View attachment 1408848 View attachment 1408866

Welcome to American politics where the facts don't matter and the points don't really matter! with no apologies to Whose Line Is It Anyways

 

[solv3nt]

Welcome to American politics where the facts don't matter and the points don't really matter! with no apologies to Whose Line Is It Anyways

That was a great show!

 

[CamoDeafie]

That was a great show!

Yes. Yes it was.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Our disagreement is that you seem buthurt that someone can disagree with what "shall not infringe" means. I'll just leave this here

Welcome to American politics where the facts don't matter and the points don't really matter! with no apologies to Whose Line Is It Anyways

I hope you can save that laughter for when they come knock on your door to surrender your "weapons of war."

 

[CamoDeafie]

Eh. Just pointing out that there's nothing rational in American politics except pandering to the great uneducated masses and scoring political points at the cost of our liberties and freedoms.

Do I need to quote John Adams again about how the Constitution was meant only for a moral and religious People, and how greed, avarice, Ambition, Revenge, Gallantry, all would break the chains of Constitution as easily as a Whale through nets?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Our disagreement is that you seem buthurt that someone can disagree with what "shall not infringe" means. I'll just leave this here

Sigh. Two steps forward, three steps back. And I am still not the topic.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Eh. Just pointing out that there's nothing rational in American politics except pandering to the great uneducated masses and scoring political points at the cost of our liberties and freedoms.

Do I need to quote John Adams again about how the Constitution was meant only for a moral and religious People, and how greed, avarice, Ambition, Revenge, Gallantry, all would break the chains of Constitution as easily as a Whale through nets?

Agreed. As my grandpa used to say, "the masses are asses."

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

For protection, Inslee has 8 state troopers and one Seargent protecting him with weapons of war.

For protection, Dimslee has 8 state troopers and one Seargent protecting him with weapons of war.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

At the risk of causing a ruckus....

I would argue that you don't need to own anything....much less firearms.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment states that you have to or need to do anything.
It simply states that one can do something.

Speaking only for myself here...as in my perspective , my interpretation ( Oh that word ) is this....

Own whatever firearms you wish....or not.
Just don't make that choice for me or others.

In any event...
Unlike many things....my mind is made up on this and I am not flexible in my thinking that :
One should be able to own whatever firearms one wants or not , as the case may be.
Just as it is wrong for someone to tell me what I can or cannot own firearm wise.
So....please save the bandwith on the forum , for something worth arguing about...as I will not be changing my mind on this matter.
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

At the risk of causing a ruckus....

I would argue that you don't need to own anything....much less firearms.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment states that you have to or need to do anything.
It simply states that one can do something.

Speaking only for myself here...as in my perspective , my interpretation ( Oh that word ) is this....

Own whatever firearms you wish....or not.
Just don't make that choice for me or others.

In any event...
Unlike many things....my mind is made up on this and I am not flexible in my thinking that :
One should be able to own whatever firearms one wants or not , as the case may be.
Just as it is wrong for someone to tell me what I can or cannot own firearm wise.
So....please save the bandwith on the forum , for something worth arguing about...as I will not be changing my mind on this matter.
Andy

It's not about you Andy, this post has nothing to do with OP.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A not insignificant number of Americans, and much of the world too; seem to believe that the 2A really reads as "a well regulated military being necessary for a Free state; the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (where militia=military and where People=the government)

 

[solv3nt]

A not insignificant number of Americans, and much of the world too; seem to believe that the 2A really reads as "a well regulated military being necessary for a Free state; the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (where militia=military and where People=the government)

 

[Jay Walk]

Bill is on Inslees desk.

No bill action scheduled at this time.

Further proof that this is about optics and not saving lives.

Gots to court Bloomberg (Brandons major donor) next week and try to position yourself as the next anti Firearm and anti petroleum Presidential hopeful.

 

[solv3nt]

Bill is on Inslees desk.

No bill action scheduled at this time.

Further proof that this is about optics and not saving lives.

Gots to court Bloomberg (Brandons major donor) next week and try to position yourself as the next anti Firearm and anti petroleum Presidential hopeful.

No, it's just that he's really busy.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No, it's just that he's really busy.

Busy Inslee....
Much like the Steller's Jay....
He gets squawks too damn much and gets into everyone's business....
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

Busy Inslee....
Much like the Steller's Jay....
He gets squawks too damn much and gets into everyone's business....
Andy

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

At the risk of causing a ruckus....

I would argue that you don't need to own anything....much less firearms.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment states that you have to or need to do anything.
It simply states that one can do something.

Speaking only for myself here...as in my perspective , my interpretation ( Oh that word ) is this....

Own whatever firearms you wish....or not.
Just don't make that choice for me or others.

In any event...
Unlike many things....my mind is made up on this and I am not flexible in my thinking that :
One should be able to own whatever firearms one wants or not , as the case may be.
Just as it is wrong for someone to tell me what I can or cannot own firearm wise.
So....please save the bandwith on the forum , for something worth arguing about...as I will not be changing my mind on this matter.
Andy

You're back! Well you've perfectly identified the problem: Quite a few people who have never even held a firearm wish to make that decision for you using the levers of power embedded in the state. And not to put too fine a point on it - the 2A does not in fact state that one can do something: It states that the government can not do something. The Constitution is not a permission slip for the people, but rather for the government. It does not exist to tell the citizen what she may do, but rather to tell the government what it may not do. Or shall not, more to the point. YMMV.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

You're back! Well you've perfectly identified the problem: Quite a few people who have never even held a firearm wish to make that decision for you using the levers of power embedded in the state. And not to put too fine a point on it - the 2A does not in fact state that one can do something: It states that the government can not do something. The Constitution is not a permission slip for the people, but rather for the government. It does not exist to tell the citizen what she may do, but rather to tell the government what it may not do. Or shall not, more to the point. YMMV.

Thanks....but I already understood that.
Andy