And he goes for the 2nd amendment!

[Leonel]

^Poe's law???

POE'S LAW! That was the law I was thinking about when someone was behaving like a paranoid crazy person too in another thread!

 

[Leoreth]

I thought they were inalienable?

Yeah, as in, not for aliens.

 

[Camikaze]

That said, I'd argue that yeah, they kind of are. But it still doesn't apply to nukes.

They're either inalienable or they're not. If they can be alienated or restricted to any extent, they are alienable. That is the opposite of inalienable. Mutually exclusive options. Saying something is 'kinda' inalienable is a contradiction in terms.

 

[cardgame]

<nvm>

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually no. If a treaty is agreed to with the UN. It will have the force of law.
Just like any amendment. Completely by passing the 2nd amendment.
Further, there is some question that such a treaty could be abrogated by the USA.

I am sure most of you know that, and simply are pretending that it wont matter.
Under this idiot Prez, yes it WILL matter.

Plus it is indicative of the honesty of the various respondents.

The costs of Obamacare are going to go through the roof if you all keep exercising your right to bear arms on your foot.

 

[AlpsStranger]

How amusing =) I cant possibly have my own opinion =) It has to be someone elses opinion =)

Also why should I care what your opinion is?

If only you did ignore me =) It wont hurt my feelings =)

No no, this is tactic #1 for the right wing.

They'll say something insane and then say "Liberals are just fascists who don't allow dissent."

Saying 2+2=5 isn't dissent, it's crap.

 

[JollyRoger]

@ShythingChiteng - you are free to have your own opinion and we are free to mock it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Though it is entirely possible the leftist press was vague in the article intentionally so as to hide such connections.

First they make Obama win the election, now they've covered up the rape of the second amendment possibly.

Oh leftist press, what evil schemes are you up to next?! *shakes fist*

 

[WindFish]

Well, I never knew that Reuters lent in any political direction until today

Thank you VRWCA.

 

[kochman]

Well, I never knew that Reuters lent in any political direction until today

Thank you VRWCA.

Do you guys really say lent instead of leaned?
I haven't heard that one before.

 

[Camikaze]

Actually, leant. Lent is for lend (but it's obviously not exclusively British).

 

[kochman]

Actually, leant. Lent is for lend (but it's obviously not exclusively British).

Ok, I've seen leant (but we don't really use it), and lent in the sense you use it.
Typo it seems.

 

[WindFish]

Actually, leant. Lent is for lend (but it's obviously not exclusively British).

actually I didn't know it was spelt "leant"

 

[Camikaze]

For clarity's sake, lent and leant are homophones (understandable typo). So leant isn't pronounced at all like leaned.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

POE'S LAW! That was the law I was thinking about when someone was behaving like a paranoid crazy person too in another thread!

Was it chitlins?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I never knew that Reuters lent in any political direction until today

Thank you VRWCA.

Do you guys really say lent instead of leaned?
I haven't heard that one before.

Actually, leant. Lent is for lend (but it's obviously not exclusively British).

Ok, I've seen leant (but we don't really use it), and lent in the sense you use it.
Typo it seems.

actually I didn't know it was spelt "leant"

For clarity's sake, lent and leant are homophones (understandable typo). So leant isn't pronounced at all like leaned.

That was the most interesting conversation in the thread so far, and it was educational.

Thanks fellers!

 

[Traitorfish]

They're either inalienable or they're not. If they can be alienated or restricted to any extent, they are alienable. That is the opposite of inalienable. Mutually exclusive options. Saying something is 'kinda' inalienable is a contradiction in terms.

Logical consistency is for statists.

 

[Crezth]

While I agree with you that its none of our doggone business, its because I think we shouldn't be involved in the affairs of other countries

Thats nice and all, but it is worth it to keep in mind that we are involved in the affairs of other countries whether we like it or not. Case in point, US domestic policy has a big, big impact on how things are going down in Mexico. It is, essentially, the primary reason that much of the region of north Mexico is controlled by warring drug gangs.

So while it's nice in theory to say we have no right to, erm, choose to meddle in others' affairs, the reality is we already do, just by being here.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Thats nice and all, but it is worth it to keep in mind that we are involved in the affairs of other countries whether we like it or not. Case in point, US domestic policy has a big, big impact on how things are going down in Mexico. It is, essentially, the primary reason that much of the region of north Mexico is controlled by warring drug gangs.

So while it's nice in theory to say we have no right to, erm, choose to meddle in others' affairs, the reality is we already do, just by being here.

This is very correct, Crezth, but I think you'll find that GW16 is actually philosophically consistent in this case. He's quite opposed to the war on drugs from what he's said.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Indeed. Legalize everything.

That said, even if we didn't, that still doesn't justify direct intervention just because some domestic policy we have happens to have an indirect effect.

Still; end the war on drugs. Legalize everything. Stop locking people up for victimless crimes.