Even white Swedish Policemen/women are speaking out: What Dems want for the US

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia is the problem. Wellness of regulation is the solution. Lowering our tax burden should be a result.

Thanks for letting us know, the right wing doesn't really care.

How is hiring more people going to lower the tax burden?

How can you claim using convicts as amateur cops is a solution?

How is using a volunteer militia to build roads and aqueducts going to be good for our nation? They are amateurs at it.

You want to pretend you care, and that is fine. But all you really care about is continuing this insane argument about the 2nd amendment. You don't care about a citizen's ability to defend himself against a criminal. You don't care about the economy. YOu don't care about having an effective law enforcement. You care about your argument, and that is it.

Our Second Amendment declares, well regulated militia are the answer. That is why.

Bullshit. What the 2nd amendment says about the militia is this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".

What is does not say is that militia is necessary for the infrastructure to be built. There is no way that the founding fathers wanted the militia made up of convicted felons and acting as amateur cops.

And you didn't answer the question about how hiring more people lowers the tax burden.

It worked for the Romans; why reinvent an inferior wheel.

So did slavery. How about adding that in while we are mimicing the Romans?

They would have abolished, it eventually, in a more rational manner; and, we would have simply been, "the Posterity" on that one.

 

[WinterBorn]

How is hiring more people going to lower the tax burden?

How can you claim using convicts as amateur cops is a solution?

How is using a volunteer militia to build roads and aqueducts going to be good for our nation? They are amateurs at it.

You want to pretend you care, and that is fine. But all you really care about is continuing this insane argument about the 2nd amendment. You don't care about a citizen's ability to defend himself against a criminal. You don't care about the economy. YOu don't care about having an effective law enforcement. You care about your argument, and that is it.

Our Second Amendment declares, well regulated militia are the answer. That is why.

Bullshit. What the 2nd amendment says about the militia is this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".

What is does not say is that militia is necessary for the infrastructure to be built. There is no way that the founding fathers wanted the militia made up of convicted felons and acting as amateur cops.

And you didn't answer the question about how hiring more people lowers the tax burden.

It worked for the Romans; why reinvent an inferior wheel.

So did slavery. How about adding that in while we are mimicing the Romans?

They would have abolished, it eventually, in a more rational manner; and, we would have simply been, "the Posterity" on that one.

It is really irrelevant. We are not Rome. And your idea to use "militia" to build roads and aqueducts is ridiculous. You want infrastructure built, not by professionals, but by amateurs? Really? No. Just no. Next you will be suggesting that amateurs should be building our bridges too. What could go wrong?

And what of the businesses that build those things? You want to bankrupt them so you can come up with a way to keep militias busy? So your plan would create inferior results, create economic hardships and destroy businesses, and not accomplish anything positive. All so you can maintain this ridiculous argument that the entire focus of the 2nd amendment is militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment declares, well regulated militia are the answer. That is why.

Bullshit. What the 2nd amendment says about the militia is this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".

What is does not say is that militia is necessary for the infrastructure to be built. There is no way that the founding fathers wanted the militia made up of convicted felons and acting as amateur cops.

And you didn't answer the question about how hiring more people lowers the tax burden.

It worked for the Romans; why reinvent an inferior wheel.

So did slavery. How about adding that in while we are mimicing the Romans?

They would have abolished, it eventually, in a more rational manner; and, we would have simply been, "the Posterity" on that one.

It is really irrelevant. We are not Rome. And your idea to use "militia" to build roads and aqueducts is ridiculous. You want infrastructure built, not by professionals, but by amateurs? Really? No. Just no. Next you will be suggesting that amateurs should be building our bridges too. What could go wrong?

nice story, bro.

We have, entire Corps of Engineers.