Zone1 We need a left vs. right experiment

Ralphie, why do you think this is an argument? Slavery pre-dated the Democratic party.

The problem is the GOP has become the party of glorifying the Confederacy. How many RW USMB poster use John Wilkes Booth as an avatar now?
As though it wasn't a government based on the inferiority of the Black man.

Compartmentalised thinking at best, full agreement at worst.
 
Again, I'd be happy to regulate guns the way we regulate cars.

Oh, also, the Nazis didn't get rid of guns. In fact, the Nazis repealed the Weimar Republic's gun laws. In fact, when the Allies occuppied Germany after the war, they found plenty of Germans had guns, which is why Ike had to confiscate them all.
i-hHQ4ZLD-M.jpg
 
If you're talking about common ownership vs private property, look no further than the Pilgrims in 1690.

"The first few years of the settlement were fraught with hardship and hunger. Four centuries later, they also provide us with one of history’s most decisive verdicts on the critical importance of private property. We should never forget that the Plymouth colony was headed straight for oblivion under a communal, socialist plan but saved itself when it embraced something very different."

That's kind of a dishonest rendering of history.

The Plymouth Colony was a corporate sponsored enterprise. They didn't collectively keep the results of their labor, they gave it to the sponsors of their expedition.


But when it comes to the Pilgrims, there is another, even more egregious way in which Limbaugh earns the revisionist label. I have in mind his preposterous claims concerning the significance of the Pilgrims 1621 feast that we remember as the “First Thanksgiving.” Limbaugh builds his entire argument on a shift in economic organization in Plymouth Colony that occurred a few years after the Pilgrims’ arrival in New England. As explained by Pilgrim Governor William Bradford, when the Pilgrims set sail from Holland in 1620, they were required by their financial backers in London to hold all of their property in common until they had repaid the investors with interest. In 1624 they unilaterally abrogated that agreement (even though the debts were far from paid) and began to make permanent allocations of land to each Pilgrim family.

There is just one problem: IT’S NOT TRUE. Oh, the Pilgrims undoubtedly moved toward the private ownership of property, but they did so in 1624, according to William Bradford, three crop years AFTER their autumn celebration in 1621. To make the movement toward private property the necessary precondition for the First Thanksgiving is, historically speaking, a real whopper. To use a pejorative label that the radio personality is fond of wielding, this is revisionist history with a vengeance!

But there is more amiss here than a chronological gaffe. When the Pilgrims did move toward the private ownership of property, the shift was not quite the unbridled endorsement of free market competition that Limbaugh would have us believe. . . . In economics, as in all of life, the Pilgrims viewed liberty as the freedom to do unto others only as they would be done by. The golden rule meant that there were numerous instances in which producers must deny themselves rather than seek to maximize profit, and if they were unwilling to police their behavior voluntarily, the colony’s legislature was willing to coerce them.

Examples abound. The Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth reveal that producers were prohibited from selling to distant customers if doing so created a shortage among their neighbors. Under the laws of Plymouth, it was illegal to export finished lumber under any conditions, and farmers could only sell scarce foodstuffs (corn, peas, and beans) outside of the colony with the express permission of the colonial government. Similarly, one of the very first laws recorded in Plymouth’s records prohibited skilled craftsmen from working for “foreigners or strangers till such time as the necessity of the colony be served.”
 
Talk to your boy Trump, he wants to ignore decades of established precedence.

The reality is that the understanding that the militia laws allowed the government to regulate gun ownership was the basic understanding from the Founding all the way up to the Awful Heller Decision.

See US v. Miller if you are confused.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment says "Arms" not "guns". So by that logic, if I can own any "Arms" I see fit, why can't I own a 155 mm howitzer that can fire Anthrax-laden shells? I mean, shit that would keep the government more in line than your little pea shooter, wouldn't it?

You talk to President Trump, I am by no means his boy.
The only reality as that you still cannot pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

When the Second Amendment was written and ratified, a private citizen could own a fast-sailing ship with up to eight cannons.
Guess what, that wasn't for ******* hunting deer nor target practice at the range.
 
Last edited:
Lets compare MAGA state edicatoons, healthcare, and economic opportunity. Exclude Texas and Florida, and they are just holes.

If by compare, you mean actually compare, then you don't have to ask my permission and compare away.
You didn't want to compare all the other factors we have already discussed.

Of course, with the understanding that large blue metro areas can absolutely tank a state's average score, and the understanding that still won't be a good indicator of who is responsible for what due to more localized control in governance.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: cnm
Actually, Assault weapon has an unambiguous definition. It's any weapons specifically designed for military use, marketed to civilians.

Wikipedia is full of shit.
And so are you.
They're simply semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for over 100 years, but look "scary" because they're usually black.
Full auto guns are highly restricted. But the leftist media and people like you want to paint with the broad brush because sometimes they look very much alike.
Of course, you know shit about firearms because if you ever touched one, you'd piss your pants.
So leave it to those of who know WTF we're doing, okay?
And leave my goddam guns alone. If you want 'em, come and get 'em.
 
That's kind of a dishonest rendering of history.

The Plymouth Colony was a corporate sponsored enterprise. They didn't collectively keep the results of their labor, they gave it to the sponsors of their expedition.


But when it comes to the Pilgrims, there is another, even more egregious way in which Limbaugh earns the revisionist label. I have in mind his preposterous claims concerning the significance of the Pilgrims 1621 feast that we remember as the “First Thanksgiving.” Limbaugh builds his entire argument on a shift in economic organization in Plymouth Colony that occurred a few years after the Pilgrims’ arrival in New England. As explained by Pilgrim Governor William Bradford, when the Pilgrims set sail from Holland in 1620, they were required by their financial backers in London to hold all of their property in common until they had repaid the investors with interest. In 1624 they unilaterally abrogated that agreement (even though the debts were far from paid) and began to make permanent allocations of land to each Pilgrim family.

There is just one problem: IT’S NOT TRUE. Oh, the Pilgrims undoubtedly moved toward the private ownership of property, but they did so in 1624, according to William Bradford, three crop years AFTER their autumn celebration in 1621. To make the movement toward private property the necessary precondition for the First Thanksgiving is, historically speaking, a real whopper. To use a pejorative label that the radio personality is fond of wielding, this is revisionist history with a vengeance!

But there is more amiss here than a chronological gaffe. When the Pilgrims did move toward the private ownership of property, the shift was not quite the unbridled endorsement of free market competition that Limbaugh would have us believe. . . . In economics, as in all of life, the Pilgrims viewed liberty as the freedom to do unto others only as they would be done by. The golden rule meant that there were numerous instances in which producers must deny themselves rather than seek to maximize profit, and if they were unwilling to police their behavior voluntarily, the colony’s legislature was willing to coerce them.

Examples abound. The Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth reveal that producers were prohibited from selling to distant customers if doing so created a shortage among their neighbors. Under the laws of Plymouth, it was illegal to export finished lumber under any conditions, and farmers could only sell scarce foodstuffs (corn, peas, and beans) outside of the colony with the express permission of the colonial government. Similarly, one of the very first laws recorded in Plymouth’s records prohibited skilled craftsmen from working for “foreigners or strangers till such time as the necessity of the colony be served.”
Were you born hating America or did that come later?
 
They're simply semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for over 100 years, but look "scary" because they're usually black.
Is it possible to be more full of shit? I don't think so.

They have large capacity easily swapped magazines in their most common form. Which means they can put out a high volume of accurate fire easily lethal to 400m.

Just like this .22 semi-automatic, eh?

512217_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
If by compare, you mean actually compare, then you don't have to ask my permission and compare away.
You didn't want to compare all the other factors we have already discussed.

Of course, with the understanding that large blue metro areas can absolutely tank a state's average score, and the understanding that still won't be a good indicator of who is responsible for what due to more localized control in governance.
The quality of life states provide their residents must be the only worthwhile metric then.

 
The quality of life states provide their residents must be the only worthwhile metric then.


Just saying that the state does not control all the factors that contribute to the quality-of-life measures.
Meaning that the data is misrepresented, because there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

The state does not control the Ashberry Police Department, the Bradford County Water Utilities, or the Juaquin Independent School District. The state doesn't appoint mayors, police chiefs, healthcare providers or school board members. There are large metro areas that greatly influence the state's averages, as a result of their elected officials, but that are not indicative of the state as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Just saying that the state does not control all the factors that contribute to the quality-of-life measures.
Meaning that the data is misrepresented, because there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
But those quality ratings exist in that state and not in that other state.

We can only use the data we have.

Because providing quality of life is what an economy's for, right? To provide the greatest good to the greatest number?
 
15th post
You talk to President Trump, I am by no means his boy.
The only reality as that you still cannot pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

When the Second Amendment was written and ratified, a private citizen could own a fast-sailing ship with up to eight cannons.
Guess what, that wasn't for ******* hunting deer nor target practice at the range.
Best post ever showing how outdated and frankly crazy the 2nd Amendment was. It was also written and ratified before zippers and street lights.

Most adult socieites look at waht was handed to them and throw away what doesn’t work. We don’t....we embrace it more tightly
 
If by compare, you mean actually compare, then you don't have to ask my permission and compare away.
You didn't want to compare all the other factors we have already discussed.

Of course, with the understanding that large blue metro areas can absolutely tank a state's average score, and the understanding that still won't be a good indicator of who is responsible for what due to more localized control in governance.
'Averages don't count !'
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom