Warmonger Thread

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Oh, the old trick of quoting centuries dead founders. Too bad that is not the law.

The Supreme Law of the Land in the United States of America is the Constitution for the United States of America and all subsequent legislation must be harmonious with that Supreme Law of the Land or it is null and void. This remains as true today - in spite of what your easy to read and dubious Wikipedia articles might tell you - as it was when those ever tricky centuries dead Founders were alive.

You citing legislation subsequent to the 2nd Amendment with the intent of refuting the 2nd Amendment was your most egregious legal argument, but certainly not the only idiotic one you have made.

The fact of the matter is that no distinctions were made as to what type of arms We the People could arm ourselves with, and Congress, nor any other governing branch has any lawful authority to repeal, or amend that Amendment.

Take a big ol' chunk of patriotism and slap it with a nice thick coating of fear, and you've got yourself the perfect recipe to pick a fight with any nation that irks your butt.

Say anything you want, do anything you want, play it out any way you want... you'll always have the backing of your plebeians so long as you have this recipe baking in the oven.

Patriotism + fear = loyalty

Yum yum.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

You mean to act like civilized humans instead of wolves? Everything I do is not so I can profit one way or another because that is what an animal does, not a sentient being.

I was talking about countries, dude.

And who knows why we can be nice to other individuals. I am not here to talk philosophy.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Your country holds the keys to the destruction of the world and has shown irresponsibility in use of that power.

Please think about that.

But you're fine with adding another nuclear stockpile?? Because allowing Iran to move forward will accomplish exactly that, friend. Iran is a country whose leaders chant DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL, DEATH TO ENGLAND, DEATH TO THE WEST. I think they've demonstrated their intent to use them....at least enough for me.

No, the politicians who made those speeches knew that what was said would get the support of their people, this is because the common people of most nations fear the threat of nuclear weapons. Their speeches, in the end, though, are only words. Actions speak far louder than words.

The only country that has shown "intent" to use nuclear weapons against human targets is the US.

The US has lorded it over the planet for decades. Now, the people of the planet are beginning to push back. Some will use violence but most, I hope, will simply passively and immovably resist the US (as Ghandi resisted the British Empire in India).

This is what Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing, passively resisting.

Me too.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Oh, the old trick of quoting centuries dead founders. Too bad that is not the law.

The Supreme Law of the Land in the United States of America is the Constitution for the United States of America and all subsequent legislation must be harmonious with that Supreme Law of the Land or it is null and void. This remains as true today - in spite of what your easy to read and dubious Wikipedia articles might tell you - as it was when those ever tricky centuries dead Founders were alive.

You citing legislation subsequent to the 2nd Amendment with the intent of refuting the 2nd Amendment was your most egregious legal argument, but certainly not the only idiotic one you have made.

You keep insisting this, but you are wrong. I have proved it. Tell ya what, try to purchase a nuke and lets see if you get to keep the thing.

Until then, you can consider your whole view point thoroughly debunked.

BTW...

The fact of the matter is that no distinctions were made as to what type of arms We the People could arm ourselves with, and Congress, nor any other governing branch has any lawful authority to repeal, or amend that Amendment.

As a matter a fact there were distinctions made. I linked them in a post addressed to you, but obviously did not read.

Originally posted by chr0naut
This is what Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing, passively resisting.

Me too.

Meanwhile Wikileaks has exposed the fact that Iran's neighbors want nothing to do with Iran developing Nuclear weapons and have each covertly pressed the US to take action [Which was refused] so now what?

Its threads like this and all these objections towards these Fascist countries having nukes that just makes me wonder, how in the World we have lasted this long..

If you idiots out there in the WORLD, reading this thread in your cozy where every you are, think that if every country in the World should have Nuclear weapons to make it a better place, you better get back to eating dirt or graduate high school...



Genius's learn from other people's mistakes, and also manage to see the future based off of, what it is around them, and in these instances words of people of the world's opinions. Its just a matter of time until nukes get hurled. I am going to bet my life on this one also..

The United States of America, will not be the first to nuke a city...



It will be a country you idiots out there hate the USA and the west for saying hey we need to stop this...



I just hope they dont use it on your country..

People change when they have big guns in there hands,
just like dictators change when they have nukes..



anyhow..

Its just a matter of time...

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by chr0naut
This is what Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing, passively resisting.

Me too.

Meanwhile Wikileaks has exposed the fact that Iran's neighbors want nothing to do with Iran developing Nuclear weapons and have each covertly pressed the US to take action [Which was refused] so now what?

I say stay out of it. We're broke. If Mexico had nukes would we ask Russia to take care of it? Just curious, If Israel felt threatened enough to ask for our help, would you be opposed to getting congressional approval, getting the job done, then getting out?

reply to post by TsukiLunar

As a matter a fact there were distinctions made. I linked them in a post addressed to you, but obviously did not read.

As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment makes no distinctions as to what type of arms We the People can keep and bear. Try to keep up, Bub.

Originally posted by chr0naut

This is what Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing, passively resisting.

Me too.

Best laugh I've had in weeks.... Thanks.

There is a time and place for pacifism or, passive resistance... kumbaya!

Then there is a time and place to man-up and kick some ass.

There is never a good time or good reason to lay down and cower from threats and to accept an ass kicking.

Which, when and where any of the above apply is a matter of perspective... One thing is certain the longer you avoid your enemy and his threats, the stronger and more prepared for battle he will be.

Try hacking in and fixing any of that.

reply to post by chr0naut


Very true, but as you can see from this thread, there
are many brainwashed people out there who stick
up for their governments, and dont have the balls
to do otherwise.

Governments tell us from a young age to love our country,
to fight for our country. These people just cant see how brainwahed
they are

Patrioism for your country just causes problems It gets to the point
where governments just have to say "you are fighting for your country" and people
will pretty much do anything and belive everything their
government says.

Iraq is a great example.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by chr0naut
This is what Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing, passively resisting.

Me too.

Meanwhile Wikileaks has exposed the fact that Iran's neighbors want nothing to do with Iran developing Nuclear weapons and have each covertly pressed the US to take action [Which was refused] so now what?

... but why the US? Why not the UN?

Why not an alliance of nations opposing nuclear proliferation and pursuing a de-nuclearization of the world.?

... and what of North Korea in all this? Why doesn't the US stop their atomic ambitions?

Originally posted by Wookiep
I say stay out of it. We're broke. If Mexico had nukes would we ask Russia to take care of it? Just curious, If Israel felt threatened enough to ask for our help, would you be opposed to getting congressional approval, getting the job done, then getting out?

I'm not advocating an attack on Iran but let me ask you this?

Israel has had nukes going back longer than the present Iranian Regime been around. Why haven't they attacked or nuked Iran and esp when Iran and Iraq were going at it? It's obvious from some replies [Not yours] that simply discussing the issues is for them an example of being "Brainwashed"

pffft.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

As a matter a fact there were distinctions made. I linked them in a post addressed to you, but obviously did not read.

As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment makes no distinctions as to what type of arms We the People can keep and bear. Try to keep up, Bub.

Man, you keep repeating that, but its still illegal to own a nuke. No matter what you say you absolutely will not get away with it and you will absolutely be charged by the law. End of story. Do I need to go over what illegal means?

Also...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

How does not letting you posses nukes infringe upon this right? You can still have your guns. You can bear arms. Also, your not a militia by any stretch. Much less a well regulated one.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade


Then there is a time and place to man-up and kick some ass.

Typical American Response

Typical American Response

Very easy to be a Warmonger when you are the ones Administering the Ass Kicking.

For those countries unable to Administer a Ass Kicking, Guerrilla Warfare = Terrorist

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Man, you keep repeating that, but its still illegal to own a nuke. No matter what you say you absolutely will not get away with it and you will absolutely be charged by the law. End of story. Do I need to go over what illegal means?

Man you keep repeating that, but the fact still remains that no authority has been granted to any governing body within the United States to declare such ownership illegal. More importantly, your continued focus on who can own nuclear weapons only reveals your utter zeal for the existence of them.

I will say it for a third time, even if it goes over your poor, poor, pitiful head; No one has the right to own nuclear weapons. Not any individual, nor any government ordained by individuals.

How does not letting you posses nukes infringe upon this right? You can still have your guns. You can bear arms. Also, your not a militia by any stretch. Much less a well regulated one.

Nuclear weapons are arms, genius. If you want to play games of semantics perhaps you should start out in the beginners level and not embarrass yourself here with the adults. No governing body has any lawful authority to define militia any other way than it was defined at the time the Second Amendment was written. This is the law. Ignorantia juris non excusat!

Originally posted by chr0naut
... but why the US? Why not the UN?

That's a question that should be directed at Iran's neighbors not me...

Why not an alliance of nations opposing nuclear proliferation and pursuing a de-nuclearization of the world.?

If I had the answers to world peace I'd be a rich man...

... and what of North Korea in all this? Why doesn't the US stop their atomic ambitions?

IMHO.

That's a hold over from the Cold War era. The US took out our puppet [Saddam] that Nuclear armed outcast North Korea? Both Russia and China should deal with it. They are the ones who propped them up and now look at that mess.

Meanwhile South Korea has flourished and is one of the largest economies in the region with one of the highest standards of living.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Wookiep
I say stay out of it. We're broke. If Mexico had nukes would we ask Russia to take care of it? Just curious, If Israel felt threatened enough to ask for our help, would you be opposed to getting congressional approval, getting the job done, then getting out?

I'm not advocating an attack on Iran but let me ask you this?

Israel has had nukes going back longer than the present Iranian Regime been around. Why haven't they attacked or nuked Iran and esp when Iran and Iraq were going at it? It's obvious from some replies [Not yours] that simply discussing the issues is for them an example of being "Brainwashed"

pffft.

It's a good question. As you know I am not a hater of Israel so I have no idea why some would take that kind of question and label it as "brainwashed". Israel has a right to defend themselves, I've always been strong on that position. I do think Israel does have some corruption in their govt as all superpowers do, but you're right if they were bent on bombing the middle east into the stone-age they would have done it a long time ago.

I think there are those who are genuinely concerned about the decisions our govt makes, and would like to see us get out of debt, end wars etc... Then there are those who just generally can't stand Israel and say irrational things to justify that position..

No one has the right to own nuclear weapons. Not any individual, nor any government ordained by individuals.

That's a moot point, isn't it? Even if everyone agreed tomorrow to get rid of them all, we know it wouldn't happen. We have to start working on solutions based on current circumstances, not wishful fantasies. It's time for everyone to get realistic and work from there.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Man you keep repeating that, but the fact still remains that no authority has been granted to any governing body within the United States to declare such ownership illegal.

Who's authority are you talking about? Cause Congress does have the right to make laws. And the Supreme Court can decide if those laws are constitutional.

The Supreme court decided NFA was constitutional.

There for it is an officially constitutional law.

And then there is international law. Which also forbids it.

More importantly, your continued focus on who can own nuclear weapons only reveals your utter zeal for the existence of them.

?????

I will say it for a third time, even if it goes over your poor, poor, pitiful head; No one has the right to own nuclear weapons. Not any individual, nor any government ordained by individuals.

You just said civilians have the right....