OMG, So Many Americans Have Died Since WA's First COVID Death!!!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The government screwed us all and fearful little bastards egged them on in doing so.

And the militia stood down.

The 2nd is just words if it is never enforced.

a reply to: daskakik

Well, get your ass out there and pop some caps for freedom, then. Since your attempts to goad people into doing it isn't working, maybe you can break the surface tension and folks will follow your lead and then you'll actually have people to bitch and whine about, ya?

a reply to: burdman30ott6
I'm not goading anyone into doing it. I'm just pointing out the omission in your finger pointing post.

5 weeks after the OP and all you can say is I'm even madder today than 5 weeks ago.

originally posted by: daskakik
5 weeks after the OP and all you can say is I'm even madder today than 5 weeks ago.

I can't say that as I have neither any idea nor do I give a rat's ass about how mad you were 5 weeks ago or today. You're the one talking out your ass about people not grabbing arms and fighting their way out of this.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That wasn't about me being mad, that was you here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm just pointing out that they didn't do anything.

They didn't even have to shoot, just like at the Bundy ranch.

They could have set up patrols to back up businesses who defied shut down orders or something similar without it actually ending in a shoot-out.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The government screwed us all and fearful little bastards egged them on in doing so.

And the militia stood down.

The 2nd is just words if it is never enforced.

Let me get this straight.

You're calling Americans cowards because most Americans allowed and even encouraged the authoritarian move by government, and you're calling Americans cowards because the few of us who are vocally against the authoritarian move by government didn't get our guns and kill them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not calling anyone a coward.

I'm saying that people waiving the 2nd around as a fail safe against government overreach were let down in this instance.

I think the US government is going about these lockdowns all wrong. The way they are doing it they are losing money hand over fist as tax revenue drys up.

They should instead find away to tax us in relation to the virus. Want to open your business? You first have to pay your monthly COVID tax. Want to go out to a restaurant? Pay no attention to the COVID surcharge on your bill.

It works for other deadly things floating around in our environment.

Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard causing more than 41,000 deaths per year. It can cause or make worse a wide range of damaging health effects in children and adults, including lung cancer, respiratory infections and asthma.

lung.org

Since COVID-19 is proving to be about three times worse than second hand smoke; imagine how much tax revenue the government could place on it. Maybe they would make up a lot of money they lost over the last 3 months.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Maybe government should just spend less of our money so they don't have to worry about taxing so much.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not calling anyone a coward.

I'm saying that people waiving the 2nd around as a fail safe against government overreach were let down in this instance.

I think you're disappointed those of us who like the Constitution didn't shoot government people.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Your thinking would be wrong.

I'm just pointing out that the 2nd isn't a fail-safe and this is an example of that.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your thinking would be wrong.

I'm just pointing out that the 2nd isn't a fail-safe and this is an example of that.

No, you're wrong.

Violence is not the solution to every problem. You obviously think we need to kill everyone in government every time government does something stupid.

It doesn't work like that.

a reply to: DBCowboy
I actually gave a non-violent solution where the militias could have shown solidarity with local businesses by just projecting force without the need for violence. Similar to the Bundy Ranch standoff.

You are the one saying it can only mean violence.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy
I actually gave a non-violent solution where the militias could have shown solidarity with local businesses by just projecting force without the need for violence. Similar to the Bundy Ranch standoff.

You are the one saying it can only mean violence.

People are peacefully protesting, I think that's a pretty good start.

But then again, I'm not trying to argue against the 2nd and implying that Americans are cowards, as you are.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But it is starting after talk of extending lockdowns. The militias could have limited the extent of the lockdown from the start.

Also, I'm not arguing against the second. I'm saying that it is moot if no action is taken.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy



Also, I'm not arguing against the second. I'm saying that it is moot if no action is taken.

So if we don't shoot people, then why have the 2nd?

Yes, that's what you've been saying.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I support the 2nd, none of my lead has turned white...


I’m sure there will a multitude that will not nor can understand that statement. And rather than explain it, I’ll let them look into it to figure it out so that they may learn something.

a reply to: daskakik

It is a fail safe.

There is something known as a "threshold"

The 2nd exists as a fall back, position of last resort. When all other options have failed and a large enough group of armed Americans agree that such action is warranted and necessary.

The Constitutional precedent is clear. I urge you to educate yourself on this matter.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy



Also, I'm not arguing against the second. I'm saying that it is moot if no action is taken.

So if we don't shoot people, then why have the 2nd?

Yes, that's what you've been saying.

To be fair, in a weird way, he does have a solid point. And that point would be, when does it cross from "Violence isn't an answer" to "Enough is enough". The camel's back is pretty weak already, but it's holding on for dear life, it seems. So while Dash is going about the pointing out of things in an odd way that sounds snide (but I really don't think it is), he does a decent job of making us think -- about when the time for thinking & restraint might be over with. So when is that? Do WE even know what the criteria for a game changer catalyst is?

There's been plenty of hemming and hawing over the Second. Is that all it's good for? Theoretical debates? I think THAT was Dash's not-quite-clear point.

a reply to: daskakik

Why would the 2nd be needed when simply ignoring the unconstitutional overreach solved the problem?