The Political Party

[Miter Gauge · Accepted solution]

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

Don't worry, citizens....they're here to protect us.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunit...

---

I wonder how many bullets Walmart has bought? 

---

Such a stupid comparison hardly helps making your point.

---

OK, my bad.  By your calculations how many bullets should homeland security be allowed to have?  

[LithiumZero]

It's a perfectly good comparison. The residents of dumbfuckistan are well documented Walmart shoppers and most of the 2nd amendment remedy crowd live in dumbfuckistan. They are buying up assault rifles and ammo like crazy. Why? Revolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Derp!

[Sloppy Santa]

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

Don't worry, citizens....they're here to protect us.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunit...

---

I wonder how many bullets Walmart has bought? 

---

Such a stupid comparison hardly helps making your point.

---

OK, my bad.  By your calculations how many bullets should homeland security be allowed to have?  

---

In order to answer the question one needs to know what they are to be used for ultimately. Why does the DHS need them?

[Sloppy Santa]

---

LithiumZero wrote:
It's a perfectly good comparison. The residents of dumbfuckistan are well documented Walmart shoppers and most of the 2nd amendment remedy crowd live in dumbfuckistan. They are buying up assault rifles and ammo like crazy. Why? Revolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Derp!

---

It's actually a fair point I think. If I understand your argument what you're saying is that the government through DHS needs to ensure its survival against a potential domestic enemy. As at least some people are increasing their ownership of guns and ammo the DHS needs to match it.

At best one could make that argument, but the counterargument is in my opinion a question; at what point does a goverment lose its legitimacy?

Because the basic principle at stake here is self determination. We support all sorts of peoples rights to cecede and create their own states in the name of self-determination. And the fair approach is that any organization that controls people needs to justify said control, not vice versa.

So one could very well make the case that if a certain amount Americans are taking up arms against the government then the latter shouldn't even resist because it is no longer representative of the people.

[Miter Gauge]

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

Don't worry, citizens....they're here to protect us.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunit...

---

I wonder how many bullets Walmart has bought? 

---

Such a stupid comparison hardly helps making your point.

---

OK, my bad.  By your calculations how many bullets should homeland security be allowed to have?  

---

In order to answer the question one needs to know what they are to be used for ultimately. Why does the DHS need them?

---

I agree with you.  That was kind of my point - which I now thing might have been your point too.  They have such a nebulous sounding mission that it's hard to say what they need them for.  The same could be said for the hillbillys at the gun stores around here who are buying everything they can get their hands on.  What in the world do they need all that ammo for?  Especially at today's inflated prices.

As for DHS, it wouldn't surprise me if they were stocking up before the budget cuts hit.  I'm sure GSA is buying cars and furniture like crazy right now for the same reason.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think they are arming up for some sort of domestic police state.

[savoldi]

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

LithiumZero wrote:
It's a perfectly good comparison. The residents of dumbfuckistan are well documented Walmart shoppers and most of the 2nd amendment remedy crowd live in dumbfuckistan. They are buying up assault rifles and ammo like crazy. Why? Revolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Derp!

---

It's actually a fair point I think. If I understand your argument what you're saying is that the government through DHS needs to ensure its survival against a potential domestic enemy. As at least some people are increasing their ownership of guns and ammo the DHS needs to match it.

At best one could make that argument, but the counterargument is in my opinion a question; at what point does a goverment lose its legitimacy?

Because the basic principle at stake here is self determination. We support all sorts of peoples rights to cecede and create their own states in the name of self-determination. And the fair approach is that any organization that controls people needs to justify said control, not vice versa.

So one could very well make the case that if a certain amount Americans are taking up arms against the government then the latter shouldn't even resist because it is no longer representative of the people.

---

Not going to happen unless you've got an organization that puts up a better choice. We get to decide our representatives, and through them ultimately the system we all live under. If there's a movement strong enough to change the system, it will surface in poltical terms first. Guys here and there taking up arms and shooting at the government is not a viable alternative. They're called traitors, and theyll be hunted down and eliminated. As they should be.

[LithiumZero]

Armed revolt because the form of govt that they champion didn't work in their favor when they lost a fair election is nothing more than treason.

[Sloppy Santa]

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

Miter Gauge wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

Don't worry, citizens....they're here to protect us.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunit...

---

I wonder how many bullets Walmart has bought? 

---

Such a stupid comparison hardly helps making your point.

---

OK, my bad.  By your calculations how many bullets should homeland security be allowed to have?  

---

In order to answer the question one needs to know what they are to be used for ultimately. Why does the DHS need them?

---

I agree with you.  That was kind of my point - which I now thing might have been your point too.  They have such a nebulous sounding mission that it's hard to say what they need them for.  The same could be said for the hillbillys at the gun stores around here who are buying everything they can get their hands on.  What in the world do they need all that ammo for?  Especially at today's inflated prices.

As for DHS, it wouldn't surprise me if they were stocking up before the budget cuts hit.  I'm sure GSA is buying cars and furniture like crazy right now for the same reason.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think they are arming up for some sort of domestic police state.

---

Yeah, but what makes the difference here is that a state causes much more damage than an individual or even fairly large group of individuals. Just look at history.

Secondly, the question isn't about other Americans, it's about the DHS. So, again, what is the supposed use of this ammo and is it reasonable? Actual defense of the state? Possibly. If I was an American I'd be outraged at the sad state of civil liberties etc and potentially worried about this sort of thing.

[mauser]

Lithium: I'm glad you don't let the truth stand between you and your posts.

[Sloppy Santa]

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

LithiumZero wrote:
It's a perfectly good comparison. The residents of dumbfuckistan are well documented Walmart shoppers and most of the 2nd amendment remedy crowd live in dumbfuckistan. They are buying up assault rifles and ammo like crazy. Why? Revolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Derp!

---

It's actually a fair point I think. If I understand your argument what you're saying is that the government through DHS needs to ensure its survival against a potential domestic enemy. As at least some people are increasing their ownership of guns and ammo the DHS needs to match it.

At best one could make that argument, but the counterargument is in my opinion a question; at what point does a goverment lose its legitimacy?

Because the basic principle at stake here is self determination. We support all sorts of peoples rights to cecede and create their own states in the name of self-determination. And the fair approach is that any organization that controls people needs to justify said control, not vice versa.

So one could very well make the case that if a certain amount Americans are taking up arms against the government then the latter shouldn't even resist because it is no longer representative of the people.

---

Not going to happen unless you've got an organization that puts up a better choice. We get to decide our representatives, and through them ultimately the system we all live under. If there's a movement strong enough to change the system, it will surface in poltical terms first. Guys here and there taking up arms and shooting at the government is not a viable alternative. They're called traitors, and theyll be hunted down and eliminated. As they should be.

---

The issue isn't having a better choice, it's having a choice that's perceived to be better. The difference is significant. As to you deciding your representatives; meh. You have two parties. Two. You get a pro-capitalism party and one that's to the right of that. One party less and you'd be a one-party state. 100's of millions of dollars are required to choose your POTUS. You think he represents you or where money comes from? And how do you know which candidate to vote for? News? Media? I.e. advertising? Costs money. Follow it.

What you described lastly is still debatable. Let's take Israel as an example. If you took the British Mandate of Palestine and did a survey the majority would have been against a Jewish state. If you took only the territory in which Israel was eventually created it would have been the opposite. And if you look at a sub-national level (inside Israel) it would yet again change. So where do we draw the line? When the "Arab spring" happened were we cheering on the people for being freedom fighting oppressed people or terrorist traitors? What was the response when South Ossetia wanted more independence from Georgia?

[Sloppy Santa]

---

LithiumZero wrote:
Armed revolt because the form of govt that they champion didn't work in their favor when they lost a fair election is nothing more than treason.

---

"Treason" only means that you go against who or what is ruling. It isn't an unequivocally bad thing. You would have to define what you're being a traitor towards before it holds any weight as an argument. "Loyalty" is arguably the opposite and it too requires a per-case analysis to see if it's actually a good thing or a bad thing.

Loyal to the SS? Good, or bad?

Traitor to Hitler's Germany? Good or bad?

See?

[savoldi]

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

LithiumZero wrote:
It's a perfectly good comparison. The residents of dumbfuckistan are well documented Walmart shoppers and most of the 2nd amendment remedy crowd live in dumbfuckistan. They are buying up assault rifles and ammo like crazy. Why? Revolution? Inquiring minds want to know. Derp!

---

It's actually a fair point I think. If I understand your argument what you're saying is that the government through DHS needs to ensure its survival against a potential domestic enemy. As at least some people are increasing their ownership of guns and ammo the DHS needs to match it.

At best one could make that argument, but the counterargument is in my opinion a question; at what point does a goverment lose its legitimacy?

Because the basic principle at stake here is self determination. We support all sorts of peoples rights to cecede and create their own states in the name of self-determination. And the fair approach is that any organization that controls people needs to justify said control, not vice versa.

So one could very well make the case that if a certain amount Americans are taking up arms against the government then the latter shouldn't even resist because it is no longer representative of the people.

---

Not going to happen unless you've got an organization that puts up a better choice. We get to decide our representatives, and through them ultimately the system we all live under. If there's a movement strong enough to change the system, it will surface in poltical terms first. Guys here and there taking up arms and shooting at the government is not a viable alternative. They're called traitors, and theyll be hunted down and eliminated. As they should be.

---

The issue isn't having a better choice, it's having a choice that's perceived to be better. The difference is significant.

---

Many times there is a significant difference between candidates. Howsomever, there is NO difference in the system they have to work within. Changing that is like watching glaciers move. Most of the time, nothing happens.

[LithiumZero]

---

mauser wrote:
Lithium: I'm glad you don't let the truth stand between you and your posts.

---

I'm glad that you don't let sanity stand between you and your posts. It's comedy gold reading your moronic rants about your sissy fear of the black man in the White House (you know... the one that was put in place in a free and fair election by the majority of the fellow Americans that you are talking about taking up arms against). The lunatic fringe has derailed the GOP and I for one am extemely happy about that. Now they can sit at the kid's table until they learn some manners

[Sloppy Santa]

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

savoldi wrote:

---

Sloppy Santa wrote:

---

LithiumZero wrote:

---

The issue isn't having a better choice, it's having a choice that's perceived to be better. The difference is significant.

---

Many times there is a significant difference between candidates. Howsomever, there is NO difference in the system they have to work within. Changing that is like watching glaciers move. Most of the time, nothing happens.

---

I agree that the system is hard to change which is exactly why some Americans have lost faith in it and it thereby no longer is legitimate to them. But I disagree that there's a significant difference between at least presidential candidates. Granted, someone like Palin is quite different from say Clinton, but in the end I don't think the difference is significant in the larger scheme of things. The US integrates more (globalism), rich get richer, the gap between rich and poor increases, more power to power, etc...

[mauser]

Lithium: Actually, he's as much white as he is black and skin color isn't something that concerns me. Given the frequency that you and others refer to "the black man" tells me that it's something which is much closer to the forefront of your mind than it is mine.

As to the GOP....it isn't my party and it deserves to be abolished as much as the Democrat Party.

As to sanity....keep taking your lithium. LOL

[guido61]

22 million rounds?

And who says the government doesn't create jobs?

[mauser]

Guido: And just like the military equipment that we really don't need to defend this country.....eventually they get an itch to use it.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:
Guido: And just like the military equipment that we really don't need to defend this country.....eventually they get an itch to use it.

---

Or mothball it eventually.  How many nukes have we bought and never used?

[mauser]

Guido: All you have to do is look at the number times we've gone to war with no real justification.

Eisenhower was right.

[SHRED]