Sorry Democrats. Your argument about muskets is irrelevant. The type of gun never mattered to the founding fathers.

What happened, are you actually against gun grabbing 2nd amendment killing bills from Biden and Congress?

Amazing. Thanks for the support on this issue.

Next time some idiot brings up muskets in a second amendment discussion, be sure to verify that they are perfectly okay with you carrying a musket anywhere. Or a bayonet. Or a broadsword. Or a crossbow. I wouldn't mind packing a katana.

There will always be people who just cannot get passed that argument. You can explain that the entire Bill of Rights is all about putting limits on the government and they'll still come back with "what about the AK-47, they didn't exist back then". It is exasperating.

That's why I'd make the point. They would no more allow muskets on the street than AR's. Stupid argument.

Amen.

Just parts of the internet. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube limit what you can say on their websites. Amazon threw Parler off of their web server claiming that the Capitol Hill rioters used that platform to make their plans. There were about 8 "parleys" (akin to Twitter's Tweets) however most of the planning happened on Facebook.

But considering that the internet is still a vast place and no one would stop me from creating my own website and saying whatever I want on it then for the most part the internet is unlimited. Now that we have Democrats in control of the government I think it is just a matter of time before they impose some new legislation on the internet that limits speech.

Mainly because, in that day, guns where used to murder indigenous populations because of trespassing, not to mention that there were pretty much 2 kinds of gun: Musket and Colt. Now, we have Machineguns, semi-automatic rifles, flamethrowers, shotguns, handguns, Uzis, and a host of others. Now, the main argument against banning guns is that we need them for self-defense. A sniper rifle or AK-47 isn't going to defend you in a dark alleyway. That tends to be hand guns and pistols. It's simple. Rifles and machine guns are for offense. Hand guns are not. With American gun culture, where no-one respects guns like they are capable of murder, there is no point in allowing people access to assault weapons unless people respect them for what they are.

Wrong. Our right to own guns was enshrined as a means for us to fight against a tyrannical government, as the founding fathers had just done. It is to afford us the ability to protect ourselves from the government, not ourselves. Period.

Yeah, that counts as self-defense.

Also, what are you gonna do, shoot the cops in riot gear when you storm the Capitol? Face it, guns against government only work when you have a 100% corrupt government who have pretty much no regulation on crime

I have absolutely no idea where on earth you got the idea that American gun culture does not respect guns as a device that can kill. That is absolutely false and you watch too much TV. Long before I ever paid attention to the NRA my dad taught me, when he bought me a .22 rifle when I was 14, that a gun is NOT a toy and that I should never ever point it at someone who I did not want to kill. As a person who never wants to kill anyone that hit me hard and I have always respected that. Many states require that you take an NRA gun safety course prior to purchasing a handgun.

Oh and incidentally that evil NRA that the left hates so much is responsible for SAVING thousands of lives through NRA gun safety courses. They also train the police and the military. The NRA has done more through their safety classes to save lives than ANY law passed by congress.

Oh yeah and one other thing. The AK-47, being a close quarter combat rifle, would make an excellent choice for defending yourself in a dark alleyway. So would an AR-15. While the AR-15 is not a military rifle it is patterned to look like the M16 and the M16 is also a close quarter combat rifle. Therefore, the AR-15 would work in a dark alleyway also.

But depending on how dark the alleyway is a self defense style shotgun might come in handier than even a pistol. The reason is that you don't have to worry as much about accuracy. However, if that dark alleyway is crowded you might also injure an innocent person. In that situation a pistol loaded with hollow points or frangible bullets would be the best. That way if you hit your target it will rip them up in the inside but none or very few of the fragments will leave the body, injuring an innocent bystander.

ANY gun can be used for both offense and defense. This includes a .50 caliber machine gun (which is illegal but not unconstitutional to own). Nothing says "Get off my lawn" better than a .50 caliber machine gun.

Where you get your information makes me want to laugh and also cry.

Re: "Therefore, the AR-15 would work in a dark alleyway also."

Tell me, is the guy in your meme going crazy and firing guns around like it's no big deal, or is he respecting it and keeping it entirely for self defense?

And don't even get me started on how the police focus too much on gun training. Police get 58 hours of firearms training, but only 8 hours on de-escalation. 8 hours. Let's face it, that is the main reason police brutality is a thing. 50 more hours on guns than on de-escalation. Why?

They guy is my meme is Chuck Norris. That image I got right here from ImgFlip. I think it is a movie poster from one of his movies. Movies are not reality. I am only telling you that because I think where you get most of your information is from movies and TV shows.

Do you have any clue what it is like to be a cop in a medium to large city? To have to suspect everyone you meet as potentially the last person you will meet? To have to determine in a split second if a guy is reaching for his wallet or a gun? Far too many times a cop will make a routine traffic stop only to get shot or shot at when he approached the car.

Cops have between 0.5 to 3 seconds to determine a person is a threat, draw their weapon and fire it. If they don't then they don't get to go home to their family when their shift is over. If they are lucky they get sent to the hospital instead of the morgue.

But I know. You want to hate on the cops. That is your passion in life. I never wanted to be a cop and the more I know about what they have to put up with the more I am glad I never became a cop. People are rude and disrespectful to them for no reason at all other than they are in a uniform.

Then you have libertarians, anarchists and some blacks just getting right in their faces all of the time. Telling them they have rights and that the cop cannot violate them.

Then if a white cop has to defend his life from a black man and he shoots the black man then all hell breaks loose across the country. It has made cops so skittish. Some would rather take a bullet than shoot the black criminal who is trying to kill the cop.

We all know there are a very small percentage of cops who are bad or turn bad after the join. The screening process is very intensive and the keep a lot of the bad people out of the police dept but every now and then one of them slips through. Some cops go bad long after joining the force because they have to deal with the worst of mankind every day.

Others just quit because of that. I have a friend who was a cop. He quit when he was investigating a rape. All of the crime he had to deal with just built up and this rape was the last straw. It tore him up inside that people can be so evil. He left and became a security consultant and martial arts instructor (that's how I knew him).

So while you're out there hating on the cops, just think for a minute what their lives are like. Their job is to try to keep you safe and for that the get spit on.

I never said that cops receive too much firearms training or that all cops are racist. The vast majority of cops are good people. I'm saying that cops receive too little de-escalation training, and often have no clue on how to deal with a situation. Cops deal with suicide attempts, and receive no training in that. Cops deal with hostage situations, and only a certain number of cops can deal with that. Give every cop the tools to fight violent and non-violent crime. Good de-escalation skills can lead to a peaceful resolution to an armed robbery

I agree.

When seconds matter, the Police are only minutes away.

You clearly know nothing about average Americans and their understanding of guns. The only people who think they're cool and bear no ramifications are kids who see them in action movies.

Tell me then, if the US respects it's guns so much, then why are there things like gun shows, and why are the restrictions so loose for buying a gun.

Because responsible fun can be had with guns, and we all like to show off.

As to firearm purchasing restrictions, well, you'll have to be more specific. There are fifty states and each has different rules for purchasing a firearm. Culture also varies from state to state. In Montana, my state, we have very loose firearm regulations but a very hunting oriented culture. Therefore pretty much everyone interested in owning a gun has taken hunter's safety (Firearm safety), and it's honestly really uncommon to see firearms in public unless you're at a shooting range.

Again, you seem to think that everyone who owns or wants to shoot a gun is a deranged homicidal maniac. That simply isn't true. If you want to solve gun violence, then solve the broken families, mental health crisis, and extremely toxic criminal cultures in inner cities.

So. Solve the broken families, solve the criminals, and solve mental health problems(I assume that also means psychopaths). OK

First of all, put more focus on mental health, and make it easily accessible. Second of all, increase security at schools and universities. Third of all, improve police to be less like SWAT and more like cops (just train them more in de-escalation). Give them things like bulletproof vests, but leave drug lords to SWAT teams. Focus more on rehab in prisons, just to cut down on the number of criminals. End private prisons. All they do is drive people insane. End solitary. All that does is drive people insane. End the war on drugs. It's just a waste of money. When I say regulations, I mean keeping the criminal database up to scratch, and also testing owners and buyers for psychological issues.

- Mental Health: No problem there. I agree that we need more funding to study mental health disorders and research solutions to that crisis.

- School Security: Not a problem. I'd love for every school to have an officer on campus at all times.

- De-Escalation vs Use of Force: Every cop I know (a couple close friends and then lots of hearsay) agrees that more de-escalation training is necessary. It is, after all, a skill to communicate. If you don't practice that then you cannot use it effectively. However, the cop who quoted that to me also said (He is an analyst who works closely with state and Federal branches) that 93-95% of all calls for police end with de-escalation, and of the remainder (meaning incidents in which force was used) a solid 95% of those officers only resorted to force after de-escalation failed. So it is disingenuous to imply that de-escalation is never used and outright dangerous to assume there will be a time in which force is never required for any police interaction (I know you didn't say that, just developing the point a little).

- Prisons: Rehab in prisons is already practiced quite heavily, and I 100% support it where practicable. Like de-escalation though, rehab only works when the subject wants to become a better person. Therefore there will alway be a need for true lockup prisons. I have no problem with private prisons so long as they are held to the same standards of conduct and safety for inmates as government prisons, and if that requires inspections by say, the U.S Marshall service then by all means let's do it. Regarding solitary, I don't like it (or the death penalty, for that matter) and oppose it. However, I recognize that there are inmates who will assuredly kill or harm other inmates or prison staff. It is unfair and inhumane to put others at risk because we don't want to mentally harm some deranged homicidal lunatic.

- War on drugs: Do you support allowing unrestricted flow of hard drugs into this country? If so, then I have to assume you have no idea the damage it does to society. If not, then please elucidate on your position. I for one fully support aggressive operations taken against drug distribution and usage everywhere.

- Criminal Database and Regulations: All criminal databases and crime report studies are updated annually.

- Psych testing for gun owners: I've floated this idea before actually. My stance, as it is now, is that there could totally be one IF anyone who passed could be given [cont]

When I said de-escalation, I just meant more training on de-escalation

For Prisons, actually one of the main reasons US prisons are so violent id because of the conditions. Take a look at Scandinavian prisons. Murderers, while they do spend much longer, still get rehabilitated. And rehab may be practiced heavily in the USA, but there is not nearly enough for the 2.3 million prisoners. As regarding solitary, the very people who came up with it later decided it was inhumane and cruel. It drives prisoners insane.

Private prisons. They only get paid by the government if they are 80% or more full. There simply aren't enough prisoners to fill them all. I think you can guess what happens next. They are one of the main reasons incarceration rates in the US are through the roof. They also get extra money if their prisoners are violent. Violent, however, just means spent time in solitary, and Private prisons give out twice as much solitary time as normal ones.

The war on drugs hasn't done a single thing to prevent drug use. The mechanics of supply and demand come into play here. If supply is decreased without decreasing demand, the supply will find a way. Take crystal meth for example. The government cracked down on large scale meth production, so dealers and users started small scale operations. When the government found that this was happening, they made it harder for people to access those chemicals. Mexican drug cartels then took over, and they had experience avoiding the law. They also made the drug more potent. So, the war on drugs made crystal meth more potent and harder to stop. Yay. The war on drugs has also led to massive incarceration of non-violent drug users. This led to companies who provide housing for former criminals denying drug users housing, but not sex offenders and pedophiles. I mean, seriously? It has led to violence, money wasting, mass incarceration and harder drugs. Switzerland, on the other hand, had an Opioid epidemic, and they handled it well. First, they gave the users medical help, along with clean needles, and softer substances. Then, they gave them full rehabilitation. Then, they took down the drug cartels supplying those drugs. The result was astounding. By simply reducing demand before supply, they pretty much solved it.

OK, so if private prisons and other aspects of the correctional system are an issue then I'm sure we can fix those...however, law enforcement and corrections are two very different and distinct parts of the justice system, so I'm going to let that matter lie.

Again, rehab only works if people want it to work. Props to Switzerland, but until I see someone with an effective plan to implement what you described then I'm in full support of bringing down the hammer on distributors.

Three words: Supply and demand.

As for Drug addicts who have had their lives ruined by drugs, I'm pretty confident that most of them would like to have a less ruined life.

And there is a plan. It's sitting right there. In Switzerland. We don't need some new revolutionary tactic. We just need a tactic that works, and Switzerland provides that. We can learn from other countries

[cont.] an ID that, when presented, allowed them to buy any firearm from anywhere and be subject to no registration or other oversight. If you can prove you are of sound mind (I.E not murderer material), then the government has no grounds to otherwise interfere in your life, at least as far as owning firearms on your own property goes. Now, if states implemented public or concealed carry programs and required that folks who want to carry in occupied public (E.G a city), then I don't have a problem with a firearm being registered to that permit. It's no different than you having to register your car to use it on public roads.

So you totally ignore that the indigenous peoples raided and massacred countless white settlements as well. Murdering and wiping out entire villages. That causes wars too.

A rifle can be effective for defense and isn’t necessarily for offense. And handguns can definitely be used for offense. Your entire argument is flawed.

No. In total, Native Americans killed a total of 20,000 settlers and soldiers, while they killed upwards of 50 million. Yeah. And, it was provoked attack to defend property, so it's technically entirely legal

WhT property? The Indians didn’t believe in property rights. They claimed la d by strength of the tribe. Until a different tribe came that was stronger. You have obviously been indoctrinated to the woke left narrative and freshly brainwashed. It’s not as black and white or as simple as your white man bad narrative.

Before you type something like that you should at least read up on history and what guns are used for. What you typed was one of the most uninformed things I think I have read in a very long time.

The first machine guns were produced in the early 1700's and at the time of the American Revolution there were 5 different types of machine guns available. Washington wanted to make one of them standard issue in our military but they cost too much.

The AK-47 would make a terrible sniper rifle because they were designed to be a close quarter combat weapon. They are a workhorse but they lack the accuracy of the AR-15 and the AR-15 isn't a sniper rifle either. It's not a military rifle either. The military uses the M16 would looks similar to an AR-15 but the AR-15 was designed for civilian use, not military.

Not having looked into it I am not sure what type of rifle is best used as a sniper rifle but I am pretty sure they are all bolt action and not semi-automatic. Bolt actions tend to have better accuracy. A bolt action means you have to manually chamber a round before you can fire it.

Here's the other thing you probably don't know. While the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US the AR-15 it is NOT the killing machine that you think it is. It fires either a .223 or a NATO 5.56x45mm round or both. The NATO 5.56x45 round was selected by NATO to reduce the number of casualties in war. The round was chosen because it wounds more than it kills. That's because it is only slightly bigger in diameter to a .22 round, which is a small game round.

The best defense, in a dark alleyway or anywhere else, is *always* to just not be there. If you cannot be there where the crime is happening then the best defense is always YOU because you are the weapon. You are the 1st responder. Guns are not weapons they are tools that you, the weapon, can use to defend your life and the lives of your family.

If there is one major usage for firearms at the time of the founding it would be for hunting and self-defense. All other uses, including fighting the Revolutionary war, are way down the list in the usage for firearms. If its primary use was killing native Americans then they all would have been killed before we were born.

BTW You just got your butt kicked by someone who knows very little about firearms. I am nowhere close to a firearms expert. I barely know anything but at least I know enough to keep me from making stupid statements like you did.

'If the primary use was killing Native Americans, they would all be dead'. When settlers arrived, there were between 50-100 million Native Americans. Now, only 15 states have Native American populations over 100,000. Yeah. The first machine gun was actually invented in 1862, and they were only used widely by WW1. 'The AK-47 was designed to be a close-quarters combat weapon'. As close quarters as an assault rifle can be. The point is, the second amendment existed for three reasons,, two of which are still respected, and one of which is still in use. There was for self-defense, there was in the case of an invasion, form a militia, and there was to murder them pesky Indians.

'The AR-15 isn't a murder machine'. Because seriously injuring someone for them to die of blood loss is sooooooooooooooo much better

Do you seriously believe that when the first Europeans got here they just went on a killing spree? So what, the ships from Europe docked and the passengers came off the boats with muskets blazing? Is that how it happened?

You do know that millions of native Americans were killed by diseases brought over from Europe and NOT guns.

However, Democrat Andrew Jackson came up with the idiotic notion of "manifest destiny" and that caused millions of native Americans to lose their lives.

Maybe because you secretly harbor some misanthropic desire to go on a shooting spree or something, I don't know, but the vast majority of people at anytime in history just want to live in peace.

The reason why so many people buy guns in the first place is to try to maintain that peace in their homes. No one wants to be murdered so they buy things to prevent them being murdered.

You had better look again. Machine guns, which by definition means a gun that will fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull, were available in the early 1700's. They didn't look or even operate like modern machine guns but they still fired multiple rounds with one trigger pull and that by definition means it is a fully automatic machine gun. I would go look it up again and tell you what it was called but I'm too lazy and it would be better if you did your own research. You might learn a thing or two.

Yes as close quarters as an "assault" rifle can be. Handguns are much closer quarters combat weapons. But that designation of being a close quarter combat tool is not my designation. It is the military's. If you want to argue that point with them then be my guest.

The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to do with murdering native Americans. I don't think you got a hold of bad information at this point. I think you are insane. I actually am worrying about you now. I'm not going to see you in the news after you went on a mass killing spree am I. The average human being does not sit around thinking the can kill next. I think you need to seek professional help.

And again, the 2nd amendment is entirely about stopping the government from getting in the way of our inalienable rights and nothing else. We have a right to form a militia to defend ourselves and we have the right to bear arms. No where in any of the founding fathers writings did anyone say, "Hey, that 2nd amendment thing, that's so we can go shoot ourselves some Injuns, right?"

The AK-47 is classed as an assault weapon. And no, I don't think that the Americans went off the boats, guns blazing. They came off the boats, nearly starved to death, got saved by Native Americans. Then, the settlers went about raiding Native American villages in the name of 'civilization'. The same happened in Africa. Very few humans wonder who they can kill next. For the settlers, it wasn't who, it was what. Native Americans where seen as things, not living beings. And you are right when you say it was diseases. The English brought over disease-ridden blankets to 'thank' the tribes for their help. They deliberately infected Native Americans with smallpox.

What is an "assault" weapon? Can you describe it? Is a semi-automatic hunting rifle that fires a .223 round an assault weapon? It is the wood stock that makes it safer? I just wanted to know because the only difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault" rifle is the "assault" rifle looks real scary. They both shoot the same.

Assault is a verb not an adjective. There is no such thing as an "assault" weapon because if you set a weapon down it ceases to do any verbs. It cannot get up on its own and start assaulting people. The AR in the AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle after the company that first made them. AK as in the AK-47 is the initials for the Russian dude who built it. I don't remember his first name (it started with an A), his last name was Kalashnikov.

No one knows why some haplophobic liberal assigned the word "assault" to a particular type of rifle. You can hunt with an "assault" rifle. A lot of libs don't think you can but that is because they are suffering from having no brain. I have a nephew who hunts small game with an AR-15 all the time. If you are deer or elk hunting then you might want a larger caliber. Hunting rifles tend to have longer barrels which improves their accuracy over the real scary looking rifles.

So I am learning something new. Europeans and those who descend from Europeans spend their days trying to figure out ways to kill people with darker skin than them. But they're very sneaky about it. They move into the area where darker skinned people live and then raid and pillage them. And if that isn't bad enough, when they aren't raiding and pillaging them they cough on them. They rub all over them trying to get them sick. And they did all of this because they thought that people with darker skin were not humans.

Yeah there were a lot of Europeans who thought that because of their name or their wealth that they were superior to the lesser classes. They looked at poor whites the same as Africans and native Americans. I understand all of that. I think you will find that in any race there are a small percentage who cause all of the problems for the rest of the race. You pointing out that small percentage in the Europeans and their descendants does not mean that those of other races have been doing the same things to groups other than themselves. Racism and slavery happens everywhere to everyone throughout the history of mankind. It is not limited to the Europeans and their descendants in America.

Assault weapons are any firearm that isn't a small arm, cannon, sniper rifle or hunting rifle

Can you not "assault" someone with a small arm, cannon, sniper rifle or hunting rifle? You can assault someone with a knife, a baseball bat, a rock or you fist as well.

It is a stupid definition invented by liberals to say "that gun scares me". You can by a stock for a pistol and make it look similar to a "a scary gun" and when you do that liberal lawmaker wet their pants and call it also an assault weapon. Take the stock off of it and it is okay.

That definition was kept vague on purpose. If gives the haplophobic law makers the excuse to outlaw any firearm they want to.

But again, the 2nd amendment is NOT about what type of firearm you possess. It never was. It is not about controlling the individual in any way shape or form. It and all of the rest of the 1st 10 amendments and the Constitution are about putting limits on the government.

Only a control freak government would try to turn the amendments around and try to legislate what is and is not allowed. Right now conservative speech is under assault. I guess the left will probably call that "assault" speech.

Due process rights under the 5th amendment have been under attack for awhile. Bush's Patriot Act and Obama's National Defense Act of 2012 when way too far in destroying due process.

So the take away is that the 2nd amendment is about your right to own, possess and use a firearm without any restrictions from the government. You still are not allowed under the law to use a firearm or any other object to injure or murder someone. That law has always been effect. But you are allowed to use a firearm for any other purpose, self defense, national defense, hunting and even overthrowing our government should it become tyrannical. That last point the founders were adamant about. They feared that with all of the safeguards that they could think to put in the Constitution that corrupt people could still turn our government into a tyranny. Ya know... corrupt people like Socialists (aka the Democrat Party and far too many in the Republican Party). However, they also stressed that a violent overthrow was a last resort after everything else possible had been exhausted.

Coincidentally ALL Socialist regimes first start by taking away firearms, just like what the Democrat Party wants to do.

Right now, conservative speech is very much not under assault, and, even if it is, it doesn't violate your right to free speech, because the first amendment does not mean everyone has to listen to you, or even that you are exempt from consequences. It means you are exempt from legal consequences. Corrupt people. So the entire government? Why do you think lobbying exists?

Assault weapons are, in fact, a kind of gun that wasn't made up by paranoid libturds. It defines any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine. Coincidentally, Switzerland and Germany both have strict gun laws, yet people do not complain because psychopaths don't get hold of guns nearly as easily. Finally, let's face it. Guns to stop tyrannical governments don't even work because the government in question can just make you mysteriously dissapear

You forgot that socialism doesn't require a secret police

"Please tell me why a big business would benefit off censoring speech that would benefit it"

Why don't you ask them? I have no idea why they would do that but ever since Facebook drove conservatives away in droves all of the sudden they have started advertising.

There is no benefit for them to turn people away. But then Socialism is all about how it makes you feel so I guess they are putting their own personal feelings over what would make business sense.

Speaking of feelings, I get the feeling that you don't think that this censoring of conservatives is real. If that is the case then all I can tell you is my own personal experience with Facebook. Technically, what FB is doing is not censoring, however, I have heard of people's comments getting deleted. What FB mostly does is put an image over a meme or the image of news article and tag an annoying Fact or 2 or 3 to the bottom of your post. A lot of times their fact check has nothing to do with what was posted. Other times their fact check was just flat out false. Many times it will be fact checking about one minor part of if an article.

Then there is Facebook jail. That is when they throw you off the platform for a day, 3 days, a week or a month. I've been in Facebook jail 3 times and another 3 times I was told I was going to jail (well technically it isn't jail, that is just was people call it) another 3 times but for some reason they never followed through.

There's more but I don't feel like spending my evening on ImgFlip tonight.

I never said that you have the right to be heard, just the right to free speech. If you cannot see how it is being trampled all over in Social Media, in the comments Democrat politicians make and more recently in books that are allowed to be sold then you are blind.

Sure YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are private businesses but in order to get protection from copyright law they have declared themselves a public platform and under section 230 of the Decency in Communication Act that means they cannot censor the speech of anyone on their platform.

Amazon is a private business and they don't have to sell conservative books if they don't want to. They can throw Parler off of their web servers if they want to. But just like businesses who in the past only sold to white people they are cutting their own throats by pushing customers away.

There is a term for the social media giants, Amazon and a bunch more. Corporate Socialism. They aren't the government but they are working for the same ends as the government. it is an unwritten pact. So while the government isn't themselves violating free speech, their minions are.

Please tell me why a big business would benefit off censoring speech that would benefit it

I found one! I found what may be the last reply link on your comment in this thread.

Anyway, I am just going by what Stalin called himself and Lenin before him. After all they were the 1st 2 dictators of the United Soviet SOCIALISTS of Russia (USSR).

The name of the country said they were Socialists. Lenin called himself a Democratic Socialist and Stalin called himself an International Socialist.

So if you want to dig them up and argue with them then be my guest.

Let's face it, Lenin wasn't a Democratic Socialist. He was an Authoritarian Communist. Stalin was all that, but on steroids.

"Socialism controls business. Communism controls everything. Nazism pretends to let businesses do their thing but really doesn't, and controls everything."

There are a lot of people who think that. But the foundation of all of those isms is identical.

Government control of business, no private property rights and wealth redistribution. They all force social justice (which is not a newer term from the current generation, it has always been a part of all of those isms) on everyone to make them all equal.... equally poor.

"I think the reason you use the linear version to put people politically is because it is the only one that will always portray the left as big government and the right as small government."

I didn't invent that linear scale, it was around prior to about the 1930's or 40's, whenever the Progressives changed it to distance themselves from Nazis and Fascists. They used to openly praise Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini as men of the future. They held big Progressive rallies and were right out in the open. It all started to fall apart when the New York Times finally printed an article in around 1928 about the horrors that were happening in the USSR. They tried to suppress that news for a few years but the genocide that was happening just too much form them to hold back.

Then when we went to war with Germany and Italy that is when the Progressives went into hiding and tried to distance themselves from everything they used to openly praise.

Socialism IS authoritarian. It is not AS authoritarian as Communism. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini ALL called themselves Socialists. The only one that changed is Mussolini when he and one other guy came up with what they thought fixed the problems in Socialism and created Fascism. But Fascism still has the same underlying foundation.

Really the only one who called themselves a Communist was Mao Tse Tung. The rest were Socialist. Nazi is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers party. The USSR is the United Soviet Socialists of Russia. Soviet means workers.

Freedom is not found in any of those isms, so why we would ever want to go in that direction is idiotic. If you want to be free then you would run as fast as humanly possible in the opposite direction. Socialism is not the cure for all of the worlds problems, it is the cause.

Ah yes. Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were progressives. Must've been why they hated anyone who wasn't straight, white, Atheist and Male. Sure. I did say that the foundation of Communism and Fascism are the same. They are both systems of Totalitarianism. And yes, Socialism is Authoritarian left. Just not as Authoritarian or as left as Communism.

It's simple. Socialism is where Government owns business.
Capitalism is where business owns Government.
Fascism is where everyone hates the other countries.
Communism is where everyone hates the state but not really because otherwise they will mysteriously disappear.

And yes, freedom isn't a socialist ideal (at least not a democratic socialist ideal. I can't say the same for Libertarian socialism).

Not to mention that, as a matter of fact, national socialism is VERY different to socialism (OK, maybe not THAT different, but still pretty different). And freedom isn't to be found in any of those -isms because they are all in the Authoritarian half.

Either way, your logic is that they are socialists because they called themselves that. You seriously believe those men?

Anyway, I'm off. Have a good look at the political compass analyzation

There are semi-automatic hunting rifles with detachable magazines also. What makes an assault rifle so dangerous that they must be banned? If I was a psycho and I wanted to kill you I could do it just as easily with a semi-automatic hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15. In fact hunting rifles, especially for deer and elk, are higher caliber rifles. That makes the more deadly than an AR-15 with its .223 round which makes it .003 of an inch bigger in diameter than a .22 round. There's more gun powder in a .223 cartridge and it achieves a higher velocity but its entrance wound is almost identical to a .22. You can kill a person with a .22 rifle but they were created for small game and target practice, not killing large game or humans.

Sure the government can pick off one person at a time and they mysteriously disappear. But just before this government becomes full on Socialist there is going to be a fight. Our government is currently prevented by law from using the military on us but Socialists have been very good and violating all of our laws with no repercussions.

I saw something (probably a meme - and you know how reliable they are) that said if you take just the gun owners in the state of Minnesota you would have one of the worlds largest armies. So if something major happens, like when the government finally throws out the 2nd amendment, you'll see how insignificant those gun owners really are.

And if the government does violate posse comitatus most of the military will stand with the people.

If you took Chicago, New York and a couple of other major cities out of the equation the US would have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. It is the major Democrat dominated cities where all of the gun violence takes place. And those cities have the most strictest gun laws in the US. So gun control laws do not work in the US

I love how you say socialist as if it is some kind of dirty word. At the end of the day, socialism is simply when a government controls the business, and if that government is completely democratic, there is really nothing wrong with it

This is a must watch video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJEuZrvNYg0

Yup. I still don't think that left wing equals authoritarianism, but I digress.

I do think that, really, what the guy in the video is presenting as a Republic is, in fact, a Democratic Republic, as the only requirements are that the leader is elected. You still want a vote on laws and major political decisions

"I love how you say socialist as if it is some kind of dirty word" It is more than the government controlling business. The reason why Socialists control business is because there are no private property rights. No one owns anything except the government. They tell you that the collective owns everything but it is the government who controls the collective.

The basic foundation of any free society is private ownership. You have an inalienable right to own your life, your family, your home, your TV, your everything else. If that right is trampled on by Socialism then you are subject to the person or persons who do own everything. If you do not please the owners then they can take everything, including your life, away.

That is what gave Nazi Germany, the USSR, Mao's China the ability to murder 100 million people.

Socialism is no more a dirty word than Nazi or Communist. You just cannot take that much power away from the individual and expect anything different. Socialism is slavery.

Socialism controls business. Communism controls everything. Nazism pretends to let businesses do their thing but really doesn't, and controls everything.

I think the reason you use the linear version to put people politically is because it is the only one that will always portray the left as big government and the right as small government. That, good friend, is not true. Even the political compass is more accurate. Mao Zedong and Stalin were AUTHORITARIAN left. Remember that. You are Libertarian right (you want free markets, free business, low taxes, much profits). I am Libertarian left (I want Equality, access to healthcare, and benefits for employees). Authoritarian right is like Authoritarian left, except that instead of promising benefits for workers, they promise nationalism. What they actually do to their countries is the same though. Really, the only difference between the Authoritarian quadrants is the promises. So just stop portraying me as Authoritarian left (I can prove that I am Libertarian left, if you want). What gave Mao, Stalin and Hitler the ability to kill people was the NKVD, the Gestapo and the ministry of State Security. All Authoritarian.

Scorpia, ImgFlip doesn't want me talking to you. I see all sorts of reply links on my comments but very few on yours. I guess I talk too much or something.

Anyway, why would you need a secret police force when you have the authority to stomp all over everyone. Regardless the Nazis did have a secret police and they were Socialists. So did the United Soviet SOCIALISTS of Russia (or USSR).

Obama talked a few times about having a "civilian force, as powerful and well funded as our military." Fortunately it never happened but, seriously, what was that about. Obama also tried to get people to snitch on their neighbors if they said something he didn't like.

I can agree that we are a Democratic Republic. We don't vote on every single issue facing the nation, like a true Democracy would give us. Instead we also vote for people to represent us and they vote on all of the issues facing the nation. The majority cannot override the minority because we have laws in place. But we have do elections even though the last one was a travesty. We don't vote on any national referendums but we vote on state issues but it is just a handful and not all of them.

Reply links?

I still doubt that Stalin was a Socialist.

"Let's face it, Lenin wasn't a Democratic Socialist. He was an Authoritarian Communist. Stalin was all that, but on steroids."

Like I said, you are more than welcome to dig up their bodies and argue with them. I don't have a problem with it because at the fundamental level there is no difference. Communism is just a variation of Socialism.

It is the foundation of all of those isms that is corrupt. None of them promote liberty and none of them makes a nation prosperous. There is no benevolent version of any of them.

In reality even the founding fathers recognized that the right to bear arms was to stop the government from taking the other rights. That's the primary purpose and at the time it not only included muskets, it included cannons (mostly used on ships), and catapults and trebuchet, or what would be known as weapons of mass destruction in those days.

Trebuchets weren't in use by that time

The first machine gun was invented in England in 1718 by James Puckle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Face it, that isn't really a machine gun. That's a lame excuse for a machine gun

Either is a semi-automatic rifle. Fully automatic rifles are next to impossible to own, it requires a federal firearms license and all kinds of special restrictions.

By the time of the America Revolution there were 4 other automatic rifles. They had improved significantly since the Puckle gun. They were capable of rapid fire, several shots per second.

I told you that these automatic weapons worked differently than our current machine guns. I searched for the article that listed the others but they think I only want to look at modern machine guns. So far I can find the other rifles.

But then this is completely off point of the 2nd amendment. Our founders didn't care about the type of firearm, they were only concerned about protecting our freedom from the government. The Bill of Rights is all about putting shackles on the government.

George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” Unfortunately our government is NOT the government that the founders left us and now we live in fear of it. If we don't pay or taxes then we are fined and/or imprisoned and there is a tax on everything now. Sometimes we are double taxed.

The 2nd amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" What do you suppose "well regulated" means?

Today we refer to laws as regulations but that is incorrect. To regulate is to equalize. It is to make two things equal. In plumbing it makes the water pressure equal to your needs. In scuba diving it makes the tank pressure come out equal to your normal breathing.

So something that is "well regulated" means it is equal to something else. In a militia it means that the militia member is equal or greater in firepower to those who they are fighting. That means the militia member has to have the latest and best equipment to allow him to be successful.

Back in Washington's time the militia was the people. There was no army, navy, or marines. There was an army but that army was comprised of anyone they could get to fight. There was a navy but that was anyone who they could get onboard.

The founders did not believe in a free standing army like we have now. I am not saying that I am in opposed to our military, I am just saying that back then it was the people, like you and I. That means we should be able to defend ourselves with the best that is available to us. That means your musket argument also fails on that fact.

I’ll be bookmarking this page to review your comments because goddam you’re spouting so much truth here.

A) Keep preaching the truth brother.
B) I suggest muting them. They're either hopelessly ignorant or a really really good troll.

The small pox blankets was one incident not a national strategy. What you are spouting is so blatantly flawed and biased against America it’s obvious you are n school learning this hate America indoctrination.

Not really. It was just one of the strategies used by the settlers to murder Native Americans. There were schools were their children were taken to be 'educated' (That means abused and put up for adoption). There were the countless treaties that the US broke (including the one that let the Natives keep Mount Rushmore because it was a holy site to them). There were the straight up raids from the settlers who would rape, loot and kill. The list goes on.

There were the straight up raids from the settlers who would rape, loot and kill. The list goes on. As there were the same that native Americans perpetrated. It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter who you are you hold a grudge against a group that rapes mutilates and massacres your family and neighbors. Both sides committed atrocities not just one.

But which one did it on a much larger scale? The settlers adopted the 'for every one of us they kill, we must kill 10' mentality.

It's like saying the Nazis were justified because the British also committed war crimes. Make no mistake, they did, but nowhere near the level of Mr Hitler and his friends.

The Native Americans helped the settlers, and gave them food. The settlers, in return, massacred them. The Natives, in return massacred a lot fewer of them.

And you still haven't mentioned the countless treaties the American government broke to steal more land from the Natives. It just gets ridiculous

You are make broad generalizations that are untrue. Some Indians face the original settlers help. Many Didn’t. I don’t know who you are getting information from that claims to know what the settlers though or that they all thought the same thing, but it’s absurd speculation.

Treaties were certainly broken and the government certainly screwed many tribes over. The point is they were fighting and at war quite often. They lost but they certainly fought and killed many as well. Most of the disease wasn’t a function of infected blankets,. It was simply that the Europeans brought diseases from Europe the Indians had no immunity for.

Yeah, some were helped. Just above none. Think of how many Indian massacres the US army took part in. Thin of how many treaties the US government has broken (That's right, every single one). And many of the settlers came during a certain period where slavery was still legal. Africans were regarded as goods, and so were the Natives

Indian massacres were not common army operations, most were militias. A few happened as did massacres by the Indians. Ever hear of the Jamestown massacre in 1622? An attempt at genocide by the Indians. How about Custer? The Dade Massacre? Battle of Blue Licks? Fort William Henry massacre? Probably you haven’t because you weren’t taught all the history just the exaggerations, like 50 million were killed,to fit the narrative

You heard of The Annihilation of the Otomi of Tecoac? What about the Cholula massacre? The Alvarado massacre? The Naputica massacre? Mabila massacre? The Tiguex massacres? The Paspahegh massacre? The Wessagusset affair (4 tribe leaders were lured under peaceful pretenses and then poisoned)? The Pamunkey peace talks? The Kalinago genocide? Mystic Massacre? The Massapequa massacre? The Pound Ridge massacre? The Great Swamp massacre?

And, of course, probably the biggest one, as well as the cruelest. Wounded Knee. The US army themselves went into a reservation and massacred 300 Natives for no other reason than that a men's rifle had gone off.

Oh I could list many more as well. The point is both sides committed atrocities and the Indians attempted genocide on the settlers in 1622 and almost succeeded.

Why murder pesky Indians, more like defend your home against Indian raiders.

By the end, most raiders figured out that more of them would die than settlers during raids.

Doesn’t change that they did it.

You're right. Instead of blaming the side that committed genocide, let's blame the side that retaliated

The side that would have committed genocide if they could have is no less guilty of the attempt. Your simplistic rear window view of history totally ignores reality of the times and conditions. Your indoctrination into hate is evident.

It's very simple. The settlers attacked the people who had given them food and shelter, so those people retaliated. I can guarantee that at least some tribes would have wanted war, but honestly, most of them were murdered without cause. Think of Wounded Knee. Think of how many treaties have been broken. The US still haven't apologised.

Let me just compare the numbers one more time:

Native American casualties: 50 million
Settler casualties: 21,000

You sure the settlers were justified?

“ UCL also found that only 5-6 million were alive by the end of the 16th Century.”

So that is before the English and Dutch settlers ever came to America.

No, don't be stupid. The 16th century was from 1500 to 1600. Columbus discovered America in 1492. The end of the 15th Century.

Don’t be stupid? Columbus didn’t actually discover America, as in the United States, he discovered what was a new continent to the Europeans. Columbus never set foot in the United States. The pilgrims didn’t arrive until 1619 which is in the 17 th century so well after the depopulation and murder you are claiming. Get your facts straight.

Well, people were still already exploiting Natives (have a check on how the slave trade happened). That was enough for disease to do it's thing

First off americans never killed 50 million Indians. That statistical claim is completely flawed and a lie.

Thornton’s estimate that about 75 million Indigenous people lived in the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and his estimate that more than 5 million lived in what later became the continental U.S. are arguably the most methodologically circumspect and reliable current appraisals for researchers in this field. As James Wilson has suggested, Thornton’s estimate of a total of more than 7 million Indigenous people north of Mexico is probably “the nearest to a generally accepted figure,” and “a figure for the Western Hemisphere as whole of 75 to 100 million” is not unreasonable. Future research may disclose an even larger Indigenous population, but Thornton’s carefully considered, mid-range estimates provide a vital starting point for the development of informed and reasonable estimates.”

So how could Americans “kill” 50 million if there weren’t anywhere near that many Indians in The US?

Actually, many estimates by University students, Professors and Professional researchers all put the numbers between 100 million and 50 million. In fact, UCL estimated around 60 million were alive by the end of the 15th century

Your population estimates are for the entire Western Hemisphere not the US. And most certainly 50 million weren’t killed if the population was 50 million.

No. My population 'estimates' are for the Americas. UCL also found that only 5-6 million were alive by the end of the 16th Century

Dipshit, 90% of natives died from disease

I used to think that also until it was pointed out the atrocities that Andrew Jackson caused and encouraged. Unfortunately there was a holocaust in America. That does not mean I don't love the principles this nation was founded on, it just means that we have had our share of great evil in this nation just like all of the others. But none of that even compares to the number of babies that have been murdered in this nation.

I guess my source has an incorrect estimate but yeah I agree

Then again my source is Wikipedia. They're not always reliable because they have been known to alter the truth to fit the leftist agenda.

More like 80%

None of the Natives received any help from the colonists, and many of the Natives were in fact given disease-ridden blankets and other items as 'gifts'

...on 1 occasion, not a national strategy

Well...............................

The British army did this several times.

Still, this is only one of the few things they did. They used 're-education' camps to teach (abuse) Native children. They murdered them for sport

Funny how the Indians were often allied with the British and French then isn’t it.

That's later on, when they were promised their land back. Of course, they did nothing of the sorts. The same happened with the Confederates

The Indians took part in both sides of the French and Indian war as well as the revolutionary war. They were active combatants as nations in both of those.

Because they were promised their land back. What part of it don't you understand?

What don’t you understand? The Indians were active combatants not victims during the early history of what became America.

First they had their land stolen. Then they retaliated but failed. Then they were promised citizenship/freedom/land if they helped.

https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets

Did Colonists Give Infected Blankets to Native Americans as Biological ...
Nov 15, 2018 — “There is no evidence that the scheme worked,” Ranlet says. “The infection on the blankets was apparently old, so no one could catch smallpox from the blankets. Besides, the Indians just had smallpox—the smallpox that reached Fort Pitt had come from Indians—and anyone susceptible to smallpox had already had it.”

Thanks Zach, I didn’t know this was actually debunked. Just more fake harpy screeching on lies and innuendo.