Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 27, 2020, 04:19:45 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  What is the benefit of remaining one country?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: What is the benefit of remaining one country?  (Read 488 times)
masterfins
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4061



« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2020, 01:34:42 pm »

on a semi related topic, we should add states, DC and PR should absolutely be given statehood

I disagree, just make DC part of Maryland; they are too small to be their own State.  As for Puerto Rico just give them their independence if they want it, they are too screwed up to become a State.
Logged
Sunstroke
YJFF Member
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 21582

Stop your bloodclot cryin'!


Email
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2020, 01:55:37 pm »

I disagree, just make DC part of Maryland; they are too small to be their own State.  As for Puerto Rico just give them their independence if they want it, they are too screwed up to become a State.

If DC is too small, should we take statehood away from Rhode Island? Wink

Logged

"There's no such thing as objectivity. We're all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them. Dim, shaky, weak, staticky little signals that only hint at the complexity of a universe that we cannot begin to comprehend."
~ Micah Leggat
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 13850


cf_dolfan
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2020, 04:06:24 pm »

If DC is too small, should we take statehood away from Rhode Island? Wink


Rhode Island is over 1,200 square miles while DC is only about 68. That's a huge difference. DC is just a city and not a large one. Jacksonville is like 840 square miles but still not close to RI. You'd have to go to Alaska to find a bigger city than RI. 
Logged

Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Bill Murray
fyo
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6823


4866.5 miles from Dolphin Stadium


« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2020, 04:13:11 am »

You'd have to go to Alaska to find a bigger city than RI. 

It never really occurred to me how freakin' huge those Alaskan cities of a few thousand people are. Then I looked at Google Maps it and it just seems arbitrary. Take Wrangell: 3rd largest city by area at over 2500 sq miles, population just over 2300. Then check the satelite maps. The city limits have pretty much nothing to do with where people live, so you could just take some shitty town in the middle of nowhere and arbitrarily expand the city limits.
Logged
MaineDolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11668

MaineDolFan
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2020, 08:20:46 am »

Lecture from a visiting historian in college.   

Point is that the Civil War wasn't the equivalent of a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s.  Private firearm ownership (2nd amendment) wasn't what allowed the Civil War to occur.  The reason why Lee even had an army to command was there existed an Army of Northern Virginia made up of people from Virginia whose first loyalty was the STATE of  Virginia not the USA.  That doesn't exist anymore.  Today, the units based in Virginia are made up of people from all 50 states. 

Here is what I am trying to get across:

If you read what people post on line about the "importance of the second amendment" is to be able to rise up against a "tyrannical government."  This is always closely followed by some sort of (paraphrasing here) statement of "Hitler took everyone's guns in Germany and look what happened there."  Often, people even speak of this civil "rising" as the catalyst of a civil war; ordinary citizens with their small arms. 

I'm very well versed in the American Civil war; how / when / where.  I'm pretty well versed in the Syrian Civil War, the Colombian, Greek.  I served in the Bosnian War.  I understand.  I get it, I don't need a history lesson (and not, I'm not being defensive).  Just explaining. 

Under the right guidance and training between the dates of 1861 and 1865 a well armed group of semi trained to not trained to only enthusiastic civilians could take over a small artillery unit.  It took at least eight-nine men to load a single cannon after fire (those men are thus not engaged in battle), moving each one was difficult.

In 2020 under the right guidance and training a well armed group of semi trained to not trained only enthusiastic civilians would get decimated by a local policy SWAT unit, much less a deployed platoon.  It would be a bloodbath. 

Maybe my "muskets" statement is a little more clear now.  That was my entire, only, point. 
Logged

"God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-Voltaire
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11914


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2020, 09:07:42 am »

The whole "2nd amendment protects you from the government" idea is pure fantasy anyway.  (The idea that Jews in Nazi Germany would have been fine if only they had pistols is particularly demented.) As I've said before, if the gov't jackboots show up at your door to take you, it won't matter how many guns you have, and if you have the political power to prevent the government from taking you into custody, you never needed the guns in the first place.

Consider the following five scenarios:

1) Japanese citizens being rounded up in 1942
2) Branch Davidian compound in 1993
3) Bundy Ranch in 2014
4) Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016
5) ICE roundups 2017-current

Do you think 1, 2, or 5 would turn out differently if the civilians had more guns?  Do you think 3 or 4 would have turned out differently if the civilians had fewer guns?  The answer to both is obviously no.

If you are a group that has political power, you don't need guns, and if you are group that doesn't have political power, there aren't enough guns to make a difference against the full force of the most powerful gov't in the world crashing on you.  Guns won't protect you from bombs falling from the sky.

If we do have a civil war, it's going to be decided by tanks and missiles, not handguns.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 09:12:09 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

MaineDolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11668

MaineDolFan
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2020, 10:26:44 am »



If we do have a civil war, it's going to be decided by tanks and missiles, not handguns.



And very scary drones.
Logged

"God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-Voltaire
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 13850


cf_dolfan
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2020, 10:35:47 am »

I just have a really hard time seeing police and then military attacking gun supporters regardless of who is in power. Police and military are overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian. Like I said ... sheriffs in Va have already said they would deputize every citizen.

If liberal politicians aren't supporting laws they choose not to I'm not so sure why you think conservatives would enforce laws they do not agree with to that extent.
Logged

Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Bill Murray
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 12132



« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2020, 11:09:28 am »

The whole "2nd amendment protects you from the government" idea is pure fantasy anyway.  (The idea that Jews in Nazi Germany would have been fine if only they had pistols is particularly demented.) As I've said before, if the gov't jackboots show up at your door to take you, it won't matter how many guns you have, and if you have the political power to prevent the government from taking you into custody, you never needed the guns in the first place.

Consider the following five scenarios:

1) Japanese citizens being rounded up in 1942
2) Branch Davidian compound in 1993
3) Bundy Ranch in 2014
4) Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016
5) ICE roundups 2017-current

Do you think 1, 2, or 5 would turn out differently if the civilians had more guns?  Do you think 3 or 4 would have turned out differently if the civilians had fewer guns?  The answer to both is obviously no.

If you are a group that has political power, you don't need guns, and if you are group that doesn't have political power, there aren't enough guns to make a difference against the full force of the most powerful gov't in the world crashing on you.  Guns won't protect you from bombs falling from the sky.

If we do have a civil war, it's going to be decided by tanks and missiles, not handguns.



Actually I think they would have turned out significantly different.  For example with #1 rather than the Japanese American being peaceful round up and detained for the length of the war, the armed resistance of a few would be seen as justification for extermination of many.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Fau Teixeira
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 5204



« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2020, 11:29:09 am »

Quote
I just have a really hard time seeing police and then military attacking gun supporters regardless of who is in power. Police and military are overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian

at this point they wouldn't be "gun supporters" they'd be "domestic terrorists threatening the public safety"
Logged
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 12132



« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2020, 11:41:47 am »

at this point they wouldn't be "gun supporters" they'd be "domestic terrorists threatening the public safety"

+1. 

NRA also considers it your constitutional right to own armor-piercing bullets.  Many in law enforcement even those who are republicans or libertarians understand why their nickname is ďcop killersĒ and donít want to face someone with such ammo. 
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 13850


cf_dolfan
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2020, 11:48:17 am »

"domestic terrorists threatening the public safety"
LOL .... you mean those people who let illegals go and then the illegals kill citizens?
Logged

Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Bill Murray
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 12132



« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2020, 11:57:56 am »

LOL .... you mean those people who let illegals go and then the illegals kill citizens?

It is well documented that undocumented aliens are actually less likely to commit crime than native born citizens. 
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Tenshot13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6676


Email
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2020, 12:43:49 pm »

It is well documented that undocumented aliens are actually less likely to commit crime than native born citizens. 
Who cares, they aren't supposed to be here to begin with.
Logged
Fau Teixeira
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 5204



« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2020, 01:03:52 pm »

LOL .... you mean those people who let illegals go and then the illegals kill citizens?

I don't understand your comment. My point was that no matter who it is, whether is a bunch of snowflake liberals or a bunch of gunbro trumpers .. the minute they go against the government, they'll be labeled as domestic terrorists, they'll be referred to in that manner across every newscast in the country. the propaganda will be so overwhelming that any soldier or law enforcement type will shoot them without a shred of hesitation, or an ounce of guilt. and then be celebrated as heroes. and it won't matter one iota that they're good people or just "gun supporters" they'll get steamrolled.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines