Don't knock it until you've tried it.

But as a beginner, I urge you to start with the marmalade. The jelly is for experts only.

She likes marmalade better.

Trouble is social distancing gets in the way.

Bow-chicka-bow-whoa, what the fuck just happened?

Tell us more about your girlfriend, girlfriend!

I second that.

Might be a repeat:

Attachment 71380

Well, naval jelly *is* a corrosion remover... You can connect the dots. If you connect all those dots you get an underscore.

Can someone tell me what's going on in the States when you have groups like this wandering about, and how are they allowed to?

US News and World Report ran an article yesterday making the case that these militias are not actually legal, but that broadly summarizes the rationale for allowing them to exist:

(i'm not really sure I agree with their conclusion - that these are roundly illegal, that is - but i also don't really care a whole lot about arguing what some two-hundred-year-old document really means anyway so)

Same attitudes brought about something called the Nazi party. Complete with justification because jews, et al were a threat to all. They were told that. So it must be true.

They need assault weapons to protect themselves using same reasoning. Adults who are still children. Nazi party targeted (recruited) same type people.

We are out of our damn minds over here.

Because we are a genuinely democratic republic. The sole source of political capital in a democracy -- and hence power -- is the electorate.

People who misunderstand civilized thought protest, "But that is just power to kill!" And so it is. What they miss completely is that the crude power to kill translates very efficiently to the refined power of the ballot.

Which is at least more polite, and an exercise of faith in the society's tenets.

The guns are for when and if that faith is lost. An unarmed electorate is an electorate *without* a power anyone's "obliged to respect." You can google that phrase and see where it came from and why it's in quotes.

In a fit of theorizing, founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote that the tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and of patriots. He never had to live with that more than the once, 1775-1783.

They're just rehearsing for Halloween.

I see your chiefest function in a gunfight will be that of a sandbag. Presumably you are built rather like a sandbag, with shoes.

I'm not really sure death threats are appropriate here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.

Yes, the emphasis on "obliged to respect" kinda seals it, doesn't it?

Our founding documents state

and nothing about a subset of those men who are armed, y'know, so others are obliged to respect them.

What widespread gun possession does is reduce the margin for error to the length and force of a trigger pull. Bad decisions are executed faster, more emphatically, more fatally. Being armed does not exempt one from making bad decisions, that's a human trait we all share.

The news is overflowing with reports of shootings that did not need to happen. Can the term unjustified be used? Yes, in the vernacular; no, in the strictest legal sense in many cases. And not just in the horrific stories about overreactions by police. Civilians are just as liable to make rash choices that have tragic consequences.

Let me ask you about Jake Gardner, you can google that name and see the news stories where it appears. He had the right to a fair trial but that's moot now that he's dead. How did a gun oblige others to respect his rights? Of course it didn't. All it did was accelerate the consequences of a bad decision.

Let me ask one more thing. When has using your power to kill ever obliged someone to respect your rights?

A 'scope and a rainbow magazine on his assault rifle.
That guy is conflicted.

Black lives matter more when one carries an assault rifle.

UG said so. It must be true.

not talking about the sticker, but the shape of the ammunition magazine, like a "rainbow"

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

Kill 'em all, let God Clod sort 'em out, seems more fair.

Looks like it was just a bureaucratic typo that put me in charge, like in "Brazil." Guess I'll just have to accept my fate as a supreme deity. You can't fight City Hall.

Get Santa Claus to help you. He's already done a lot of the legwork: making lists, checking them twice, keeping track of who's been naughty or nice.

Can't wait for the part where you rise up on a giant clam shell. :yum:

Rights matter more when you have an assault rifle. You can stop authoritarians with assault rifles -- in batches of twenty if your marksmanship is good. Batches of thirty if you have those magazines to hand, like the guy with the painted magazine in his AR. You have those rights you can enforce -- regardless of anything militated against them. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Which is civilization. Anything other -- isn't.

I say so -- but you carefully refuse to learn it. What a low character you amount to. I am thoughtful, you are less so. I commit to liberty and human rights. You in particular have never done that. That's what's wrong with you.

Brought you round to accuracy. I recollect having gotten on your case before. As is evident between your lines, you value your fear more than you value your liberty. I don't.

You must intimidate tyrants. Or they'll feel free to kill you. I think you'd find that awkward.

Let's play a quick game of find the potential tyrant. I suspect you won't be there to help remove him if he pretends the election was invalid. Who is the potential tyrant in this picture?

.

What Griff said.^^^

If Griff said what it looks like Griff said...

NOT what Griff said.

Seriously, my child: YOU can call him anything you like. That doesn't MAKE him anything. Nor does it make ME believe anything. Not even if petulance is your latest hobby. You're afraid of the wrong people, you know.

How many genuine tyrants afford a Second Amendment? Think they could? And how does DJT view the Second?

Who are you attacking this time?

UG

dude, you crack me up.

Jesus maybe?

Who is the only person that Trump will not attack? Himself. Maybe.

I see V, tw, and Griff would rather make their root-canal appointments than look up what Trump's view of the Second Amendment is.

Any 2A activist you know will tell you that the electorate armed is something a tyrant cannot survive nor endure.

Griff's stance is particularly untenable -- and were he genuinely concerned the country was sliding into tyranny or something, Griff would be out getting at least three firearms: a rifle (an AR type in 5.56mm NATO chambering probably the easiest to feed regardless), a pistol suiting his tastes, and a .22 rimfire (anything) to practice with surely and cheaply. Centerfire ammo runs into bucks unless you'd like to get into reloading, which in a genuinely concerning national situation of the above sort might be a darn good option to have around.

But I do not observe a sign of genuine, true concern from him. What I see reading between his lines is an intense emotional state -- like fear. As I said, of the wrong people.

Tell that to an Apache helicopter or A-10. :rolleyes:

Griff is well armed.

Trump supports the 2nd in hopes that Vanilla ISIS is Standing BY. We are beyond well-armed as a nation. We have enough guns and ammo to kill the shit out of each other while Putin enjoys the show. We'd be better off respecting the electoral process and learning how to interact with the government officials we elect instead of taking our guns to the State House every time we are asked to be humane.