WTH is this website, and why should I give them clicks?

Polls are a waste of time ..

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:

See the men responded to the British operation at Lexington and Concord for greater definition. They were ordinary citizens defending their towns and homes.

My 6th Great Grandfather was one who was on the green at Lexington when the first shot was fired. His son was there, too.

On another branch, my 7th Great Grandfather mustered the next day. A couple of years later he was taken prisoner by the British and sent as forced labor in a coal mine.

Both men were farmers, just Average Joe citizens. Just like everybody else. They had muster drills in their town square since the towns were founded, and they provided their own weapons of war.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Smerconish = douchebag

Calling this creep a douchebag is an insult to actual vaginal cleaning devices. Guy played a pretty conservative Republican for years until Obama came along and then he suddenly is a virtual Democrat? PUH LEEZE

Clickbait Polls 101.

Step 1: Create a poll specifically designed to generate a strong reaction from a large segment of the population.

Step 2: Have a few guerilla marketing accounts around the interwebs mention it on various messageboards/forums/subreddits/Twitter threads/etc. Then wait for other folks to run with it, and spread it like wildfire.

Step 3: Watch the number of clicks on your website skyrocket.

Step 4: Profit! Collect that fat check from your embedded ads, thanks to the exponentially higher traffic your website received compared to normal. And as a bonus, you can also now attract even bigger/better advertisers, based on your newly inflated site traffic stats.


Hook. Line. And sinker.

So... How many of ya'll just put money in the pocket of that apparent "creep/douchebag" by visiting his site to vote in this meaningless poll?

^^^Not this guy...The only polls I participate in are those posted on SIGforum!

quote:

Originally posted by ARman:
The Second Amendment doesn't grant shit. It tells the fucking asshole government to keep their grubby hands off, and to fuck off.

ARman

I can add nothing to this statement, except "AMEN!"

Fly-Sig, you have an amazing family history!

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:
I like asking commies that offer the militia as the reason for the amendment why a government would feel the need to protect it's right to arm itself. There are no governments anywhere in the history of the world that felt they needed to codify their access to arms.

And in a document defining the rights of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Fly-Sig, you have an amazing family history!

Most people do, they just don't know it!

I am descended directly from 5 families that were on the Mayflower. Something like a 35 million other Americans are descended from Mayflower passengers.

A lot of colonists came over in the 1600's and early 1700's, and they had big families. Six to ten children is common. Across a few generations it multiplies into a lot of descendants.

There are fun and colorful stories to be found. Lots of farmers, but also tavern owners, sailors, etc. Even if the ancestors were in other countries, the stories are really cool. For everyone here, their family histories are amazing.

You can always count on a leftist to screw with you by playing with the definitions of words. Deliberately conflating different definitions, using one while implying another, or just making up new secret ones as needed, they're always playing with definitions and corrupting language. It's intentional.

'A militia'? As opposed to 'the militia' which has been properly defined earlier. The very concept of 'rights' is also being screwed with. The government does not give or grant or allow rights. Individual humans have rights, merely by virtue of being individual humans and a government exists to protect the rights of citizens of the polity that chartered that government.

So the 2nd doesn't grant any rights it just explicitly acknowledges what was judged at the time to be one of the most vital ones, in case anyone might get confused.

It explicitly restricts government from interfering with the bearing of arms of any member of the citizenry, while offering a reminder of the importance of *the* militia (the subset of the citizenry that was actually expected to bear them).

Doesn't say much about protecting the rights of non-citizens, which is absolutely correct. Sure non-citizens are people too so they have rights but protecting those rights is someone else's problem... maybe they could get a government of their own for that.

Odd that the website doesn't display the results of this particular poll. The poll from day before, the poll from the day after, yes, but not that particular one.

Then again, Smirkonish is a well-known douche weasel who couldn't make it doing what he does as a conservative, so he switched over to doing what he does as a liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Individual humans have rights, merely by virtue of being individual humans and a government exists to protect the rights of citizens of the polity that chartered that government.

Some would argue the opposite, that rights are whatever the authority allows. If that is the case, my retort is then that we are in a Might Makes Right situation, and we have the "right" to whatever we can forcibly get. And thus we can have any weaponry we want, and the Constitution means nothing, public opinion means nothing, the law itself means nothing. Their position precludes any basis to claim morality.

quote:

Their position precludes any basis to claim morality.

I agree with you but, FWIW, that's why Anqueefa's adopted the notion that "society is more important than the individual" as a moral stance. That's how the other commies justify everything they do.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Their position precludes any basis to claim morality.

I agree with you but, FWIW, that's why Anqueefa's adopted the notion that "society is more important than the individual" as a moral stance. That's how the other commies justify everything they do.

So if we can convince the majority to view something our way, it is ok? That does seem to be their belief. Again, back to Might Makes Right, because there is no foundational moral good, only what society views as desirable. Given adequate violence, threats, and general unrest, society can be convinced to agree to almost anything.

Such a strategy has been used many times, including by antifa.

I doubt the typical gun ban advocate welcomes settling gun rights via a no-holds-barred approach, yet that is what their philosophy supports if rights are controlled by authority.

I love tweaking leftists with challenges like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Fly-Sig, you have an amazing family history!

Most people do, they just don't know it!

I am descended directly from 5 families that were on the Mayflower. Something like a 35 million other Americans are descended from Mayflower passengers.

A lot of colonists came over in the 1600's and early 1700's, and they had big families. Six to ten children is common. Across a few generations it multiplies into a lot of descendants.

There are fun and colorful stories to be found. Lots of farmers, but also tavern owners, sailors, etc. Even if the ancestors were in other countries, the stories are really cool. For everyone here, their family histories are amazing.

Yep, I am descended from one of Queen Anne's Privateers. One of my ancestor's brothers was Daniel Boone ("The Daniel Boone"). Ancestry can be very interesting.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Individual humans have rights, merely by virtue of being individual humans and a government exists to protect the rights of citizens of the polity that chartered that government.

Some would argue the opposite, that rights are whatever the authority allows. If that is the case, my retort is then that we are in a Might Makes Right situation, and we have the "right" to whatever we can forcibly get. And thus we can have any weaponry we want, and the Constitution means nothing, public opinion means nothing, the law itself means nothing. Their position precludes any basis to claim morality.

Well they can do that, but I would be reluctant to call them American as they don't understand our government, why we have it, the role of our foundational law and the entire tradition of thought that led to all those things.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Their position precludes any basis to claim morality.

I agree with you but, FWIW, that's why Anqueefa's adopted the notion that "society is more important than the individual" as a moral stance. That's how the other commies justify everything they do.

So if we can convince the majority to view something our way, it is ok? That does seem to be their belief. Again, back to Might Makes Right, because there is no foundational moral good, only what society views as desirable. Given adequate violence, threats, and general unrest, society can be convinced to agree to almost anything.

Such a strategy has been used many times, including by antifa.

I doubt the typical gun ban advocate welcomes settling gun rights via a no-holds-barred approach, yet that is what their philosophy supports if rights are controlled by authority.

I love tweaking leftists with challenges like this.

The notion of what the majority says is correct by definition and must be done was tried out in Athens and found wanting. Resulted in chaos blood and death any time the mob got worked up, and as there was always a mob ready to get worked up (the rowers of the fleet got used to plunder and were always looking for any excuse to go to war to get more) it wasn't pretty.

The philosophy behind our founding contained a direct repudiation of that notion. No matter what a majority might say, it coyld have its way only within predefined limits... there are things no majority is allowed to do.

Even attempting to alter the predefined limits of what a majority might do was made extremely difficult.

No part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) "grants" rights to citizens. The Constitution provides strict limitations on government, and the Bill of Rights enumerates (specifically identifies) and guarantees those natural rights commonly agreed to exist prior to the formation of our country.

Those on the political left view the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome (rightfully so; that was the original intent), and pursue a new form of government in which the people are subservient to the edicts of government. Hence the wording of polls and proposed legislation, as we see here, pre-supposing that government is the authority for granting or denying the rights of the people.

Those on the political right understand the importance of constraining government and maintaining self-rule.

Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and others of the Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the dangers of democracy, commonly understood as the "tyranny of the majority". The Constitution was specifically drafted to limit the powers and scope of government; and even then the Constitution was rejected until a Bill of Rights was added to codify the natural rights of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Go back to the times the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. The Militia was the average ordinary Joe.
See the men responded to the British operation at Lexington and Concord for greater definition. They were ordinary citizens defending their towns and homes.

Speaking of Lexington and Concord the reason that troop of Redcoats was in the area was because they had been sent out to Seize all of the available gunpowder and a small field canon rumored to be in the area. So those Militia were actually defending the right to retain a True Military Assault Weapon. So those trying to just ban "Assault Weapons" can go piss up a stick and lick their hands for the flavor.

I will also point out that the British had recently hung two men for Treason for handing out pamphlets protesting the way this colony was being administered. So, it is no accident that the 2nd Amendment was in that specific spot on the Bill of Rights, it is there to protect the 1st Amendment by force of Arms if necessary. Note, Ben Franklin is noted for commenting that a Revolution every 20 years might be a good thing. It's one of the reasons why we have short election cycles for Congress because it was felt that could stand in for a revolution. Unfortunately we are now being ruled by the Media in all of it's nasty forms (facebook, twitter, broadcast media, Paper media, and etc.) and the day could come when a Revolution may be necessary.