Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

About csarmi

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/19/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Budapest, Hungary
  • Interests
    card games, chess, fantasy, sci-fi and history books
  1. I mean I may be wrong but at the minimum, there is no point in discussing that point (universal suffrage).
  2. He said a lot of things that should disqualify him from any discussion. But specifically I'm referring to the fact that he said universal suffrage was a mistake. I mean, there is no common ground for talking at that point. I used Mafia terms to lighten it, but I seriously do think that. Please note that this is not personal. I'm talking about whether it's worth talking at all. Which surely makes sense in a discussion.
  3. I mean Nolder hardclaimed wolf and you guys are still talking to him for some reason.
  4. Yea. To continue your house analogy: what you're doing now is letting a dozen monkeys lose in the house. They may just do something useful if you're lucky. I guess. Or you'll just get the same house with more mess and a lot of crap.
  5. I don't follow, why is this a must? As an aside the rest of your post seems to assume that someone needs to eventually take power ala the Emperor in Star Wars. While that could be a threat to liberty the more likely scenario and the one I believe the Founders were thinking of is a slow encroachment on rights and freedoms from the federal government. I think they believed just the threat of a mass armed citizen revolt would hopefully ever keep this from occurring. I don't think they counted on the complacent couch potato society we've become. As long as citizens are actively involved in democracy and vote for polices and politicians who will act in their best interest, and the best interests of the country and world as a whole, I see no real threat of this experiment failing. The danger is when voters become so disillusioned with or disbelieving in the validity of the system that they either don't vote, cast "protest" votes, or vote for candidates who they know won't help them, but who promise to at least hurt other people, or worse, promise to tear the system down, that the systematic checks come under stress and the experiment could be threatened. I mean you guys have voted Trump in and half the country prefers simple lies to complicated reality. You are certainly doing alright on the despotism movement. Still a long way to go, but the track is right.
  6. Reading all this, I certainly wish this was the case.
  7. Because it's the people's right, and it's largely their right in case they need to overthrow that same government. I understand.
  8. Because driving is a privilege while firearm ownership is a right. Oh I see. Why?
  9. It's not the government business whether you own guns and have a proper training of their usage? Why?
  10. Cars are just tools too. Why is a permit needed to drive them?
  11. I gather from this topic that this guy didn't do anything unlawful until he started shooting, in fact his behaviour shouldn't even raise red flags either cause constitution? Is that correct?
  12. Clearly the problem is that the people attending the concert didn't have enough guns. More guns equals less shooting. Simple maths.
  • Create New...