The American's Creed
- Thread starter Brushy Bill
- Start date
********!! You have to be the dumbest and most gullible son of a ***** on the face of the earth.
The American's Creed" is the title of a resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 3, 1918. It is a statement written in 1917 by William Tyler Page as an entry into a patriotic contest.
I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed
Just in case it was unclear to some of you folks.
Hey dumbass, this is the actual text of The Second Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How painful was it for you to type this part to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies. I bet that made you nauseous as hell. Since you are feeling so patriotic can I get you to condemn this.
Last edited:
So there are two American Creeds that you wholeheartedly disagree with. How does that help your case exactly?
He shitstick, you planning to own up to that big fat lie or are you gonna keep hiding in the bushes?
If only you could/would abide by the tenants posted by Bill or by those written by WT Price but being the POS you are you believe in neither...
Little confused by that circled part being apart of the 2nd amendment. In any event, the argument isn’t about the right to bear arms. It’s the level of fire power since we were talking muzzle loaders when this was conceived. Fair argument to have.Just in case it was unclear to some of you folks.
The read slowly and read again are instructions for brushy ......not one of our brightest
I believe in the 2nd amendment (not without limits) but he thinks being bold, American, and free equates to how much fire power you can buy. Any moron can go into a gun store and buy weapons. Nothing particularly noble about it. Always confused by guys living in rural areas being more frightened of being attacked than a 100 pound woman walking around urban neighborhoods. Reversed logical.
Last edited:
Since those were the standard of that day, the standard of today would be the same since the government has that standard of power today. Any reasonable person can understand that.
A. How do you know they aren’t afraid? B. Wouldn’t matter anyway as they aren’t allowed to purchase or carry in most major metropolitan areas. C. Exercising a constitutional right couldn’t possibly be more American. Just like voting.
We didn't have internet when the 1st amendment was conceived, hence it's the logic and principle behind the amendment that one finds the meaning. Level of firepower has NOTHING to do with it.
Are you claiming that limits haven't been placed on which arms we are allowed to bear?
I'm confused. Limits have been placed on 2nd amendment rights, but what the limits should be is not a fair discussion to have?
It's a fair discussion to have, but it doesn't undermine the principle behind Washington's words, or the amendment itself.
The fact that the argument is being made that since limits have been made to 2A before so now we should discuss more limits points to why limits being placed at all was a bad idea.
The government posses tanks, fully automatic machine guns, and about thousand other weapons citizens do not have. Not to mention unlimited manpower & resources. So no, it's not a reasonable logical equivalent. A semi-automatic rifle, hell you own personal tank, would not defend you from "the government" should they be compelled to arrest you or invade a militia cell. It's school boy fantasy to think otherwise. It might prolong your capture or get the rest of your family killed but that is about it. Reasonable people would defend the 2nd amendment in the 21st century as the right to defend your person & property. A reasonable debate would be if that requires semi-autos that can (and do) inflict mass carnage against innocent people.
Whether or not the citizen could win in a conflict against a corrupt government is not the point. The point is that they have they ability to stand against that corrupt government and defend themselves as best as possible.
Reasonable people would defend the 2nd amendment as the right to defend your person & property against anyone, government or not.
If you are making the point that 2A should be expanded to include auto weapins and heavier weapons systems, I think its worth the discussion.
What do you think we’ve been fighting in Iraq and AFG for the last 18 years? Vietnam?
What's a predator drone?
What's a drone?
What makes a drone a predator?
What's the cost?
Wise statement !
Also relevant.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-tanks-roll-into-afghanistan
1979
Soviet tanks roll into Afghanistan
As a civilian, you’re also allowed to own fully automatic weapon, explosives, heavy machine guns, etc. it requires a Class III weapons license. In obtaining one, you are required to consent to anytime/anywhere inspection by the ATF, effectively removing your 4th amendment protections.
Your side needs to be more educated on these subjects before trying to engage into what you think is a reasonable and common sense solution oriented discussion.
About $13m for the plane. Total system is just around $20m. I mean, if you’re interested. 2 crew members to fly it, about 5 to maintain it. Assume about 3-5m a year in sustainment costs.
They conflate the combination of the "gun" with the "drone" as being a single unified weapon. They've never understood that is the use of the gun that is restricted.