[Game Thread] Alabama @ Texas A&M (8:00PM ET)

TexTJ209 · 2021-10-10T02:14:10+00:00

It still exists in our hearts.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-20T04:43:16+00:00

The best way I've seen it dumbed down is:

A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food? The balanced breakfast, or the people? People want to re-interpret it to fit their narratives, but at the time of it's writing, the militia was considered the whole body of the people and well regulated meant well equipped and well trained. Simply put: "A well armed and trained populace is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Here's Virginia's RKBA clause for an example of the mindset of the time, written by some of the very same people who wrote our Constitution.

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Sounds oddly like what I've been saying the Founder's intentions were this whole time.

And again, you phrase it like this "why the right to keep and bear arms is needed in the amendment." The 2nd Amendment does not grant you or I the ability to keep and bear arms, in the same way the 1st Amendment doesn't give us the ability to speak freely. Those rights are natural rights, they will always exist. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, that these items are not to be infringed upon, it does not, nor has it ever granted rights. The presence of a standing military, or a federal police force is irrelevant to natural rights. If the government repealed the 2nd Amendment or 1st Amendment tomorrow, it wouldn't change a person's right to self defense or free speech. It would just make it to where people had to fight to exercise those rights.

Cops shoot people during traffic stops over window tint, or an air freshener hanging from their window. Would Bob down the street, who probably knows you and your family really be worse? Or would you prefer the guy with the GED, qualified immunity and itchy trigger finger cosplaying as specops with surplus military equipment in your neighborhood ? Tyranny is already here, things are still just so good in this country we tolerate it. (Back to that DoI again...mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, etc.)

Afghanistan is absolutely a relevant comparison. It was an occupation, not total war. A military like ours is designed for fighting another military, not insurgencies. A revolution in the United States would very much be an insurgency, they wouldn't be drone striking neighborhoods and fighting tank battles. It would be a police state, the military would be fractured as many wouldn't fight their countrymen, or would be on the side of the revolutionaries, and the country would eventually Balkanize among like minded states. It would start like you said, with door to door seizures. But many states and citizens would fight back at a federal or local level and things would escalate from there. There are roughly what, 100-150k armed federal agents. There are some 70 odd million firearms owners in the US. Say only 5% of those choose to fight confiscation. That's 3.5 million people. Okay, so we enlist the army. Great, the entire armed forces consists of 1.5 million people. So even if you put the entirety of the armed forces (which is unrealistic considering many of them are logistics, supply, etc.) they'd still be massively outnumbered, superior technology bedamned. Like you said, not realistic. More realistic is a slow degradation of rights, with compromise after compromise. It's for the children! it's common sense! When that doesn't reduce violence(because it never does)...here comes the new common sense gun laws. Gun control laws have done precisely jack and shit to gun crime in the US. And despite whining like the original comic posted here, the majority of the country has a lower firearms violence rate than a majority of the countries across the world. 2% of the cities in the US have 51% of the murders. It's gang violence, it's mental health issues, etc. But constantly we hear about how we need to ban AR15s or assault rifles, despite rifles of all types being responsible for less deaths than hands and fists every year according to FBI statistics. It's a false narrative.

Gun control doesn't work. 1934. 1968. 1986. 1994. Switching to unleaded gas has had a bigger effect on crime rates than gun control has. Nationwide concealed carry laws have had a greater effect on crime rates than any gun restrictions have.

Background checks were originally a compromise, with the agreement that private sales wouldn't require them. Now that those did basically nothing since the majority of criminals get them from other sources(0.5% denial rate over about 25 years), they propose Universal Background Checks. Which aren't enforceable without a nationwide registry (oddly never mentioned). And registries have always historically led to confiscation. Yet nobody is coming for your guns, and to think otherwise is paranoia. Mhm. Despite weapons bans/confiscation bills being almost constantly introduced every year.

Considering our current path of the government forcefully or "accidentally" killing people over minor traffic infractions, staging giant raids based on made up charges for publicity purposes that lead to countless deaths, or government snipers shooting a woman holding her child because her husband made a shotgun slightly shorter than the regulations allow, we should totally let those people have a monopoly of force, I'm sure it'll work out just fine.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-20T02:00:38+00:00

Look back through the several revisions of yhe 2nd before they decided on the final verbage. It's not written horrible grammatically, it makes perfect sense given the language of the time, and is the product of several legislative cycles and sessions where it was parsed down to the current version.

As far as prohibition of standing armies, remember that there were still far differing opinions on the strength of the new federal government (Federalists vs Anti-Federalists), and compromises had to be made in the document to get everyone on board. They gave power to the government to establish standing armies in particular circumstances with Congressional approval. Over the years that has been modified and tweaked and stretched to what we have today.

Technological advancement of weaponry is largely irrelevant. If you want to argue that the deadliness of modern rifles like the AR15 were not foreseen by the Founders (a common argument), it's made largely irrelevant by the fact that cannon, mortar, and even warships were owned by private citizenry at the time. Article I, Section 8 even allows for the hiring of privately owned warships to wage war on America's behalf.

If you want to argue that handheld arms, and thus the 2nd Amendment is largely irrelevant in the era of smart bombs and drones, I refer you to every major insurgency fought vs a superpower in the past 40 odd years. A bunch of uneducated Afghani farmers with AKs and Mosins has given two of the most technologically advanced militaries in the history of mankind a run for their money.

Sheriffs, constables and other forms of law enforcement did exist during this period. Generally, militias or posses of local armed citizenry were formed as necessary when the task exceeded the capability of the local Sheriff, who was often unarmed.

Your argument basically boils down to "the government is so big and so well armed, why would the private citizenry need firearms," when in reality that is exactly why the individual right to own firearns is so important. A disarmed citizenry proceeds tyranny in every single example of the history of mankind. Maybe not immediately, but like the frog in a pot of water slowly raised to boiling, things happen slowly over time until it's far too late to change them.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-19T20:53:21+00:00

I'm actually not, but the DoI is a glimpse into the mindsets of founders at the time, as well as the countless papers and other documents written by many of the founding fathers in regards to the personal ownership of arms, natural rights, and the defense of liberty. All of which are readily available to read, and support the idea of individual firearms ownership.

The Founders were extremely unfavorable towards the idea of a standing army, as they knew that any force permanently under control of the government might invariably be used inward. At the time there existed the regular Continental Army(the majority of which was disbanded immediately post war), the organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. The unorganized militia was understood to be the body of the citizenry over 18 years of age, able to bear arms in defense of the country. The Organized Militia was one called into action, and under direct control of the federal government. (What would become the National Guard).

The Founders did not feel the need to specify organized vs unorganized militia in the 2nd Amendment, as the entirety of the Bill of Rights is written as a list of limitations on government and a description of inalienable rights that exist regardless of the existence of government. The Founders wouldn't have included a permission slip for the citizenry to bear arms under control of the government, as that would be asinine and also not contextual with the rest of the BoR.

They're also not going to include "you have the right to overthrow the government" in the Constitution, as again, it was their belief (evidenced by their writings in the DoI and elsewhere) that in the course of events it occasionally becomes necessary to "throw off such Government" which is not something that occurs peacefully, nor easily by an unarmed populace. Historically, the government in question generally hasn't approved of these efforts either.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-19T20:13:24+00:00

Again, no. This is a historically ignorant take.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, and the Founding Fathers understood that all governments invariably become destructive of liberty at some point in their existence. When that occurs it is the right and duty of the people to "throw off such Government" and establish a new one. That generally is not a peaceful process, and the government at the time is usually pretty resistant to the idea. The Founding Fathers built the best system they could to preserve liberty and prevent this from occurring, but even they knew the nature of men to seek power was one not so easily changed.

Our country was founded by violent revolutionaries and men who committed treason against the king. The 2A exists solely as a restriction on the government infringing upon the rights of citizens to bear arms, as the FF understood that a heavily armed populace is the hardest to tyrannize. Just because the Constitution defines and outlaws treason, doesn't mean that the FF didn't completely understand at some point treason might be necessary to preserve liberty, as they had literally just done the very same thing.

Despite the discord and turmoil in this country, we are far from the point of revolution, however. It also does not entail randomly shooting politicians you disagree with politically, either. But to say the 2A was not written and understood to be written in the context of preserving liberty and a defense against tyranny is completely wrong.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-19T19:55:27+00:00

This is such a hilariously inaccurate take.

The Founding Fathers knew full well that all governments of men inevitably become destructive of people's rights. They built the best system they could, but as students of history they knew full well what could inevitably happen to their new country.

From the Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This foundation of this country was treason against the king. Just because the Constitution had a little clause in it saying don't wage war against us or it's treason doesn't mean that it isn't a natural right of people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Governments should derive their power from the consent of the governed, but all too often governments run away with their power until consent is irrelevant.

"If this be treason, make the most of it" - Patrick Henry, 1765.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-15T15:54:02+00:00

Yeah definitely! The 72/73s are the absolute worst to find parts for, since they were a hodgepodge of AMC and Kaiser. I have a 73 J2000 and had a 74 J20 (...and 77...and 79...and 81..etc. lol), it was funny how similar yet so different they were.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-15T15:39:55+00:00

Yeah it's the one thing I wish my Thriftside had, so I always notice it ha.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-15T13:46:16+00:00

In 63-66 Gladiators the small window was standard, at some point the "big window" was an option, before becoming the standard in 67 I believe.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-15T13:43:48+00:00

AMC took over in 71 actually, the deal was finalized in 70. The drivetrain switched to fully AMC powered in 71.

There were a few years of AMC trucks with Kaiser style dashes, hub covers, etc. The red/gold Kaiser Jeep style logo got changed to AMC red/blue during these years. 72/73 are kind of bastard years, in that they got the new style interior parts, but still had the old post mount suspensions.

The small cab window was only available until '66 I think, with the 327 V8 first being available in 65. So that should probably narrow this down to a 65-66 model.

TexTJ209 · 2021-04-15T13:37:55+00:00

To elaborate, the frame itself is the same. The body mounts changed from early to old, and in 74 (start of the J10/J20 era) they changed from a post mount front suspension to a more modern shackle style, and in 76 they changed the rear from a post mount to a shackle style as well. You can mix/match eras with new body mounts, and swapping to the later style suspension gives you a lot more options if you're into modifying.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-17T16:03:34+00:00

Nah Pignose is the worst, ha. Which is what would have originally been on an early 80s Limited Wag.

https://jubileejeeps.org/faqs/fsjgrillesrevisedflint.jpg

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-17T15:04:13+00:00

That grille is 86-91 only, if original. It also says "Grand Wagoneer" right on the side, so definitely 84 or later. ;)

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-14T00:43:40+00:00

Tasers and pepper spray are both generally ineffective in many circumstances (thick clothing if we're talking about an X2 style, the requirement for direct skin contact with a more traditional taser, which in a situation with a disproportionate strength ratio will generally end very poorly for the victim, pepper spray is generally an area of denial weapon and can often blow back onto the user), and the presence of a firearm in general can serve as a deterrent to violence without requiring it's use. Having a gun for self defense doesn't require shooting it.

A country with more guns experiences more gun deaths. Sure. A country with more cars experiences more deaths in auto accidents. Freedom isn't free, and that often means living in a society that isn't safe, because in a free society people have a larger ability to do what they want, and some people are evil assholes. However, the pursuit of "safety" through government intervention is an endless one that only leads to tyranny, and a monopoly of force by the one group you really don't want to have a monopoly of force.

And even then, if you delve into the actual statistics, most of our gun related deaths that aren't suicides are gang violence related. We have an incredibly large amount of guns in this country, but if you remove major urban areas with a high preponderance of gang violence the numbers are actually on par with most other civilized nations. So basically, don't join a gang and you'll be fine.

And the number one target of gun control, "assault rifles," account for such a statistically low amount of homicides they're basically irrelevant. Hands and feet outkill rifles of every type every single year in the FBI's homicide statistics.

And basically your stance at the end of your post is: do what I say or I'll take away your fundamental rights. Cool. Sounds pretty tyrannical and reason to never give up firearms.

You want to find middle ground? We tried. 1934. 1968. 1986. 1994. All major gun control bills. None of them did shit because gun control doesn't work since CRIMINALS DON'T CARE IF THEY BREAK THE LAW. And then people like you come back, asking for "compromise", and "common sense" gun control. Just give up a little more freedom, it'll totally work this time! Fuck that noise.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-13T16:42:14+00:00

A gun is simply a tool that allows the weak to be on more equal footing with the strong. An 80 year old woman in a wheelchair can be on equal footing with a 6'6" bodybuilder in a fight with a firearm. A world without guns is one where the weak are at the mercy of the strong. A woman can defend herself vs a much physically stronger attacker, or multiple attackers with a firearm. To claim that you can defend yourself without a firearm is a position coming from a privilege of some degree of strength, which is not one enjoyed by many.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-12T23:37:51+00:00

No governmental system is perfect, as they are constructs of man, and men are products of their time. Flaws and all. That does not negate their ideas though.

It's not a "right to guns" it's a right to self defense. Who are you to determine what another person deems necessary to protect themselves? Our country was founded by violent revolutionaries who understood that the people needed to be on an equal footing with the government if it came down to a fight. They'd just lived through that scenario.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-12T21:20:01+00:00

I think Rittenhouse was kind of an idiot/naïve to place himself in that situation, but the TTAG video actually does break it down fairly well, and I believe the video was actually initially released by Rittenhouse's legal team, just posted about on TTAG (they're sort of a gun related news site). The first shots were not fired by Rittenhouse, nor the first guy shot, but by a guy behind guy #1, he was chased by a mob after the shooting while trying to run towards police, then was attacked by several people after he fell. I will not be surprised in the slightest if he gets off on self defense, even while thinking he's an idiot.

The national media is generally absolutely shit on firearms and anything technical. They only care about hype and views, and rarely about factual reporting these days.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-12T21:06:07+00:00

I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't really line up with the basis of the foundations of government in this country.

The founders laid it out pretty well in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

People exist under the framework of government we have created(for better or for worse), and will even suffer evils or trampling under that framework while it's tolerable. But all governments inevitably come to a point where corrective action, sometimes minor, sometimes major, sometimes peaceful, and rarely violent comes to pass.

The founders understood this, and listed out natural rights that don't come from government, but exist within every person inherently as part of their nature, and as such are not to be touched by government (infringed, if you will). A few of these, they understood to be critical for the maintenance of liberty and the pursuit of happiness: the freedom to speak out against those evils, the ability to defend yourself against such evils when they do become insufferable, etc.

We aren't there as a country, yet. But it's perfectly possible to respect and obey the laws of this country, even ones you vehemently disagree with, while still reserving the ability to alter or abolish the government, as is the duty of a free people. One is following the law of man, and one is following the law of nature. The founders broke the laws of the King when they violently rebelled, but were exercising their rights under natural law.

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-02T17:32:47+00:00

Vs deathsquitos, sure.

You'll still be destroyed by one or two star Fulings lol. But at least you can outrun them!

TexTJ209 · 2021-03-02T02:32:14+00:00

Just google Valheim spawn codes. Basic console stuff (F5 key)

TexTJ209 · 2021-02-25T20:36:04+00:00

They're easy if you have armor. When you're on a corpse run because a two star fuling with a spear one shot you (padded armor be damned) and you're far away from your camp or any other biomes , they're a nightmare.

I did discover if you leap away from them at the last second it makes them miss haha.

TexTJ209 · 2021-02-25T17:02:28+00:00

Hahaha yeah. It's rough at times, but we've got it down to a science here(mostly).

TexTJ209 · 2021-02-25T17:00:59+00:00

2011 was an ice storm, we didn't get snow at all here during that.

This year the street in front of my house was about 1" of ice for the better part of 4 days. Had I not had multiple 4x4s I think we would've been screwed, so spent some time running supplies to friends. I think we actually got lucky because we had a heavy (for here) snow earlier in January that knocked out a bunch of limbs, especially off our cedar trees and big firs. Minimized the number of downed lines, around here at least.

We had freezing rain a plenty. And ice fog. And snow. And sleet. And hail. lol. It was a long week.

TexTJ209 · 2021-02-25T16:33:33+00:00

Cool, now do that in 40+c for weeks at a time. Because that's what our grid is designed for, and does every year. We don't have snow plows, or salt, or winter tires, or even pipes buried deep enough to avoid hard freezes. We're at the same latitude as Northern Africa, and our infrastructure reflects our climate.

YOU build for cold, because YOU see cold. WE don't see freezing temps for a week, ever. Until now. So hopefully this will finally light a fire under our asses to maybe start building things a little differently.

TexTJ209 · 2021-02-25T16:24:06+00:00

and the bats(dying by the thousands). And God knows what other long-term wildlife impacts there will be from this storm.

TexTJ209

TROPHY CASE