Abortion - F
Affirmative Action - A based on ethnicity, F if based on economic background
Animal Rights - F
Barack Obama - A
Border Fence - A
Capitalism - F (with minor regulations to protect workers and consumers)
Civil Unions - A (marriage should not be in the hands of the state.)
Death Penalty - U
Drug Legalisation - F
Electoral College (US) - A
Environmental Protection - F
Inheritance Tax - A
European Union - A
Euthanasia - F
Central Bank - U
Flat Tax - U
Free Trade - F
Gay Marriage - F (like civil unions though, government should not be involved)
Global Warming is Caused by Humans - Uhh, does F mean I'm for global warming or does it mean I agree that we cause it?
Globalisation - F
Gold Standard - U
Gun Rights - F
Homeschooling - A
Internet Censorship - A
Labour Unions - U
Legalised Prostitution - F
Medicaid & Medicare - F
Medical Marijuana - F
Military Interventionism - U
Minimum Wage - F
National Health Care - U
National Retail Sales Tax - U
Occupy Movement - A
Progressive Taxation - U
Racial Profiling - A
Redistribution of Wealth - A
Smoking Ban - A
Social Programmes - U
Socialism - A
Stimulus Spending (Fiscal) - U
Stimulus (Monetary) - U
Term Limits - F
Torture - A
United Nations - F in theory, A in current implementation
NATO - F
War in Iraq - A
War in Afghanistan - A
War on Terror - U
Welfare - U

But, honestly, they're all pretty terrible.

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 12, 2014, 01:34:00 AM

Pretty sure the 2nd Amendment was speaking to townships.  The Continental Army wasn't everywhere, and you had the hostile British to the north and the Spaniards to the south.  It would be in the best interest of the nation for each town to have a militia that can mobilize quickly to deal with any foreign (or domestic) threats.  "Well-regulated" meaning that they are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms and guerrilla tactics.

The 2nd Amendment was poorly written, as evidenced by the fact that no one can agree what it means.

yeah, it was intended for organized regional militias

except anyone with a basic grasp of the English language can tell that it refers to an individual's right to keep and bear arms, not a specific group.

The militia bit is an acknowledgement that an armed populace is essential for a militia (which is an organized group of people using weapons they personally own), to exist.

There is nothing vague or unclear about it, this "not clear enough" bullshit was conceived and spread by the left for the sole purpose of agenda-pushing.

Absolutely never. If a man tries to run and punches me in the head, the fight's on. If he cuts me, the fight's on. If he shoots me, the fight's on. I'm not loosing no fight to no scumbag out there in no ghetto, period. That's it. No son of a bitch out there is gonna get me. The only way he gets me is to cut my head off, and I mean that. I'll fight you till I've got a breath in me.

You have a penis

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on November 11, 2014, 07:14:17 PM

Quote from: Isara on November 11, 2014, 07:13:02 PM

Too bad I don't have any peanut butter to satisfy my lust.

how about my dick to satisfy your lust

>your dick
>satisfy

Lol.

sut the FUCKKD UP YOU FAGGOT IM GONNA RAPEWS YOU FICKER

i still want my fucking stickers

you can't silence justice

i have evidence that counters your evidence

>go on /b/

>acquire pics of retards getting raped in mental hospitals

>post em

>fuck bitches

>get money

Quote from: TrussingDoor on November 11, 2014, 01:25:20 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on November 11, 2014, 01:21:21 PM

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

As little as the constitution matters to me, I do think it should be noted that, in US law, this is really the most powerful argument against extreme regulation. There are lots of things that could infringe without totally banning.

That is, if the constitution matters to you.

I'd just like to point out that the phrase "a well regulated militia" is very prominent within the Second Amendment.

What is it with you and Mikki Minaj today?

..except there's virtually no libertarians holding public office.

These things aren't exclusive to libertarians.

I feel like it should be noted that a LOT of Libertarians are just Republicans who don't want to be associated with the party.

context

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/10/obama-gum-chewing-riles-some-chinese/18801757/

that still doesn't explain the outfit.

I NEED CONTEXT

So, having guns is the status quo to be accepted in the democratic belief? George Orwell's antiquated views do not serve much of a truth in today's world, besides as a far yell of the possibility of the western world turning into a number of quarreling nation-states that must police themselves to keep the large masses controllable.

If I have a gun on my wall in Greece then it doesn't mean it's a symbol of democracy. The symbol of democracy is the right of free speech, the ability to tolerate and adjust needs and wants to the greater good of a society's needs through representation.

What Orwell is referring to is revolution. Democracy is safest when the people are capable of defending it. When the people are disarmed, and the state has a monopoly on force, what is there to make sure it follows the will of the people?

You also have to consider that Orwell, like most, if not all, socialists of his day, had a huge fetish for revolutions and the idea of the poor working man rising up against the bourgeoisie.