>implying I wasn't joking about the german takeover
>implying there isn't already an "American Indian" category
>implying I was implying any of your implications

Most of the German areas are rural/suburban while the "American," nigger, and spic areas are urban. It gives you a nice look into the doom which is our country. pls adopt

The term, "American," basically means mongrel in the context of that picture.

The map is a decade old, too. A lot of Mexicans can hop the border and Asians fly into the country in 10 years...

or those who are descendants of the original 13 colonies; I'd consider that "american."
The US is kind of a young country plus we're basically made up entirely of immigrants form a whole bunch of different countries.

What the Soldier will win by fighting - the Peasant will plow.

t

who's calling for a revolution?

My country progressed a lot after the revolution.

Where are you from?

Portugal. It was a very peaceful revolution, though.

Proletarian Community defence. All communities. Except the bourgeosie.

What they are needed for should not be the question. Nobody should need to justify exercising their rights. "Because I want to" and "Because I can" are all the reason you need for me to let you be on your way.

Self defense, and in the event that revolution is needed.

For the lulz and fun;
Self-defense or collective defense (militias and that stuff);
Violent crimes are apparently less when weapons are legal;
More individual freedoms.

because when you need the police the most, they will not be there for you

Because it is an inalienable (CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY) Right gauranteed in the Constitution.

I need a gun for many reasons.
1. In case of foreign invasion in which all Federal forces either pull out or are obliterated.
2. In case of the Federal Government making Marshall Law/tyranny.
3. For kicks and giggles. I've always wanted to own a gun and shoot and clean it.
4. Home defence, i do not trust the cops to get to my house in enough time.
5. Defending my family. Once again, i do not trust the cops to respond quickly.
6. Etc..

Mostly for self defence.

But instead of death or the threat of death, you could use less than lethal weapons. Then you can fire at them, hurt them, and not feel bad about it.

Honestly i find it better that the guy survives and stays in prison for the rest of his life than get killed and escapes their punishment.

Good point.

Even if he is a criminal, I wouldn't want to kill someone. Rendering his threat to zero is enough.

his or her threat*

Indeed.

I agree, fuck them and their authoritarian-supply side economic-war mongering-filibuster abusing-NRA lap dogging-crazy christian fundamentalist-global warming denying-anti egalitarian-death penalty advocating-gay sex/scandal ridden-voting against the 9/11 first responders healthcare funding and Hurricane Sandy relief-Newt Gingrich/Rick Perry tolerating-Israeli dick sucking-anti union-deregulation promoting asses.

That was one helluva sentence.

Can't handle the use of facts in an argument?
I'd imagine not; you don't really experience that on the left.

There's individuals on both ends of the spectrum that dismiss facts as they please.

I think maybe because many Asians get called different nationalities than what they are. Imagine being Vietnamese and someone calls you Chinese. They get highly offended and that may lead up to disliking that Nation/county.

Well this all goes back to ye' ol' sino-soviet split the vietnamese took the side of the soviets china basically started getting cocky against vietnam going full blown china stronk mode because they started shitting themselves about the soviets getting too influentian in countries around them china was a weak point when the vietnamese went into cambodia to give the "communists" there an arse kicking and liberate the khmers building damns in rivers that flowed through vietnam pretty much fucking with their agriculture like a dick and vietnam had a war with china just after the USA pulled out,

And that's why the chinese and vietnamese hate each other.

Thanks, I wasn't even aware there was a war between Vietnam and China. I though Vietnam was supportive of maoist China, even after the war with Cambodja, which was also maoist.

*Saw a weak point

No, not at all. As derran said, children are incapable of making informed choices.

Hmm children are not capable of giving consent hence why for almost everything you do that's dangerous (Where I am at least) like surgery doctors visits you have to have an accompanying adult or parental consent, although in some cases it can doom a child (See faith healers), but overall children are not informed enough to make choices.

The action was not by the government, but by the population through democratic means.

the fourteenth amendment makes it so that doesn't matter

If it were a federal law, I would agree that it is unconstitutional because Congress is not given the authority to regulate marriage. However, the power of the states to regulate marriage is not prohibited to the states. But the Supreme Court stopped caring about the Constitution 80 years ago so who knows?. Unless you're talking about the California constitution in which case never mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

"The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest."

"In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test is applied to constitutional challenges of both federal law and state law (via the Fourteenth Amendment)."

I don't believe gays are protected under the 14th amendment. Definitely under federal law, but not the Constitution.

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is a lot the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly define, and that's when precedent comes in.

no, thats where the rational basis test comes in

Could you restate that in English?

women's fear OF* dissociating

so you're coming to this board which has around 5 active people?

do you mean what if the whole country was literally one giant restaurant?

No, I mean if America was represented as a restaurant (Probably doesn't have to be fast food). Have you ever watched Hetalia? Kinda like that, stereotypes and such.