Profile overview for JeffP12.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

1 submissions to politics

1 submissions to tumblrinaction

This user has so far shared a total of 1 links, started a total of 1 discussions and submitted a total of 84 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 2 and downvoted 1 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 34 and downvoted 14 comments.

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Within the past two days this 2005 interview of reddit's founders went private as spez tries to revise history. Can't stop the signal mal. submitted by go1dfish to videos

JeffP12 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago

I went Fark - Reddit - Voat (this is my first comment)

I liked Fark but it just didn't have that much content. You could go through all of a days links in thirty minutes. Whereas Reddit had tons of subs and way more content. Reddit's commenting system is superior, and the community was the best part of reddit. Lots of interesting, well thought out comments. This still sometimes shines through like this announcement where the very top comment reveals that they are saying the exact opposite of what they used to say. That made interneting much better, being able to immediately go to the comments to get the real story. Comments breaking down how the article is misleading or full of shit and so on. Reddit is still that sometimes but it got so popular it's just full of so many shit comments it's not as good as it used to be.

On /r/AskWomen, ladies complaining that it's not as easy to have random sex as guys claim, insist that most men aren't into NSA sex. When presented with evidence, they downvote. submitted by JeffP12 to tumblrinaction

JeffP12 1 points 32 points (+33|-1) ago

I have a female friend that's pushing 300 pounds. I've known her to bang random dudes from a bar on at least 3 occasions.

How often do legally armed citizens prevent mass shootings? submitted by SpicyChickenJ to politics

JeffP12 2 points 29 points (+31|-2) ago

What the forefathers were warning against was having a professional army. For a long time in many places there wasn't a professional army, instead, in time of need, the men would form up into a makeshift military unit, aka a militia. They would train occasionally and would really not be very useful for anything like a war of conquest. This is what you need if you don't have a professional army nor the money to have one. You train up the men, have them prepared, and if war happens, you call them up to defend the homeland.

But Britain went to a professional army and began fighting wars of conquest. The founding fathers saw wars of conquest as being anti-democratic, a thing kings did, not something that democratic and enlightened nations do. They saw sending men off to war as exploitative. Also, in Britain, since there was a professional army that is well-trained and consists of men who do nothing but prepare for fighting. Since there was a professional army of high skill, well equipped, and loyal only to the king and whoever pays them, this in effect gave the king an enormous amount of power.

So the founding fathers wanted the US to not have a standing army. No professional soldiers. The second amendment establishes the right to form militias. At that point you then have defense covered and you don't have a need for a standing army. No standing army, then you don't fight wars of conquest, you don't get into entangling alliances, and you keep a president/king from holding on to power by using the army to keep it like say, Napoleon might do.

Even they would have said that a militia and the right of the people to bear arms is not a serious check on the power of government so long as the government has a standing professional army. They wanted to keep us from having a standing army.

That's why we basically had no military in inter-war periods. They disbanded the continental army and Washington resigned as soon as the war was over. The founders had a profound distrust in standing armies and wanted no part of one. In almost every war the US fought in up until the 20th century, each war required them to work up a new military nearly from scratch save for a few leaders.

The second amendment is about militias.

''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''

An earlier draft includes a line at the end about how there is a right for religious conscientious objectors (i.e. quakers) to not be forced into service.

So the 2nd amendment basically said: a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the people should be able to form well-regulated militias and have guns, but you can't force quakers to join.

It didn't say: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It only says that if you ignore half of the sentence and also ignore the other drafts where we can see further insight into what they meant. It's rather dumb to think that some people having guns is a check on the power of the US military, just as it was dumb to think that a few people with muskets would be a check on the power of a president who has a standing army that answers to him.

3 lowest rated comments:

Ron Paul - Bernie Sanders destroyed Audit the Fed Bill at the last minute submitted by battle to politics

JeffP12 13 points -5 points (+8|-13) ago

Ron Paul is a nut job. You can't trust anything he says.

In fact, Sanders introduced the senate version of the bill, and has been trying to get transparency for the Fed for years.

What actually happened was that the bill passed the house, and then Sanders introduced it into the senate, but it quickly became clear that it was not going to pass. He made some compromises in order to get the bill to actually pass. Had he not compromised, which Ron Paul is blasting him for, then no bill would have passed at all. And even after making those compromises that still gave us some transparency, the bill still died in committee anyway. So Ron Paul is complaining about nothing. Had they not made any of the compromises, the bill would definitely not have passed. Bernie was trying to get some of it through, and even then the Senate Banking Committee still wouldn't let it through.

Ron Paul - Bernie Sanders destroyed Audit the Fed Bill at the last minute submitted by battle to politics

JeffP12 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago

One of these things is not like the other.

Ron Paul - Bernie Sanders destroyed Audit the Fed Bill at the last minute submitted by battle to politics

JeffP12 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago

Yeah, principled statesman. Right. Remember when his newsletter was shown to be full of racism and conspiracy nonsense? Then he said, oh well, I don't write these things. Statesman. Right.

Here's a fun exercise, find a corollary to Sanders in other countries. Oh, he'd fit right in to many political parties in other countries? What about Ron Paul? Any other major parties where he'd fit in? No? Not a lot of support for the "let's go back to the gold standard" party.