{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Plasma Prestige:
1/19/2014 5:28:31 AM
26
I am going to get a lot of criticism for this, but it has to be said: the gun culture in the United States absolutely absurd. It is absurd when twenty first graders are shot in school and we shrug it off. It is absurd when a man in a movie theater is shot for texting his daughter. It is absurd when people defend gun ownership by declaring self-defense from the "tyranny" of the government.
Let's be perfectly honest here.
If the government wanted to take your guns away, they could do it quite easily. If this government is truly as tyrannical and malicious as right wing nuts proclaim, then there is no amount of ammunition and no assortment of assault weapons that can stop the most powerful military in the world from stomping you down. Your masculine "you'll have to pry the gun out of my dead hands" mentality is childish. If we need to resort to armed individual rebellion to maintain our republic, suffice it to say that our republic no longer exists.
English
-
Since when did people shrug off the theater shooting or the school shooting, I dont know anyone that said "Well this happens all the time, no big deal." Stop being stupid. Your post was just a cleverly disguised "PEOPLE SHOULDNT HAVE GUNS!" post.
-
Three years have passed since Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. 18 months have passed since the Aurora shooting. 13 months have passed since the Newtown shooting. What meaningful change has been instituted on the legislative level to combat gun violence in the US? President Obama has issued executive orders, but given the important constraints of our democracy, he cannot legislate. We still have crazy right wingers in Congress that swallow money from the NRA and tout the same "guns don't kill people; people kill people" bullshit.
-
Lol [quote]crazy right wingers[/quote] I love it when anyone that doesn't agree with you is crazy. The fact that you think that those happened and then laws should be made because of those is ridiculous. Columbine happened under the federal assault weapon ban, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Even though weapons were banned like that, that still happened. You know about the guy that shot in the theater and school? BOTH had mental problems. Yet they were aloud to go around like nothing is wrong. If they have mental problems like the doctors said, they shouldn't be out in public. Your playing with fire. Please come back when your argument is better than "Guns killed this person, we should automatically fight a non issue instead of the real issue!" [spoiler]Hint: The real issue is mental health in this case.[/spoiler]
-
Oh, I see now, let's not take away the weapons, let's lock up anyone who is diagnosed with a mental illness in their houses. Are you under the impression that everyone with a mental illness is violent? That's incredibly insulting. Regardless, I am not an advocate of banning guns. As we have learned from Prohibition and the War on Drugs, banning something doesn't eliminate the dangers associated with it. In fact, it creates new problems that are potentially worse. On the other hand, regulation has saved countless lives. While the sale of alcohol is legal, drunk driving certainly isn't. But it isn't the alcohol that causes drunk driving deaths; it's the driver, right? Give me a break. No one is coming for your guns. A great majority of this nation just has the [i]audacity[/i] to suggest they shouldn't be easier to obtain than a driver's license.
-
When you have people that are being diagnosed with SEVERE mental illnesses and have been suggested they need to go to a institution or doctor then yes. But when these people kill other people it's automatically "ITS THE GUNS!". Without looking at anything else.
-
Because the last thing we need is a civil war.
-
I agree
-
Agreed.
-
BEGINNING TRANSMISSION: (Low melodious hum.) I fail to see your points or how you believe you are correct. ENDING TRANSMISSION:
-
Edited by Blacdalf The Nig: 1/19/2014 10:26:25 AMYOU'RE A FUCKING FAGGOT GO AWAY YOU SUCK DICK
-
It's absurd that out mental health system doesn't find these people in the first place. No normal, sane individual would decided to shoot people for no damn reason. Don't place the blame on responsible gun owners as we have done NOTHING wrong. And know what else is absurd? We protect sports stadiums, banks, celebrities, politicians, and inmate with armed personnel but God forbid we give children the same sort of protection. Know the reason why Hitler was able to exterminate millions of jews? Know the reason why Stalin was able to slaughter millions of Russian citizens? Know the reason why Pol Pot was able to murder Cambodians? Simple answer: strict gun control/bans. We American have the right to bear arms in order to deter the government or individuals to gain complete control of the country. But even if the government did attempt a gun ban, millions of gun owners would retaliate in return and it wouldn't be pretty. And a fun fact: Many soldiers would leave and side with the civilians as their duty is to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic
-
Are you seriously suggesting the reason why Hitler and Stalin succeeded in genocide was because the Jews or the Russians didn't have guns?
-
I'm not suggesting, I'm telling that's the reason why they succeeded. [quote][The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. -- [i]Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93[/i][/quote] [quote]The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -- [i]Hitler, April 11 1942[/i][/quote] [quote]Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. -- [i]Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992[/i][/quote] The ability for the people to bear arms deters the government from committing domestic terrorism. Because the idea that resistance can take place, which can inevitably lead to a rebellion, that alone is enough for people in high power to be cautious. Without the ability for an individual, government powers would have nobody to stand in their way to impose their rule
-
Because your hunting rifle poses a significant threat to military tanks, right? History is complicated. Attributing complicated events to singular causes is reckless. Hitler was able to galvanize the German people's anger and helplessness after World War I to kill 13 million people. Do you really think if the Jews carried guns in [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] Germany there wouldn't have been a Holocaust? We need to stop reframing history to fit our political dispositions. We can have a genuine disagreement on the level of gun control in the country, but please spare me this revisionist history where guns would have undermined the tyranny of fascists and communists.
-
Not really. A bunch of civilians with shotguns isn't going to stop a military that can literally wipe out whole towns of people of the face of the earth, millions of miles away with glorified RC planes.
-
1. People own more than just shotguns, especially in America. For $3,000 somebody can buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle, more or less referred to as an anti-material rifle. The citizens are able to purchase identical firearms as the military uses. 2. Much of the military would leave and take sides with the American people against an government that has too much power. So who will the government rely on? Themselves? lolno. This is a another major reason why we have not been under the rule of a dictator
-
.50 won't do much against an unmanned drone, an LAV, or a tank.
-
If Middle-Eastern folks can make IEDs then I'm sure an American can do just the same.
-
Civilians still aren't able to purchase tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, missile launchers etc. Even if a lot of the military leaves, the government can still bomb people to high hell from their offices.
-
Vietcong, Taliban, Al-Qaeda,etc never had access to those, well except for missile launchers, and they still were able to out maneuver U.S troops. But in technicalities, a citizen can buy older, decommissioned tanks or WWII aircraft if they wanted. And if soldiers ended up leaving, they could help the citizens in capturing a military installation and get their hands on modern vehicles.
-
Al Qaeda and Taliban had the home advantage, whereas the US governments knows their country, and there are no other governments in its way. As for the military, very likely. Thats why I think a military with strong civilian connection is far more effective at preventing a dictatorship than armed civilians.
-
Yeah Hitler and Stalin definitely couldn't have done what they did without gun control... Don't throw around stupid examples like that when you don't know what you are talking about.
-
[quote]no assortment of assault weapons that can stop the most powerful military in the world from stomping you down[/quote] Why people always separate the military from the populace in these arguments is mind-boggling. Its the most asinine thing I have heard. These people joined the military in order to protect their friends, family, and neighbors not the -blam!-ing government.
-
I agree. Not to mention the Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, not a military general.
-
The most poorly thought through gun response I have ever heard, good job.
