Login or register

x

FunnyJunk Notification

That last comment

crixuz

Favorite Comment

✖ Top Next Comment

That last comment. . david ehrlich . if Abrams just said "no Star were until we have competent gun control", america' s nerds weild unstuck this country by Comi

david ehrlich .
if Abrams just said "no Star were until
we have competent gun control",
america' s nerds weild unstuck this
country by Comission,
RETWEETS . { FAVORITES
Giving up all semblance at freedom for meaningless entertainment.
its the interenet sf ear
That awk merneng Wars is a stunt about taking up ante against a
tyrannitar government.

...

+1644

Views:	45874
Favorited:	78
Submitted:	12/09/2015

Share On Facebook

submit to reddit

+Favorite Subscribe to crixuz

Comments(572):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs

[ 572 comments ]

Anonymous comments allowed.

286 comments displayed.

+6

#2 - anon (12/09/2015) [-]

Guns are now 'all semblance of freedom'?
Geez America, you don't mind being spied on in your own homes, all of your details and everything you ever do or post online being recorded and monitored, you don't mind the NSA being able to access all your data and activate your cameras and microphones without your knowledge or consent.

Just as long as they don't take away your boomsticks.

+50

#16 to #2 - miasaki ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

The NSA (as well as a slew of other organizations, but this is a big one if not THE biggest one.) has been doing that for years. Digital espionage has been a thing since the advent of the internet, not to mention every other damn government worth its salt in the world does the same **** , the U.S is just surprisingly open (by choice or by force) with their dirty laundry compared to everyone else.

Also, im fairly certain that a slew of weapons have been used as symbols of freedom throughout the ages, hence why flags have had swords, shields, spears, firearms, and various other symbols that can be associated with a weapon of that time period. Its nothing new.

Lastly, posting as anon does not hide you from them. They know when you are sleeping and they know when you are awake. Be a good citizen, for security's sake.

The NSA (as well as a slew of other organizations, but this is a big one if not THE biggest one.) has been doing that for years. Digital espionage has been a thing since the advent of the internet, not to mention every other damn government worth its salt in the world does the same **** , the U.S is just surprisingly open (by choice or by force) with their dirty laundry compared to everyone else.

Also, im fairly certain that a slew of weapons have been used as symbols of freedom throughout the ages, hence why flags have had swords, shields, spears, firearms, and various other symbols that can be associated with a weapon of that time period. Its nothing new.

Lastly, posting as anon does not hide you from them. They know when you are sleeping and they know when you are awake. Be a good citizen, for security's sake.

+16

#17 to #16 - compared (12/10/2015) [-]

Ty for the mention.

+10

#20 to #17 - miasaki ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

You must get a **** ton of mentions....does that not annoy you or do you just ignore the majority of em?

+11

#22 to #20 - compared (12/10/2015) [-]

There was like a 3 month period where I responded to every one of them. Now I just respond to a few and ignore the rest of them, it doesn't bother me.

+12

#28 to #22 - wertologist (12/10/2015) [-]

So, are some comments more annoying compared to the rest?

+3

#29 to #28 - compared (12/10/2015) [-]

They're all equal.

0

#31 to #22 - miasaki ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Fair enough. I'd annoy me just sifting through the mentions just to see the ones that I m actually wanting to keep up with. >.>

0

#32 to #31 - miasaki ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

It'd*

0

#503 to #17 - tarabostes ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

**** off fag ewwwww

-1

#497 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Americans are hung up on their 'freedoms' its an issue going back to the pre independence, they harp on about it because its ingrained that they needed muh freedums frum der britush.

Can we not just admit, guns are bad, they're probably a bad idea to let them be so widely available for so long, there should be strict rules on who can get and ammo and what not, but in reality its done, its out of the bag, you guys ****** up cause you wanted great freedom on guns, it was probably a mistake can we not admit that?

In the modern day at this stage, a ban on guns would just put the regular people at a disadvantage, I get that if you have no gun and a criminal pulls one on ya then you're ****** , if you have one and it happens you have a chance. At any rate its not perfect cause you put your trust in others not to be retards with their guns, if everyone had guns there would be so many mistakes and pointless deaths just look at vehicular accidents, something that can be so simple ****** up by drunks and idiots etc.

The answer isn't complete freedom with guns not ban guns. Its gun control just control who gets em, how they use em and ammo etc. I don't know the ins and outs, but imma assume that there is an amount of control on them, maybe we need a law to pass that just monitors public places and says if you gun the **** out of a terrorist your , cause you have carry permit, not gonna be ****** over some how.

-13

#133 to #2 - ddoggdiggity (12/10/2015) [-]

**** you

-42

#72 to #2 - ryukrules (12/10/2015) [-]

-23

#270 to #2 - plsremember (12/10/2015) [-]

Anon is right for once how in any way does your gun insure your freedom if the government really turned on you, you would be completely ****** considering they have drones and tanks while you have a ****** moist nugget. The biggest infringements on liberty are the NSA, corrupt government, corporate influence on elections, and the wall street aristocracy. I think you should be able to own some basic weapons ( bolt-actions, handguns with a magazine size of 1-15, etc.) but the constitution directly states guns should only be part of a well-regulated militia. (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.) And I am pretty sure a lot of gun owners are not in any government militia and much less a well-regulated one. ( best "militia" that comes to mind is the Army Reserve or maybe the Coast Guard. Not a military guy so i would not know )

+15

#301 to #270 - thejusticar (12/10/2015) [-]

The right to bear arms is a right of the people, not the militia. theres a reason no country could attack the USA on their soil, once they try there will be a bunch of ****** jumping out shooting their asses dead. you dont attack a place where theres millions upon millions of potential fighters hiding around every corner.. while you make an arguement that they have tanks and drones, we citizens also have the tools to make bombs and various explosive devices at our finger tips. i do agree however that the NSA and the corrupt government are huge ass infringements on Americans.

+31

#339 to #301 - tvveeder (12/10/2015) [-]

People keep looking at the well regulated aspect of the argument, and don't look at defining militia. Militia means one of a few things. Let's go with today's legal definition:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So by that very definition, I fall under the definition of militia because I am a male between the ages of 17 and 45. As for well regulated, militia has a legal definition. That means it had to be processed through the system to be given an explicit definition that holds up in the court of law. If that isn't considered well regulated, then you explain to me what well regulated means.

As for the biggest infringement, how about circumventing due process by invoking indefinite detention? How about declaring indefinite detention legal against US citizens who have a right to a fair trial? How about prosecuting anti Muslim speak?

I don't mind gun control in the basest form, which is essentially passing a legal background check. No felonies, no excessive arrests for misdemeanors, no warrants etc. When Obama goes on TV and talks about denying guns to people on no fly lists, I get a bit skeptical. He makes it sound so good, but most people won't even realize how that can be awful. If someone is on a no fly list, it's because they are a suspected danger flying into or out of the country (terrorists traversing in or out, suspected spies, whistle blowers going out). If they are a suspected terrorist, I'm willing to bet blocking them from buying guns in the US legally is not going to stop them. On top of that, it sets a bad precedent, because now you can use a list that has no due process, other than a hunch according to intelligence, to deny the sale of guns to individuals. Then, if you get past the first hurdle and ban the sale of weapons to the no fly list, why not add another list with no due process, the suspected terrorist list? Why not create a new list, the mentally unfit list and apply that to your gun laws as well. Those processes continue to filter more and more people, until it goes from a multitude of lists denying the sale of guns, to one list. One list that approves special cases to purchase guns. That is what we call a gun ban.

TLR I'm a ******* militia, and I want my bear arms dammit!

People keep looking at the well regulated aspect of the argument, and don't look at defining militia. Militia means one of a few things. Let's go with today's legal definition:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So by that very definition, I fall under the definition of militia because I am a male between the ages of 17 and 45. As for well regulated, militia has a legal definition. That means it had to be processed through the system to be given an explicit definition that holds up in the court of law. If that isn't considered well regulated, then you explain to me what well regulated means.

As for the biggest infringement, how about circumventing due process by invoking indefinite detention? How about declaring indefinite detention legal against US citizens who have a right to a fair trial? How about prosecuting anti Muslim speak?

I don't mind gun control in the basest form, which is essentially passing a legal background check. No felonies, no excessive arrests for misdemeanors, no warrants etc. When Obama goes on TV and talks about denying guns to people on no fly lists, I get a bit skeptical. He makes it sound so good, but most people won't even realize how that can be awful. If someone is on a no fly list, it's because they are a suspected danger flying into or out of the country (terrorists traversing in or out, suspected spies, whistle blowers going out). If they are a suspected terrorist, I'm willing to bet blocking them from buying guns in the US legally is not going to stop them. On top of that, it sets a bad precedent, because now you can use a list that has no due process, other than a hunch according to intelligence, to deny the sale of guns to individuals. Then, if you get past the first hurdle and ban the sale of weapons to the no fly list, why not add another list with no due process, the suspected terrorist list? Why not create a new list, the mentally unfit list and apply that to your gun laws as well. Those processes continue to filter more and more people, until it goes from a multitude of lists denying the sale of guns, to one list. One list that approves special cases to purchase guns. That is what we call a gun ban.

TLR I'm a ******* militia, and I want my bear arms dammit!

+9

#342 to #339 - thejusticar (12/10/2015) [-]

10/10 best comment in the thread.

10/10 best comment in the thread.

+2

#463 to #339 - MuahahaOfLore (12/10/2015) [-]

Great common sense arguments, well phrased.

+2

#430 to #339 - takingittoofar (12/10/2015) [-]

Which agree with you for the most part, I do have some points I'd like to argue if I gave enough of a **** (I'm not American you see, and therefore these arguments don't affect me at all)
All I really wanted to tell you is be careful about making 'slippery slope' arguments. In most cases they are fallacious. Try and find another way to make the same point.

+2

#441 to #430 - tvveeder (12/10/2015) [-]

I understand what you are saying about the slippery slope argument as it is circumstantial. If this happens, what if this happens? I understand none of that part of the argument is definitive in nature, but it doesn't mean it's invalid. The slippery slope is used as an exaggeration, but still holds true to the base point I was making.

The base point I was making, setting up gun laws based on arbitrary lists with no due process sets a very bad precedent. That precedent, ease of abuse. That is why due process is in place, to help stave off the abuse of power.

We all know how governments and people in power are, you give them an inch, they want to take a mile.

+1

#566 to #441 - takingittoofar (12/14/2015) [-]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. My comment was meant to help you improve your argumentative skills and not your actual argument, which is solid. Anyway, have a good one, buuuuddy.

+1

#496 to #339 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (12/10/2015) [-]

Atta boy!

Atta boy!

-8

#317 to #301 - plsremember (12/10/2015) [-]

1. The right to bear arms is implicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment to pertain to a well-regulated militia not to the private citizen, although the law has largely ignored this interpretation it is vital that laws are taken literally and not symbolically.

2. The reason countries don't invade the U.S. is not because we have so many guns, although it is an important one . It is because we have completely mastered the seas and have allies and military bases everywhere. Any country that would go to war with the U.S. would face backlash from all the NATO nations like all of the UN, most of Africa, Japan, South Korea, most of South East Asia, and virtually all of Latin America. A war with the U.S. is with the world not its citizenry. I also discuss why a citizen army could not fight a modern army below.

3. It isn't easy at all to make bombs why do you think so many terrorists have failed with bombs and now use guns. Because it is hard as **** to make a functioning bomb but easy as hell to pull a trigger on a gun and waste a few people at close range. In terms of resisting a fascist coup by the government our only hope would be that the military sides with the people for the most part.

+7

#345 to #317 - urmomsagrot (12/10/2015) [-]

The second amendment states "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." It states that a well regulated militia which is necessary to defend individual states AS WELL AS the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "the people" refers to the people of the United States, not some sub faction. The well regulated militia is seen as the National Guard of each state which is why they fall under state Jurisdiction and can operate on US soil (disaster relief and riot control mainly nowadays).

Source- I'm a law student

2. Is purely opinion and is a myriad of reasons.

3. You have no clue wtf you are talking about and it's clear at this point. Bombs are incredibly easy to make and can be made from old munitions to simple chemicals and materials. Why do you think our country regulates certain fertilizers and chemicals? Dirt merchants and goat ******* make advanced IEDs and Explosively formed penetrators that has defeated our armor and killed our troops for the past decade+ as well as the oh so common suicide vest they love to deploy. Most of the actual terrorist attacks in the past few years against us and other countries have involved explosives of some kind. Such as the pipe bombs that the San Bernadino attack and even the hand grenades and suicide vests used in Paris.

0

#532 to #345 - plsremember (12/11/2015) [-]

1. Considering you are a law student I will take your word for the amendment also allowing standard non-militia civilians to own arms. But the amendment still specifies well-regulated thus establishing a need for government regulation.

2. Its not an opinion by Article 5 of NATO all countries of NATO have to assist each other in defensive wars, so a declaration of war against the U.S. by most likely Russia Just speculation, although in reality I would say Russia would have to essentially attack the U.S. alone since China is too deep into trade with us. Thus most certainly all of the NATO countries would join us not to mention our other allies such as Israel (relatively close proximity to Southern Russia in terms of missiles) a lot of African countries ( not really much help considering their development but allies nevertheless) and our Asian allies like Japan which can fight defensive wars and serve as an American HQ. Thus want I said really isn't an opinion but a fact a war with the U.S. is suicide for any country.

3. Bombs are not easy to make period the chemistry and knowledge behind a useful explosive By useful I mean useful against a modern military so thus a military grade explosive is complex and requires lots of study. Fertilizer bombs are easy but rather ineffective since they require large quantities of materials. Furthermore, the reason terrorists can make effective bombs is because they have old U.S. military supplies, their is essentially no government restrictions (at least any enforced ones), and they have huge funding. I mean ISIS can just buy bombs but the average citizen revolting against a dictatorship Especially against an actually powerful country like the U.S. would be hard pressed to make these bombs.

To Conclude: Guns should be regulated for the safety of the people considering the fact that the loss of a few unnecessary gun privileges would not impact the freedoms of an individual greatly considering that government tyranny would be successful against any citizen onslaught Considering the military supported the government

+1

#325 to #317 - thejusticar (12/10/2015) [-]

the citizens them selfs i personally believe are all a part of said militia. and what better way to keep your militia powerful and well regulated than always keeping them armed,

2:thats a good point but mine still stands as well, a large amount of potential fighters can arise in america at any given moment to give their life to defend their country.

3:what about all those other times when terrorist groups didn't fail when making bombs, like that ***** in the boston bombing thing, he made that out of a pressure cooker and was able to take out a large amount of people. also im pretty sure our military would side on the side of the citizens rather then a corrupt and tyrannical government.

-6

#333 to #325 - plsremember (12/10/2015) [-]

1. A citizen cannot just state themselves to be part of a militia you need training and some kind of agreement or maybe charter from the government, second keeping them armed does not mean well-regulated.

2. Assuming 70% of males fit for military service armed themselves for defense this would only be about 42 million men; which is a **** ton but without artillery or air support or naval support or any sort of heavy weapons a metric **** ton would die. Not to mention a lack of armor makes virtually every hit above the waist deadly. Modern warfare is all about organization, intel, and firepower support This is plain to see considering i know very little about modern armies and a civilian horde would posses essentially none of these things. If this was the 1800s then perhaps civilian hordes would work because warfare was just how quickly you could spit out bullet whether it be via superior training: Prussians or just numbers: French Republican army.

3. Bombs like that are completely ineffectual against armored units, furthermore militaries have detection devices for bombs and would disarm it or avoid it. But I do agree with you on soldiers siding with the people; most of this is purely hypothetical.

www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

0

#498 to #317 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

It was well understood by every citizen and the supreme court that the right to bear arms was limited, per the second amendment, from the adoption of the Bill of Rights all the way through our nation's history until the case District of Columbia v. Heller was decided in a contentious 5-4 decision by the supreme court in 2008.

The Republican Majority held that the plain language of the 2nd amendment was not determinative of it's intent, while the dissenting opinion points out, quite compellingly, that the Majority's reasoning was indefensible as it simply read fully half of the language out of the amendment as if it didn't exist, and ignored centuries of precedent upholding the government's ability to restrict firearm ownership.

0

#504 to #301 - masdercheef ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

The entire point of the second amendment is protection against our own government, not from invasion. In that sense, plsremember is correct - technically, we do entirely have the right to bear arms against the government in the event it were deemed tyrannical, but realistically speaking if it ever comes to that point the people would effectively be ****** on a technological level unless a portion of the armed forces defected from government service to protect the people, or some serious guerrilla warfare took place.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the second amendment, though. There's a pretty low chance the people would be able to successfully rise against the government... but a low chance is better than no chance.

Off the topic of the technicalities of gun ownership, I should say I'm totally proguns. Guns are cool, and a decent hobby for anyone willing to shell out the money - the problem arises when guns get into the hands of people who intend to commit crime with them. And, as of right now, efforts to prevent that are not too effective.

+1

#507 to #504 - thejusticar (12/10/2015) [-]

both points stand, it can protect against invaders and against our ******* government.

+1

#508 to #507 - masdercheef ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

This is true, but if anyone were to try to argue that they have a right to own guns to protect against invasion, they most likely wouldn't get too far.

+1

#509 to #508 - thejusticar (12/10/2015) [-]

yea my orignal arguement was a lil poorly worded but it gets the point across. i did mean to talk about the government in the second half a bit more but a message is only as good as it is consice. i think thats how its spelt

+4

#326 to #270 - elyiia (12/10/2015) [-]

You do realise that the drones and tanks require people to use them right? Most military personnel aren't going to accept the government turning on the people.

-6

#327 to #326 - plsremember (12/10/2015) [-]

I discuss this below with thejusticar

0

#359 to #270 - xxxgnipsxxx (12/10/2015) [-]

I think you could interpret a well regulated militia as a group of well equipped, well disciplined group of civilians that have taken up arms. That's what the majority of our army in the revolution was, just a bunch of farmers with guns. The ability for this well regulated militia to exist depends on the right to own weapons as a civilian as well the ability to make sure only responsible civilians can obtain weapons. I think the constitution if anything justifies regulated civilian gun ownership.

-3

#425 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Watch as the American's circle jerk to their guns and "freedom".

-39

#55 to #2 - thismustbeseen (12/10/2015) [-]

I love how people downthumb common sense into oblivion

+59

#114 to #55 - bann ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Most people who mind having their guns taken away are the same people who mind being spied on.

Typically those who prefer the 'security' of having guns off the street are those who don't mind the NSA.

+1

#495 to #114 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

see that just seems weird, like why give of privacy just to feel safe? why not feel safe and have privacy?

"I have nothing to hide" Ohh yea? is that why you browse porn in private browser?

+1

#541 to #495 - bann ONLINE (12/11/2015) [-]

Mostly because people fear what they don't know or understand. No matter who's under the microscope, be it muslims, cops or whatever, the facts usually show that those groups are safe 99.9% of the time. And yet, people want to lay blanket rules in an attempt to stop that .01%. Same for gun owners...the number of shooting sprees compared to the number of gun owners makes the instances of shooters look like statistical errors.

Yes we see the school shooting and such and cry "we must do something!". So people act, and rights are lost. Meanwhile those who were going to act erratically end up doing so anyways.

-26

#90 to #55 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

welcome to FJ

+18

#6 to #2 - hongkonglongdong (12/09/2015) [-]

The **** makes you think people don't mind the NSA?

+28

#24 to #2 - moetron (12/10/2015) [-]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How the **** is this so hard to understand?

+17

#46 to #24 - malifauxdeux (12/10/2015) [-]

"Shall not be infringed... unless you're a child, felon, want to own automatic weapons without certain special licensing, pass a background check, want to own certain types of weapons that are completely banned, or have mental instabilities." That's what makes it "hard to understand." Because in most countries, people don't equate guns to "all semblances of freedom" as that particular poster ludicrously put it.

0

#54 to #46 - robuntu (12/10/2015) [-]

While true, *most* countries are ********* .

-14

#50 to #46 - thatginger (12/10/2015) [-]

What the 2nd amendment says is actually more about having arms for a militia. It isn't about the freedom to have guns. It's about the freedom of having the ability to form a militia should our government become tyrannical. Hence why they deemed a sawed off shotgun en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller not protected by the 2nd amendment.

+3

#212 to #50 - toosexyforyou (12/10/2015) [-]

How the **** are you gonna form a militia to fight the government when they control all the ******* guns you retard? "Hey, we're about to form a military state and all of your freedom is gone but we will still stand by the constitution and supply you with weapons for your militia." Also I'm pretty sure a sawed off shotgun is illegal because it's a dangerous weapon modification. We all know that the US army is second to none and civilians owning small firearms isn't supposed to be so that they could fight the army head on, it's so that they actually have a chance to overthrow a tyrannical government from the inside.

That last bit should help ericzxvc become a little less ignorant so I'm gonna link him here.

-1

#434 to #212 - thatginger (12/10/2015) [-]

"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."

0

#494 to #434 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Haha you actually got redthumbed for quoting the 2nd amendment verbatim.

Gun nuts are retarded.

-1

#511 to #212 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

1) the U.S. Army is 2nd to the U.S. Marine Corps. And as a USMC infantryman I'll tell you right now that no amount of air support or intel is gonna help us if we ever were dumb enough to try to take on 150,000,000 U.S. firearm owners. Period. We'd be lucky to last a day. A fireteam of 4 can't buddy rush their way to victory over 10,000 armed people (most of which are actually fairly good shots). And yes, that's actually about the ratio of military infantry (actual fighters on the ground) to gun owners in the U.S....about 2,500 to 1.

2) Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is flat out wrong. Tench Coxe put it this way: "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 [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

He sent that explanation to the guy that WROTE the 2nd Amendment, who said it was a great explanation of its intent and backed it. Tench then published it, with that explanation being one of the most prevalent ones used during the ratification process.

So yah, putting down the government (and its military) if needed is exactly what the writers AND ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind. They literally stated that outright, in writing. Research...it's your friend.

0

#525 to #511 - toosexyforyou (12/10/2015) [-]

"Army" is a general term used to describe a country's entire military. Words have multiple definitions. Not reading the rest of your comment since I can safely assume you won't be making any better points than the definition of a word.

-1

#547 to #525 - anon (12/11/2015) [-]

There ya go, don't read the rest of something because an obvious joke with a smiley face at the beginning gives you an excuse to avoid a factual debate with someone that knows more about the subject than you...nice!

Also, the definition of "army" actually is practically never used to refer to military entities outside of land force branches. I've never, in my life, heard someone refer to an "army" and had them be talking about a naval force. "Military" is used to refer to the entire military...

-18

#91 to #24 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

"WELL-REGULATED MILITIA"
"WELL-REGULATED"
"REGULATED"
"REGULATION"

+13

#108 to #91 - dellexe (12/10/2015) [-]

You do realize "regulated" used to mean "in good order/proper."
There are examples in literature of "A well-regulated man" or "regulated mind"
It didn't mean "COMPLETE AND UTTER GOVERNMENT CONTROL" until the last hundred years or so.
What a coincidence, pretty much all gun control and large increase of government power has happened in the last hundred years or so

-15

#111 to #108 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Oh yes because "maybe a background check?" is COMPLETE AND UTTER GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Yep you're right dude. Australia and Canada has gun control and look at them now... it's like feudalism over there..

+4

#115 to #111 - dellexe (12/10/2015) [-]

Hey, a background check is fine with me, don't put words in my mouth.
-
I'm just correcting the mistake you made with that comment there. Regulated didn't mean what it does today then.
-
And with regards to the last part of your comment, Australia's government is now trying to ban lever-actions. Canada's gun laws are inconsistent, redundant, and half of them only exist because of myths perpetrated by media. If you can't see how their gun control policies are backwards and stupid, I can't help you.

-12

#126 to #115 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Then send me some links to back up your views. But the main issue here is how do we prevent mass shootings as consistent as they are in the US, from being an expected threat to homeland security and you can say all you want, but the fact remains that they're in the hands of people who have legally obtained guns in the US and other countries don't see the casual mass-shootings (especially in the hands of "troubled youths") that we see in the US.

I'm not implying anything, but neither side of the political spectrum has put any good ideas on the table.

+6

#136 to #126 - dellexe (12/10/2015) [-]

www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#note-93-15
-
To start with.
To sum up:
93% of guns used in crime were obtained ILLEGALLY UNDER CURRENT LAWS. This means that existing laws have failed... 93% of the time at doing what they were intended to do.
Most gun crime is gang crime. Crack down hard on gangs.
Better mental health care in the U.S. Our health care for mental health sucks.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/seven-facts-about-americas-mental-health-care-system/
Prescribing drugs rather than giving people actual care has increased around 4 times in the last 20 years, because of the next issue, mental health doctors are the most lacked of all types of doctors in the US.
Most mass shooters are unstable who were ignored by healthcare or just given tons of drugs and let loose. Those drugs have also been known to destabilize people with minor issues, turning them into major issues.
France, which has a very regulated gun control, had one of the worst terror attacks in the last two decades just now. All the guns were highly illegal.
Belgium, worse than France in gun control, is one of Europe's gun trafficking hotspots: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34871872
-
The fact is, the U.S. doesn't have a gun problem. It has a gang and mental health problem that people don't want to talk about. Gun control is a bandage made of paper, it just doesn't do anything, just looks like it does as long as you don't look too closely.

-13

#141 to #136 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

I should've stated a nonbiased source. Gunfacts.info sounds pretty biased m8.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
Look the terrorist attack in France is not comparable to what happens here every few months. This **** was carefully analyzed and planned for MONTHS and it's only happened once there. You can't ignore guns outright though as a factor in these mass shootings because again, there's a reason that they happen REGULARLY here and not in other countries.

Yes mental health reform will do so much, but it's not like anyone's actually lobbying for it in the wake of these shootings and it MIGHT help our mass shooting epidemic, but it's not just mental health, there will still be dangerous people that want to cause harm, this "lone troubled wolf" narrative is a fallacy, some of these people aren't ******* crazy and misunderstood, just vengeful and extremely dangerous.

My point is that all this **** is a problem and NO ONE is coming up with answers, but to ignore guns is not gonna get us anywhere. Just like ignoring mental health reform will also get us nowhere; we have to look at all the options.

+9

#150 to #141 - dellexe (12/10/2015) [-]

Wow, did you even look at the sources for the info there? It's all fbi.gov and ATF website stuff.
-
The point about Paris was not about mass shootings in particular, but rather about the ineffectiveness of gun control, which is why I included stuff about Belgium's gun trade too. The San Bernardino shooters also used ten round magazines, which were supposed to stop any mass shooting from ever happening again.
-
And you're ignoring that mass shootings cause a tiny fraction of gun violence? Another big chunk is suicides. DING. MENTAL HEALTH.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/3/9844470/mass-shootings-gun-violence
-
And more, you're ignoring that gang violence is the other big cause of large gun death numbers, or at least you didn't address it.

-9

#162 to #150 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

It can cite sources all it wants mate it doesn't mean it's not biased, and I looked up 3 of the "FBI sources" and they're not even legit. It's not the ineffectiveness mate, the shock value that came from the Paris attack was shock because it NEVER happens. It's SUPPOSED to be an anomaly, that's the effect of gun control. It doesn't mean "shootings will never ever ever happen" it means "we're going to reduce them as much as we can"

EXACTLY. HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE is another good thing to prevent too you know? 11,000 is still a whole ******* lot for homicide mate. I'm not saying THIS IS JUST FOR MASS SHOOTINGS. YOu're right! homicide, crime, and suicide are big components of it too. How many people blow their own brains out in Europe...? any estimates?

I didn't address it because yes it's a given. Gangs are bad, gun violence is bad, gang gun violence is terrible. these are ALL terrible things that need to be addressed and have one common denominator...guns!

and it's not just mental health then if you're bringing up gangs.

It can cite sources all it wants mate it doesn't mean it's not biased, and I looked up 3 of the "FBI sources" and they're not even legit. It's not the ineffectiveness mate, the shock value that came from the Paris attack was shock because it NEVER happens. It's SUPPOSED to be an anomaly, that's the effect of gun control. It doesn't mean "shootings will never ever ever happen" it means "we're going to reduce them as much as we can"

EXACTLY. HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE is another good thing to prevent too you know? 11,000 is still a whole ******* lot for homicide mate. I'm not saying THIS IS JUST FOR MASS SHOOTINGS. YOu're right! homicide, crime, and suicide are big components of it too. How many people blow their own brains out in Europe...? any estimates?

I didn't address it because yes it's a given. Gangs are bad, gun violence is bad, gang gun violence is terrible. these are ALL terrible things that need to be addressed and have one common denominator...guns!

and it's not just mental health then if you're bringing up gangs.

0

#393 to #162 - klaes (12/10/2015) [-]

How many people slit their wrists or OD on pills in Europe, m8. I agree background checks should be more thorough in the US, but removing guns won't prevent suicides, it'll just make people get more creative.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Notice that Poland, Finland, France, Estonia, Czech Republic, Belgium, and plenty of other European nations are above the United States in suicide rates. In Asia it's even worse in the far east, where despite much harsher gun control South Korea holds second place for suicide rates and Japan isn't too far behind.

There may be an argument for homicide rates, I'm not informed enough to give an opinion one way or the other on it, but suicide rates would not drop with further gun contrl.

0

#486 to #393 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

I never said to remove guns jfc. but you have a point about asia.

+14

#119 to #91 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

You do realize well regulated militia means every man capable of bearing arms does so, right?

-18

#127 to #119 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

you and which interpretation of the second amendment?

+14

#323 to #127 - presidentmoose (12/10/2015) [-]

yeah, I bet you're real ******* smart

yeah, I bet you're real ******* smart

+4

#424 to #323 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

alright, that was ******* funny, this is the kind of thing that belongs in top comments.

-1

#490 to #424 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

>complaining my arguments suck
>ad hominem
gg guys

+6

#131 to #127 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

*cough*
www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

-14

#142 to #131 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

+8

#308 to #142 - lordraine ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

"The Judicial Interpretation is legitimate, guys!"

Go take a long walk off a short pier with concrete shoes. There's a reason the entire world hates lawyers. It's because their entire job is ************ words and phrasing until it means something completely different and likely nonsensical.

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

But you know what? In the spirit of across the aisle cooperation, I'm willing to compromise with you. I'll agree to your statement that it is intended for militias, if you agree to repeal every regulation that has since been placed on the second amendment since it's inception, so as to allow, for instance, the local militias to own M1 Abrams Tanks and Anti-Air batteries.

"The Judicial Interpretation is legitimate, guys!"

Go take a long walk off a short pier with concrete shoes. There's a reason the entire world hates lawyers. It's because their entire job is ************ words and phrasing until it means something completely different and likely nonsensical.

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

But you know what? In the spirit of across the aisle cooperation, I'm willing to compromise with you. I'll agree to your statement that it is intended for militias, if you agree to repeal every regulation that has since been placed on the second amendment since it's inception, so as to allow, for instance, the local militias to own M1 Abrams Tanks and Anti-Air batteries.

0

#426 to #308 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

When it was written it meant that the militias should own those kind of things. My exact wording is going to be wrong but im too lazy. It says that the militia should have weapons that are roughly comparable to the standard military equipment of the time.

-9

#383 to #308 - emiyashirou ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

" **** you, my opinion is right and the system of law is wrong because I hate lawyers" - lordraine, 2015

-1

#492 to #308 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

That's pretty a pretty funny picture mate I'll give you that, if only people made points like that instead of literally talking to down to me the world would be a better place.

+1

#191 to #142 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Ah yes, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalala" instead of actually replying. You are an idiot

-9

#195 to #191 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

You're rude first of all, second of all I'm not doing that, my links are fair in this rhetoric and I'm not debating with them, I want his opinion because they're relevant to how the constitution is read.

+1

#200 to #195 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Uh oh, did I trigger you with my no-no words? They're not fair because you copy and pasted them as a retort to his. Then again half of your links are from wikipedia so you're clearly not all that smart.

0

#428 to #200 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

you are so rude, he's offended, stop the ******* presses.

-11

#208 to #200 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

No? you're just rude. I could care less, it just makes you a ****** person to argue with. I'm really trying to learn and debate here and you come here being a dickhead instead of arguing your point with evidence.

How is *cough* and a link more fair than my links? Just seems like favoritism to me. Oh yes, because wikipedia is the cesspool of intellectualism, woe is me. I bet you would've said the same if I cited a dictionary.

+3

#210 to #208 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

>trying to learn and debate
>instead of replying to someone with an intellectual and constructive response, copy and pastes his previous comment

>I could care less
>Bothers to point out that I'm rude, instead of just ignoring the "rude" statement

jesus dude, you are too stupid and I'd rather not have your stupidity rub off onto me, good day.

-7

#221 to #210 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Well you are though. I just wanted to point that out. What you think I'm gonna go home and cry myself to sleep because "ohemgeezus" has autism and said some mean words? No **** that. Why the **** is copying and pasting a comment I want a reply on a bad thing huh? Where in the world of rhetoric and illogical fallacies is it written that I can't do that?

Jesus ******* christ, ****** yourself you narcissistic cunt, I'm tired of trying to be polite to a generation of ungrateful cunts like you.

+4

#226 to #221 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Hahaha dude calm the **** down, you manchild. You get all hung up because I trigger you for calling you an idiot and now you're having a literal temper tantrum? Maybe you should quit the internet if someone hurting your feelings really bothers you that much.

Hahaha dude calm the **** down, you manchild. You get all hung up because I trigger you for calling you an idiot and now you're having a literal temper tantrum? Maybe you should quit the internet if someone hurting your feelings really bothers you that much.

-5

#234 to #226 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

yep, triggered

yep, triggered

+2

#236 to #234 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Another constructive response from rockerforlife, almost as constructive as your copy and paste

-5

#256 to #236 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Why you so bitter mate? almost makes me sad to see people as salty as you

+1

#260 to #256 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Are you really resorting to trying to troll me now? C'mon you can do better than that.

-5

#262 to #260 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

I'm not, I've been nothing but honest.

+12

#129 to #127 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

There is no interpretation, that's the ******* definition you tard.

-17

#178 to #129 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

So you're just gonna ignore it then?

+10

#194 to #178 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

My ancestors fought and died for the language you're attempting to butcher, and I won't allow it.

0

#435 to #194 - ketiw ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

you from england?

0

#447 to #435 - presidentmoose (12/10/2015) [-]

He's a teenage idiot from retarded Florida but is communist Cuban

I'm serious

+1

#448 to #447 - ketiw ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

I'm not talking about rockerforlife

+1

#449 to #448 - presidentmoose (12/10/2015) [-]

Oh, I see now that i'm the retarded one

+1

#451 to #449 - ketiw ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

rockerforlife is bigger retard then you, don't worry

0

#499 to #451 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

look I never said I was smart. but at least I'm trying to have an argument with people that I don't agree with. All i've received are ad hominems, insults to my age and where I live, and not much of a constructive arguments. I'm not mad because hurr durr I'm wrong, hurr durr they're being mean. But if this is the only type of rhetoric that I've seen from people who support guns.

I want to be proven wrong, I want to be shown that these pro-gun people can level, can be smart, and can make better arguments than:

"There is no interpretation, that's the ******* definition you tard."
"aha he's offended"
"My ancestors fought and died for the language you're attempting to butcher, and I won't allow it."
"He's a teenage idiot from retarded Florida but is communist Cuban "

but if this is the best that you people can come up with, it's just sad. All I want is a level argument with mutual respect, when I sparked this debate, I didn't insult anyone. And yeah this is the internet, but if all you're gonna do to support your cause is insult dissidents, then it says a lot about your cause rather than me.

0

#528 to #499 - ketiw ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

yeah as you said, welcome to internet..
First of all i'm from a **** country of czechia where gun regulation is a real thing. To be honest there was'nt any "terrorist" attack here for decades so gun regulation is a sane thing to do. BUT the world is going to **** pretty fast and i'm in a fragment of population who don't want to have tied hands in upcoming events of future decade. And my argument?

If you really want to get a gun you can get it on black market. Unarmed society is a weak society.
Americans needs guns because they gov. suck and their army is too strong in case of coup it's gonna get nasty.
Own gun is basic right if you are a us citizen so whenever someone want to regulate a basic right you gotta stay vigilant.

And last thing which is a more of a opinion : I HATE left-y socialst-y pseudo social justice warriors look what the done to Europe in past two years. And from what i know so far this regulation is made and supported by at least some of them.

-1

#539 to #528 - rockerforlife (12/11/2015) [-]

Yeah that's true, I just wish there was more fairness about **** like this. Where's Czechia? Do you mean the Czech Republic or Chechnya?

The thing about the US that you have to understand is that people are part of the government, and the government is kinda bends to the people's will here. They gotta. Communism or authoritarianism could NEVER take off in the United States and even if the government wanted to launch some sort of attack on the people... it couldn't. it just wouldn't happen. Despite what people might tell you it is literally an insane and impossible idea. The military here isn't loyal to the government, it's more loyal to the principles of the nation and this nation is so entrenched in its ideas of freedom and self-democracy that a government coup is a tinfoil-hat-idea. Our military here is loyal to the country and their families. Most americans are anti-government and so the government has no real influence to turn on the people, regardless not only would they be outnumbered but our government is made up of laymen and women (except for like the FBI, CIA, yk crazy secret organizations)

and the thing is in the US ALL guns are legal, even flamethrowers. Regulation doesn't mean no guns, it just means less "automatic assault rifles" yk, **** that's used when you want to decimate a target.

I can't imagine living in EU, but that SJW **** really pisses me off too like Sarkeesian getting a voice in the US. but I think in these times whats most important is that we keep in the middle and we don't turn on each other. not all leftists are whiny pussies and not all conservatives are anarchist nutjobs.

0

#545 to #539 - ketiw ONLINE (12/11/2015) [-]

Czech Republic. Just put czechia in google its official dub of our country.
And i agree with you. But as i say, if you want to get automatic rifle you get it. Only problem is with mentally ill people who can go to shop, buy one and then start rampage. That could be avoided not by a regulation prohibiting selling guns but by regulation of issuing permits IMHO. You need to get to doctor first who will check your mental health or something.

0

#549 to #545 - rockerforlife (12/11/2015) [-]

Yeah but pro-gun americans don't want ANY sort of obstacle when it comes to purchasing guns.

0

#488 to #451 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

well it's a ****** argument.

presidentmoose also I'm not a ******* communist you piece of **** .

-14

#199 to #194 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Nice argument, real A+ mate, glad we had this talk.

"my great gran daddy hur durr"

+7

#318 to #199 - presidentmoose (12/10/2015) [-]

and this is why nobody takes you seriously, you ******* cock holster

-17

#134 to #129 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Did you really have to be impolite when this is a ******* thing?
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

+23

#4 to #2 - diblie (12/09/2015) [-]

Good job illustrating the slippery slope fallacy to a ******* T.

+2

#14 to #4 - drewjitsu (12/10/2015) [-]

how?

-15

#92 to #4 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

awww, who just learned a new word? so cute

0

#417 to #4 - hongkonglongdong (12/10/2015) [-]

It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's a straw man.

He's assuming we don't mind the NSA stuff, and also assuming they're directly relatable (I absolutely think they are, but it's still an assumption).

0

#546 to #417 - diblie (12/11/2015) [-]

Aw, **** me, you're right.

+27

#100 to #2 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

Weaponry is the last form of power one has against their government. As it stands, we have a civil power in government, we can vote, petition, etc.

But when those methods of exercising power are gone, how else can we control our own lives than by self defense?

-14

#123 to #100 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

Lol do you honestly think a bunch of randoms with guns could take on the US military? And name me a single developed country who in recent years was forced to overthrow the government by force.
If the entire country hated the government that much they could remove it through peaceful protest quite easily, you're not run by a dictatorship.

+9

#163 to #123 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

If the US government wanted to impose all-out control on the people, it would want to do so because it would want to control the people.

Governments have power from one source. The people. The willingness of the people to work within the boundaries of the government's laws, to use its currency to form an economy. Governments exist to preserve the natural rights of all those in their societies, whether those people can or cannot preserve them themselves. In return for this service which has come to be known as "civilization," people work and obey the laws of the government. However, because this is a mutual compromise, people can only receive so much benefits from their governments, and governments can only receive so much power from their people.

Governments who demand too much power form things like dictatorships. In totalitarian environments, the government does not exist for the people, instead the people only exist for the government and receive nothing but the necessities.

The point of taking up arms against a government is not simply to defeat the military strength of the government, but to hold the power the populace gives the government at stake.

Of course the population could not go toe to toe with the military of a government like the US, especially not now. But we don't have to defeat them. If a king destroys his nation because the nation will not comply with him, he may have won the war, but now he is king of nothing.

What do you think the US government would do, nuke its own soil? Barrage it with tank fire and napalm? We are the power of the US, we are the reason it has a military, and if it kills us, it dies as well.

We don't need to match the government's military power, we only need to be able to resist and make it clear to any would-be dictators that if they try anything, either we win, or they lose.

Now, as for nations that are in recent revolt: numerous African nations, Syria, S. Korea was, and Vietnam was.

There are dictatorships that exist right now, but they cannot be overthrown by their populace, as they have been disarmed, see N. Korea.

Lastly, dictatorships are founded on the dead bodies of peaceful protesters. In dictatorships, you don't ******* matter. You are an ant. You work, you pretend to be happy, you eat, you sleep, you reproduce, you die. No art. No freedom of speech. Only service.

America is an even split between the government serving the people, and the people serving the government, a democracy. There should be no unnecessary powers of the government, and the government does not have more power than the people collectively. It will always be this way with the right to bear arms intact.

-4

#352 to #163 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

First of all America is not a dictatorship, and there is no reasonable argument for saying that it will ever become one. It won't, and I clearly said "developed country" but I'm not surprised your reading comprehension is low.
The problem with your argument is that if you win by "destroying yourself" you can easily do that without guns. You do not need guns to slaughter yourself and ruin the "kingdom" so there is no argument there for guns, in fact it's the opposite. You agreed yourself that you cannot win so what is gained from fighting, the outcome is exactly the same.

In what realistic situation would you imagine that you would need to overthrow the government, there is none. America is a democracy and if the entire population was unhappy with the government they would be able to make a change without violence, because it's not a dictatorship and the population is not controlled.

If you want to make an argument against gun control, fine, but by every standard out there this is a very stupid reason.

+2

#361 to #352 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

Well, this is the reason. I have explained to you the route governments take to become dictatorships. No one elects a dictator knowing they will be a dictator.

I'm not saying America is a dictatorship.

I'm not saying America is in danger of becoming a dictatorship, in fact, that is my point.

Because the collective is armed, there is, in addition to the civil, lawful defenses we have, we have physical defense to fall back on.

If you are telling me that this is a what if scenario, and therefore false, I disagree with you. This concept is known as a contingency, and it's funny if you don't know what that is.

Lastly, I am not concerned with whether or not you find this reason to keep and bear arms stupid, as it is not just some reason I found to justify the second amendment so I can shoot the **** out of targets on the weekend, it is indeed the reason it was written by a quill on the day the constitution was chartered, because unlike you, those framers knew a thing or two about government.

-2

#460 to #361 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

But there is no situation in which America will become a dictatorship, and in the event that they did, the population would have no chance taking on the army.

You don't have physical defences to fall back on, because you don't have sufficient defence to even pose a threat. I'm very aware of what a contingency is, but are other countries suffering from this lack of "contingency"? What you forget is that if America turned into a dictatorship it is not the population that would overthrow the government, it would be the allying superpowers. I don't see any countries doing any worse from their lack of "right to bear arms" they're actually doing quite better than the US as it's the only country with a mass shooting problem. Your argument is it's ok for these hundreds of people to be shot to death because in this <0.1% chance of our government turning tyrannical so we could shoot off a few bullets before getting bombed by a drone.

Actually the founding fathers did not know **** about the modern era and I guarantee you that if they were starting a government from scratch in the present day on new land there would be no "right to bear arms".

-2

#366 to #352 - Abortedwafflez (12/10/2015) [-]

" not surprised your reading comprehension is low."

" not surprised your reading comprehension is low."

+1

#395 to #366 - klaes (12/10/2015) [-]

His argument wasn't "you're dumb", his argument had "you're dumb" in it.

You avoided his central point completely and responded to his tone. Although this isn't exactly a fallacy, it's NOT a counter argument to his point.

0

#390 to #366 - skelebones ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

who gives a **** ? the thread is ****** 82 ways to hell and back. you might as well spam that ******* img.

-3

#291 to #163 - lordraine ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

The people don't serve the government. You're trying to sound reasonable, but the very rhetoric you're using is already stained with authoritarinism.

The question you should be asking isn't "why would the government want to do this." The reasons are numerous, and it has happened numerous times in history. That's a stupid and pointless question to ask.

The question you should be asking is "if they wanted to, could they manage it?"

The answer to that as it stands right now is "yes."

This is unacceptable.

-1

#385 to #291 - emiyashirou ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

"Yes" - Citation Needed

-2

#293 to #291 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

Try going out and doing whatever you want 24/7, glw/ that

-3

#331 to #293 - lordraine ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

So when your tl;dr is proven to be fundamentally flawed, you just act dismissive and pretend it didn't matter anyway?

Don't you have school tomorrow?

0

#367 to #331 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

Also, I don't have school tomorrow because your mom called me in sick.

0

#337 to #331 - ryderjbudde (12/10/2015) [-]

A simply worded answer isn't being dismissive. I made a point. You serve your government by obeying laws and contributing to society by working. My point is you can't do whatever you want all the time, because the privileges of a government are maintained by the efforts of the collective.

Also, don't try to belittle my argument by making false scrutinies on my rhetoric, or implying that I am younger than you just because you disagree with me. Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove me wrong.

+7

#332 to #123 - thundergyra (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

-2

#346 to #332 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

My argument is independent of "getting rid of the second amendment" my only point is that using the argument that you need guns to overthrow the government as a reason to not have gun control, is a stupid one. Pick a better argument.

0

#348 to #346 - thundergyra (12/10/2015) [-]

Your argument is "That argument is stupid", pick a better argument.

+1

#363 to #123 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Hey turd sandwich, not only do military men and women swear not to fire on their own citizens, if the government ordered them to, they would be ordering assassination on their own citizens. Either way, the government will get ****** in court or bullets to the head. Military does not exist to protect government first. Governments are full of phony scumbags, and any person in uniform who would fire on a citizen first should not be in the military nor should they have a firearm.

+1

#462 to #363 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

By that argument who exactly do you plan to fight? The problem is you're coming up with this hypothetical situation that the government turns tyrannical but at the same time saying that the military won't be. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce a dictatorship without an army? With their words?
These are the only possible two situations, the population is unhappy with the government, the government does not have control over the military. The population can easily remove the government with no need for shooting politicians since they have no force backbone.
The population is unhappy with the government, the government is enforcing a dictatorship with the power of the army, people with guns stand literally zero chance against the technology of the army.

Do you even know how to think situations through?

0

#215 to #123 - obviousxplains (12/10/2015) [-]

you think the US military would just turn and slaughter their own civilians? the guns would be more like "well, we have the means to fight"

-1

#289 to #215 - lordraine ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

They've literally already built the camps for us. Look into what FEMA's been doing in it's spare time. All the federal government has to do is declare particular flavor of "state of emergency," and they can detain an infinite number of citizens for any reason indefinately, with military force, in the name of "keeping the peace."

You'd best start believing in Orwellian nightmares, lad. You're in one.

-3

#320 to #215 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

Ok by that logic, that they won't slaughter their own civilians, why would you need guns? If you fight, they fight back. That's how it works. I mean we're talking in terms of a hypothetical completely unrealistic and stupid "tyrannical government".

-3

#201 to #123 - toosexyforyou (12/10/2015) [-]

Shouldn't you be busy writing a letter to the Swedish president asking for more immigrants to **** your wife?

-1

#354 to #201 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

How surprising, the one who wants guns is also racist.
It's like PB and J, guns and racists, and you wonder why every rational person thinks you're the scum of the earth. I don't even have to make arguments you just embarrass and invalidate yourself for me.

It's honestly pathetic, it's quite easy to see who is on the right side when the other people are ones like you.

0

#154 to #123 - brobathehutt (12/10/2015) [-]

ALL peaceful protests turn violent with enough people in them. Very few stay peaceful for the entire duration of the protest.

-4

#130 to #123 - kibbleking (12/10/2015) [-]

What is: vietnam

+96

#3 to #2 - crazyhoboguy (12/09/2015) [-]

the "boomsticks" allow for the citizens of the country to organize a militia easier if the government becomes a problem and needs to be overthrown.

+17

#5 to #3 - hongkonglongdong (12/09/2015) [-]

>if

>if

-7

#103 to #5 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

Ah yes, the government which has kept us as the most powerful country, militarily and economically, is certainly a power.
This is the problem with Americans- they have life so good that they see any slight thing and declare it to be a fault. American currency is incredibly stable. American freedom, while not the best, is still incredible- the simple fact that people are freely allowed to criticize the government is a great demonstration of it.
People see the fact that the government tries to make new regulations as a demonstration of it being a problematic government- the mere fact that bills are debated and fought over, instead of just being decided on with no discussion, is a demonstration that America's government isn't a problem.

+4

#218 to #103 - demonfone ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

That's the huge issue with human identitfication towards what "Power" is. Sure, us filthy gun totin, sister ****** , bible thumpin' cowboys (or however the **** people stereotype Americans as these days) have a pretty awesome set up, what with the fame and the money and the glory and the military, but in no means does that make us powerful!

Americans are dangerous. It's simple as that. On the plus side, we are also lazy and irrational. If you don't want or like a gun, you don't have to want or like a gun. If you don't like thinking that America isn't THE MOST POWERFUL OF ALL THE YU-GI-OH CARDS then keep believing your delusion that America is a place where your opinion matters.

When your life stops mattering to the people that launch the missiles, that is when you start to understand that power and danger are not the same. That's when you realize that those people that ignored the gun ban are now the "most powerful" since THEY HAVE GUNS!

Power isn't the man who has the bigger stick; rather the man with the ability to not use it to solve his problems.

That's the huge issue with human identitfication towards what "Power" is. Sure, us filthy gun totin, sister ****** , bible thumpin' cowboys (or however the **** people stereotype Americans as these days) have a pretty awesome set up, what with the fame and the money and the glory and the military, but in no means does that make us powerful!

Americans are dangerous. It's simple as that. On the plus side, we are also lazy and irrational. If you don't want or like a gun, you don't have to want or like a gun. If you don't like thinking that America isn't THE MOST POWERFUL OF ALL THE YU-GI-OH CARDS then keep believing your delusion that America is a place where your opinion matters.

When your life stops mattering to the people that launch the missiles, that is when you start to understand that power and danger are not the same. That's when you realize that those people that ignored the gun ban are now the "most powerful" since THEY HAVE GUNS!

Power isn't the man who has the bigger stick; rather the man with the ability to not use it to solve his problems.

-1

#472 to #103 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

The american military may be the strongest, but as for economy, ranked in the world, the US is on 12th place. As for world policing, it appears Russia is slowly taking over that position. Although I don't hate Russia yet, so hopefully it's for the best.

As for critizing the government. It's only allowed to do it if you don't have an argument to back it up. If you do, you're a terrorist. There's many issues in the american government.

-1

#414 to #103 - hongkonglongdong (12/10/2015) [-]

Power is meaningless when you do not hold it.

Military means nothing when it is used to further interests removed from your own.

We should not be allowed to criticise the government. There should not be anyone allowing us to say things at all! And we don't have free speech anyway.

The mere fact that a few people I will never see are debating how I should live my life does not make the US' government any less a problem.

Power is meaningless when you do not hold it.

Military means nothing when it is used to further interests removed from your own.

We should not be allowed to criticise the government. There should not be anyone allowing us to say things at all! And we don't have free speech anyway.

The mere fact that a few people I will never see are debating how I should live my life does not make the US' government any less a problem.

-2

#388 to #103 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

america isnt the most of anything except fat, many other countries could destroy america, it would be a big fight but america would lsoe from infighting.

+2

#482 to #3 - lazypaul (12/10/2015) [-]

That's just straight up retarded

+1

#480 to #3 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

And when does the government become a problem? When they are incapable of protecting their own citizens? When they fund your enemies? When they invade your privacy, and start national surveillance of potentially everyone? When they start to discriminate against certain ethnical groups in your country and now I'm not talking about black people, but more of a reference to Trumps ideas to monitor all muslims - and deny muslims visas to the US.

If you ask me, its a stupid argument, as the people wont have the means of doing it - since a western state is already too powerful compared to its citizens to let it happen.

+1

#404 to #3 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

well, if that happened, you'd be bringing guns to a drone fight

+1

#357 to #3 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

then why are they not overthrowing the government now? And Im being serious, why would they not since the government is not only trying to limit gun rights, but also speech and internet freedom? it doesnt make sense to me if the population is just going to wait until all freedoms are gone

0

#371 to #357 - Fgner (12/10/2015) [-]

It is undeniable that there is corruption and action must be taken, but most of us still believe in the democratic republic and, without a doubt, the situation can be recovered with proper leadership.

And I don't think you quite understand the severity of a government overthrow, buddy. It's not just "oh let's go shoot politicians". It means a huge portion of the population needs to grab guns and storm D.C. They'll be met with military resistance and we'll have a Civil War. And once that's won, then what? Organizing an entire new government is a huge ordeal (years, if not decades) and not doing so doesn't actually solve anything. In the meantime, there's a huge power gap and disorganization at (arguably) a global scale.

There is a very good reason you only see Civil Wars pop up when there truly isn't another choice. It's a horrifying experience for a small country, let alone a world superpower.

-1

#489 to #3 - letting

(12/10/2015) [-]

Which will literally never happen in your lifetime.

But even if it did, I'm sure your AK-47 will take out that attack helicopter with ease.

+2

#500 to #489 - crazyhoboguy (12/10/2015) [-]

lmgtfy.com/?q=vietnam+war

0

#548 to #489 - anon (12/11/2015) [-]

The rough ratio of U.S. military infantry (about 60k between the Army and Marine Corps) to U.S. firearm owners (conservatively estimated at 150,000,000) is about 2,500 to 1. So yeah...you go on thinking that a 4 man fireteam can effectively buddy rush 10,000 people with small arms (with or without air support).

We went into fallujah outnumbering the militant forces 3 to 1 and look how tough that battle was...being outnumbered 2,500 to 1 sure doesn't sit well with any sane U.S. commander I know of. Taking on the U.S. civilian population would be suicide for the military...not the other way around.

-5

#125 to #3 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

Lol do you honestly think a bunch of randoms with guns could take on the US military? And name me a single developed country who in recent years was forced to overthrow the government by force.
If the entire country hated the government that much they could remove it through peaceful protest quite easily, you're not run by a dictatorship.

+6

#135 to #125 - heartlessrobot (12/10/2015) [-]

They could, because an angry mob mobilizes in under an hour, a military takes much longer to mobilize.
Didn't Egypt do that?
And all the government has to do is say no to the protesters. You can't say no to a hail of gunfire.

-6

#329 to #135 - ericzxvc (12/10/2015) [-]

Please go look up the term "developed country" because I don't think you know what simple words mean.
Really? You think that an "angry mob" of random people could organize better than a trained and well-equipped army? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

You should also look up the word "democracy" because it's another one of those words you don't understand. If the entire population did not like the government they could protest a change quite easily, since the US is not run by a dictatorship. I don't understand how you think shooting politicians would change anything.

If you want to make an argument for guns it's probably selfish and completely unjustified with tons of logical fallacies, but that argument is not in order "to overthrow the government" because that is just stupid. There is zero need ever for the population in a developed democracy to overthrow the government by force, and in the impossible case that they would, there is no way they would be able to.

0

#519 to #329 - heartlessrobot (12/10/2015) [-]

They couldn't mobilize better, just faster.

0

#370 to #329 - stanleys ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

What you forget is that America is not a direct democracy. America is what is referred to as a representative democracy. That means that even if the population as a whole calls for a new government, if the politicians representing the people don't like the thought of a new government, there is not much the people can do at that time. It takes time to officially elect a new politician.

0

#475 to #370 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

America is what you would call an Oligarchy.

0

#372 to #125 - Abortedwafflez (12/10/2015) [-]

"Lol do you honestly think a bunch of randoms with guns could take on the US military?"
You're assuming the military will have it's full strength when people start revolting. And i'm certain Britain had the same mindset when they lost the war to a bunch of farmers.

"If the entire country hated the government that much they could remove it through peaceful protest quite easily"
You're assuming the country would accept peaceful protests should it turn tyrannical, which would be the sole purpose of people taking up arms in the first place.

0

#572 to #125 - theattackmaster (12/26/2015) [-]

You don't seem to grasp that both bigots and stupid people can work perfectly fine with subjectiveness, do you? I think you may of want to retract that stupid, for it fits you better than I my friend.

-6

#93 to #3 - jarelk (12/10/2015) [-]

To be fair, modern era warfare makes a standing militia kind of obselete.

+5

#124 to #93 - dellexe (12/10/2015) [-]

?
How so? Look at all the trouble a few thousand Jihadis caused for us in the Middle East.
Now replace them with Americans who are well educated and have access to arguably better equipment.

+4

#138 to #124 - heartlessrobot (12/10/2015) [-]

"Arguably"

The Redneck Machine Gun Lawn Mower

0

#476 to #138 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Aw, I wanted to see him shoot with it.

0

#454 to #3 - rainbowrush ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

The real issue is that the government is never for the people, by the people, as it should be.

-7

#189 to #3 - failtotheepicpower (12/10/2015) [-]

as if any citizen militia could take down the US army. "you know you're bringing guns to a drone fight, yes?"

+4

#338 to #189 - thundergyra (12/10/2015) [-]

This notion is subscribed to by a lot of people, I know, but there's two flaws in that argument.
The first is that it assume that the entire military would agree with a government decision to kill U.S. civilians. While it is their modus operandi., the entire military is not mindless robots.
The second is that it states that because we don't stand a good chance, we should throw away the ability to stand any chance at all, which is complete insanity.

This notion is subscribed to by a lot of people, I know, but there's two flaws in that argument.
The first is that it assume that the entire military would agree with a government decision to kill U.S. civilians. While it is their modus operandi., the entire military is not mindless robots.
The second is that it states that because we don't stand a good chance, we should throw away the ability to stand any chance at all, which is complete insanity.

0

#413 to #189 - hongkonglongdong (12/10/2015) [-]

Did you hear of this thing called "the Vietnam War"?

Civilian militias are actually tough as **** to beat, because they soak up huge amounts of time and resources and they're ******* everywhere. Throughout history civilian militias have generally ****** **** up, even if they don't win the battle.

+25

#52 to #2 - partycats (12/10/2015) [-]

I love how people who talk **** on the internet are to afraid to have imaginary points taken away from their account. Really helps the argument.

-13

#96 to #52 - thegoblingamer ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

I mean, I wasn't the anon. But I agree with him on this.
Gimme the reds, bruh.
I'll even act like a douche for it.
You're gay and I'm gonna suck your asshole until you **** in my eyesocket.

-7

#97 to #96 - partycats (12/10/2015) [-]

See I don't care what the persons opinion is but it shows a marked level of insecurity that they have to post anon on a site where most posters are account users. I honestly don't even care that he is anon, it just seems kind of pathetic.

+2

#101 to #97 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

What if he just, y'know, doesn't really want to make an account.
It's funny how we praise 4chan for all being anonymous, and thus able to say what they want to, yet if the same thing happens here, we accuse the anon of hiding behind anonymity, and declare it a bad thing.

+1

#99 to #97 - thegoblingamer ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

I'm still gonna suck your dick, faggot.

-6

#145 to #2 - tommygentz (12/10/2015) [-]

No seriously I agree with you, I don't think you're attacking fj users though because internet privacy is something they care about. But many conservatives should hear this

-5

#315 to #2 - presidentmoose (12/10/2015) [-]

That moment when anon makes a ****** comment like anons love to do, and then 1,000 faggots come out of nowhere to defend it

That moment when anon makes a ****** comment like anons love to do, and then 1,000 faggots come out of nowhere to defend it

+18

#25 to #2 - heartlessrobot (12/10/2015) [-]

It doesn't matter how much they know about you if you can still put a bullet in their chest.

-1

#443 to #2 - lean (12/10/2015) [-]

So not only should they be able to spy on us but they should be able to invade our homes with force as well because we will be undefended.
ok bud.

+3

#360 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

post that doesnt even suggest banning guns yet classic fj throwing a tantrum at anyone who says anything remotely negative about guns

+3

#384 to #360 - melwach ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

It's just a Pavlovian response. People criticize something you like and you go at their throats. Doesn't matter if some of their arguing is actually valid or at least a very respectable position. If they aren't agreeing on your position, you better give them some flak.

I like shooting guns myself. I just doubt if it's a good thing for a society to be that wide spread. That's all. But for some people that's already way too negative.

0

#340 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

+5

#343 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

-2

#465 to #2 - infinitereaper (12/10/2015) [-]

anon is right

+2

#421 to #2 - ciacheczko (12/10/2015) [-]

I don't think you have the right perspective on the problem. It's just that many people are too short sighted to see the bigger picture. When they ******** their personal information on facebook, they rarely think "gee, someone completely unknown to me can now all these things about me, including my future employers".

They just don't feel it. To them it's just happy posting so their friends can see. Yes, people are tht oblivious. They only are able to grasp something when the issue is black and white, like guns vs. no guns. Can't get less complex than that, right?

The presence of gun in their hand is simple, understandable. The ability to understand, that tagging wherever you are lets potential spying programs know exactly how you live and where you frequently go, is something that requires thought, awareness, and, most importantly, it's a very unpleasant realisation. To know that others can know everything about you and you don't have influence on it.

Plus media make sure that people will focus on those plain simple guns, because, obviously, that's not an issue as big as internal spying on all modern citizens. And some people don't want common folk come to that conclusion.

I don't think you have the right perspective on the problem. It's just that many people are too short sighted to see the bigger picture. When they ******** their personal information on facebook, they rarely think "gee, someone completely unknown to me can now all these things about me, including my future employers".

They just don't feel it. To them it's just happy posting so their friends can see. Yes, people are tht oblivious. They only are able to grasp something when the issue is black and white, like guns vs. no guns. Can't get less complex than that, right?

The presence of gun in their hand is simple, understandable. The ability to understand, that tagging wherever you are lets potential spying programs know exactly how you live and where you frequently go, is something that requires thought, awareness, and, most importantly, it's a very unpleasant realisation. To know that others can know everything about you and you don't have influence on it.

Plus media make sure that people will focus on those plain simple guns, because, obviously, that's not an issue as big as internal spying on all modern citizens. And some people don't want common folk come to that conclusion.

-26

#112 to #2 - layneismyhero (12/10/2015) [-]

If they wanna watch me masturbate and eat pizza thats cool with me

+1

#422 to #112 - iamslender (12/10/2015) [-]

Don't know why you got all the red thumbs... That was actually funny and related to the topic.

+2

#416 to #2 - herecomesjohnny (12/10/2015) [-]

because guns are kewl
they go pew pew
also homosexual marriage is more important than government budget handling, let's only talk about guns and homos
yeah that'll solve glorious USA

0

#502 to #2 - masdercheef ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Ah yes, America is a singular hive mind. Every single person is exactly the kind of person you just described, all of America reacts to things the same way.

Except, that's not really how it is. The NSA is certainly a concern in the minds of a decent amount of Americans, the problem is nobody really has any idea of what to do about it.

Furthermore, on the topic of guns; if anyone thinks the Second Amendment is there to guarantee their right to have a gun "because I need to protect muh family from criminals" or just because you want to own a gun --- you're wrong. The intention of the Second Amendment is to guarantee citizens the right to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, not to protect themselves from crime. That's somewhat of a moot point nowadays considering the kind of firepower the government could leverage if the military were so inclined to go along with whatever hypothetical tyranny they impose, but that's beside the fact.

Therefore, for all reasons aside from fighting back against government tyranny, ownership of a gun is a privilege, and one that can be taken away with ease for a large number of reasons.

+1

#510 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Arms represent the ultimate check of the people over their government: the people having the monopoly on force over the government.

So yes, take away the arms you take away ALL the freedom. From that point on whether or not you're "free" is solely a matter of whether or not the government chooses to allow you to be "free"...because in the end they have the ability to force the issue one way or the other...which isn't really free anymore. That's just slavery with a really nice master that lets you feel free...but slavery nonetheless because they can put you right back into chains should they choose to.

The fact that the government's excesses and usurpations (like the ones you mention) have not gotten to the point where the people would actually turn to violently putting the government down does not change the truth of that. Soap, ballot, jury and ammo...those are the 4 boxes used to maintain liberty. We haven't gotten to the "ammo box" and hopefully never will. We're still using the first 3 and will attempt to do so for some time.

And to quell your doubts: yes, the people have the monopoly on force in America. 90%+ of our military is not infantry...there's about 60,000 of us between the Marine Corps and the Army (yes, *us*, I'm USMC infantry). Gun owners in America outnumber us in fighters on the ground 2,500 to 1, make up a large chunk of the economy that makes us (the military) strong, and currently surround every in-nation base we have. No amount of intel, air support, arty support, or superior training will outdo those insanely one-sided odds. Anyone that tells you the people can't take our military...they either don't know what they're talking about or haven't really thought through how truly insurmountable of a task it would be to fight the U.S. population. The government of the U.S. truly operates for only as long as the people ALLOW it to operate. By being armed they truly hold the ultimate check over the government.

-1

#457 to #2 - reaperssprint (12/10/2015) [-]

Probably because I'm not a paranoid **** wit and i have nothing to hide. I feel worse for the guy who may have to listen in on my conversation with my grandmother.

Bottom line is every nation with access to the technology is spying on your personal life, not just the US. I'm also sure it's served it's prupose, and I'm also sure people have been falsely accused or arrested on those grounds.

However, I couldn't care less if the government sees my personal life. It has no impact on it and I'd never know if it's occurring or not.

But owning a gun allows the people to protect themselves or cause a large enough racket to draw other nations' attention, to deny the government from overstepping boundaries in an actually threatening way.

+1

#493 to #2 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

Honestly, it's hard to believe how stupid people are. Just repeat the word FREEDUMB!!! until it loses all actual meaning and you start equating it with carrying weapons around. So many of my fellow countrymen are such sad sheeple.

+23

#61 to #2 - noburt (12/10/2015) [-]

I love the people that say that we should trust the government with the data of us. "It is for our safety" We should not give up our basic human rights for so called security. But, what do I know, I'm one man with a small voice.

+19

#109 to #61 - mattsonion (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+38

#49 - barstoolninja (12/10/2015) [-]

I hate the thought of gun control, not because I fear losing my guns, but because the very ******* mention of gun control makes the crazy ***** buy up all the cheap calibers of ammunition and gun parts in bulk, meaning I either can't find them or I'm limited to 1 ammo box per purchase (that's like, 1 magazine or 10 minutes of target practice at the shooting range). Not to mention I'm tired of paying so goddamn much for ammo because of taxes and high demand.

0

#459 to #49 - zythaxx (12/10/2015) [-]

During a previous frenzy, the local gun store ran out of almost everything but customers. A small horde of people waving money around with nothing to buy.

0

#461 to #49 - dashgamer (12/10/2015) [-]

Here you go, man! Cheap ammo in bulk quantities at a reasonable price. If you're buying your **** at the range or at gun stores, no wonder you're being overcharged.
www.bulkammo.com/

Here you go, man! Cheap ammo in bulk quantities at a reasonable price. If you're buying your **** at the range or at gun stores, no wonder you're being overcharged.
www.bulkammo.com/

+10

#458 - mexicandudeinsd (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+24

#74 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

I love how there are always those token anti-gunners on every gun post who go on about

"but gun control doesn't mean BANNING guns, it just mean stricter regulation!"

yeah, and **** that too. shall not be infringed .

Give them an inch and they take a mile, not one step back.

-13

#95 to #74 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

well-regulated militia*

+6

#172 to #95 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

FFS read the US constitution. Every citizen is a part of the militia.

FFS read the US constitution. Every citizen is a part of the militia.

+8

#177 to #172 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

>Dick Act
I guess I'm still 12 on the inside

-12

#180 to #177 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Yeah you are. You literally ignored my points about
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
in the other post. Instead you just thumbed me down like a 12 year old instead of trying to back up your point.

+5

#182 to #180 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

It's because you've copy/pasted the same reply to four different comments like it's some sort of god-comment and it's not even relevant. What, there are different theories about the interpretation of the constitution? The Judicial Branch rules on the constitutionality of laws? What is your point? We're talking about the merits of gun freedom and their roots in the founding of the US. I fail to see how what you linked holds any relevance.

-7

#196 to #182 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

They're not theories they're methods and I'd only replied to you and this other guy, but I replied because I want to be challenged because you're obviously right, right? But rather than address my ****** point as you'd deem it, you just ignore and thumb me down, again, like a 12 year old.

The links are applied methods of interpreting the constitution which is an enormous dichotomy that exists in this country and extremely relevant to the argument because although there's contextual differences in the term "well-regulated" it does not do anyone any harm to take a second look at it and how the framers would have approached it. That being said, just like the context has changed, so have guns and the founding fathers would have never dreamed of automatic weapons to the extent that they're available today, not only that, the amendment is just that: an amendment meaning that it can be changed to fit contemporary social values and context: like the fact that unlike in 1776, you can kill 100 people in 10 minutes with one weapon. So the reinterpretation of the constitution isn't just a good and applicable methodology that is backed by the legislative field, but has been necessary throughout our history.

and HOW we read the constitution and how the legislature read it, ultimately impacts how we apply it.

+2

#227 to #196 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

You're familiar with how the fledgling US government sold naval cannons for cheap to anyone with a boat for defense, right? Now tell me: what's more lethal, an automatic rifle or a naval cannon? The lethality of a weapon has no impact on its applicability under the second amendment. Also with the repeating rifles the founding fathers had when the Bill of Rights was written, do you really think they were incapable of foreseeing the direction arms technology had? Most of them were alive to see the bolt-action rifle invented and some just barely missed the semiautomatic rifle. If they had a problem with it, I sure never heard a peep on the issue from any of them.

And secondly, the different ways to interpret the constitution are primarily for the core document itself. The Bill of Rights were designed as separate articles enumerating people basic rights to PROTECT them from the constitution. It's easy to see considering the overwhelming majority of the Bill of Rights are short sentences with clear meanings, unlike the base text of the constitution or any amendments that follow.
Pray tell, how many different ways you can interpret "Soldiers shall not be quartered without permission", "The right to be armed shall not be infringed", and "People are free to express themselves in speech"?
Also please stop getting so anally annihilated because I'm using the pinky system properly. I disagree with you and think you are wrong so I show my vote with a pinky. Do you want to get mad at the other people disagreeing with you?

-5

#254 to #227 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

Yes they were mate, as a history major I can definitely tell you that the impact of the Gatling Gun on the public at the time was unforeseeable even in 1850s. Yeah because they would've also never foreseen "mass shootings" which is a relatively new phenomena mate. I'm not saying ban guns, I'm just saying don't exclude them from the issues.

Millions of ways, ever talk to an English major? (I'm being facetious)

It's just immature mate, and there's a trend that I've noticed on FJ that people tend to avoid that when having arguments, it's courteous. I don't care that you're using it, I care that you'd ignore me and just use it. It's kind of like saying "I don't want to respond, so I'm just gonna thumb you down"

I'm not mad about disagreement, I welcome it. I want to debate and see why other people see the issue the way that they do. It's another thing when they're assholes about it, given we're on the internet, but it's been a long week yk mate?

Anyways, how do you see guns as a positive good in society and what would you say to the uniqueness of the mass shootings in the US

0

#375 to #254 - Abortedwafflez (12/10/2015) [-]

"uniqueness of the mass shootings in the US"
If you're implying it only happens in America, you're wrong.
www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

-1

#487 to #375 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

It only happens this FREQUENTLY in the US

The data you're using only counts the DEATHS.

Those top three countries have more DEATHS but less MASS SHOOTINGS. The frequency in the US is higher but the death toll is NOT. Notice that I used the same data you did.

It only happens this FREQUENTLY in the US

The data you're using only counts the DEATHS.

Those top three countries have more DEATHS but less MASS SHOOTINGS. The frequency in the US is higher but the death toll is NOT. Notice that I used the same data you did.

0

#506 to #487 - Abortedwafflez (12/10/2015) [-]

It's scaled for population size. The US has more people than all those countries listed. When adjusted for population, even in gun restricted countries, the US still doesn't reach number 1. If those gun restricted countries are still experiencing mass shootings that exceed the US's population scale, it's evident somethings not adding up. Whether that be mental healthcare, gun safety, gun restrictions, etc. Its not unique to the US.

0

#538 to #506 - rockerforlife (12/11/2015) [-]

Oh wait you're right that's kind of weird, I looked deeper into it and Norway allows guns though. So does Switzerland and Finland.

-6

#179 to #172 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

how law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

I'll tell you what though, I didn't know about that act and I'm pretty glad you showed me; thanks.

-7

#98 to #74 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

"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."

The gun holders of America aren't exactly a well regulated militia.

+5

#139 to #98 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

...and I shall direct you to 10 U.S.C. §311.
If you're going to argue politics at least do enough research to not look like an uneducated prick.

-5

#146 to #139 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

Ah, then only females who are in the National guard should be allowed to own guns, and at the age of 45 you are to give up your right to firearms.
It would be interesting to see the reaction in the gun-holding community in regards to that.

+5

#151 to #146 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

The right to bear arms is a right of the people, not the militia; I was simply responding to your claim that gun-toting Americans weren't a well-regulated militia.
How hard are you going to keep twisting US law to fit your agenda?

-7

#153 to #151 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

And I was completely correct in saying that the gun holders of America aren't a well regulated militia- first off, only certain portions of the holders would qualify as a militia, and, secondly, you failed to address the "well-regulated part".
As for "twisting US law to fit [my] agenda", the assumption there is that I have an agenda. I don't. I don't much care if guns are banned in America, nor do I care if guns are given to every American citizen, or if gun regulations are kept, or if they're severely cut back.

+5

#159 to #153 - lifesavers ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

You're not even making any sense. You weasel around 'gun-holders' and 'militia' like they're the same thing, and I don't even think you have the most basic idea of what the second amendment is saying. >>#131 might help.

And get over yourself, everyone has an agenda. Otherwise there would be no political discourse whatsoever.

-5

#169 to #159 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

Regarding your first part, you would be correct- my interpretation of the second amendment, according to the text you cited, is incorrect.

Regarding your second, while everyone certainly does have an agenda, they do not necessarily have an agenda over all topics. There exists an abundance of topics I don't hold an agenda on, and many that I do- guns are not one I hold an agenda on.

You seem quite agitated, though. It's a shame you're so easily frustrated.

+5

#225 to #169 - toosexyforyou (12/10/2015) [-]

He's literally got the ******* text that says "A means B" and you're here telling him "A means C" like a ******* idiot and saying "it's a shame you're so easily frustrated" after you realize how retarded you are. You can't be real.

-4

#247 to #225 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

I'm confused where I stated that the interpretation of the grammar he showed me is incorrect. I'm assuming you're referring to me saying "according to the text you cited"- in which case you're slightly misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the text is correct or incorrect, only that the text shown states my thought on what the second amendment meant is incorrect.
I don't think that it can be claimed to be the ultimate truth on the topic, though- for that, we'd have to ask the framers themselves, and they're a bit busy being dead for that.
As for the comment on how easily he gets frustrated, it was a genuine statement. I think he's getting too upset over comments on the internet, though that's certainly his right.
In regards to me "realiz[ing] how retarded [I am]", I never had any doubts how I would be perceived in this thread- it's a rather conservative one, thus disagreeing would be seen as retarded. It's the nature of things. I admit fully that the text he cited on the grammatical structure of the bill of rights is from a source with a far greater knowledge on grammar than I hold.

-5

#149 to #146 - ilovehitler (12/10/2015) [-]

*unless the holder of the gun previously served in the military, in which case they can retain them to the age of 64

0

#250 to #74 - Zaxplab (12/10/2015) [-]

Holy **** , thank you. I've been looking everywhere for these.

0

#253 to #250 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Np fam

Np fam

0

#355 to #74 - nigeltheoutlaw (12/10/2015) [-]

Even your rights of speech and religion are infringed on, and the vast majority of people realize that small limits are required.. I personally support the second amendment, but not even supporting federally mandated background checks and mental health screenings for guns means that you really aren't smart.

+2

#356 to #355 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

If it stopped at background checks and went no further, that would be fine.

But the unfortunate reality is that mandatory background checks are a stepping stone for registration and later confiscation.

I'm serious, literally every place that has instituted mandatory background checks has followed up with registration somewhere down the line.
-New York
-New Jersey
-California
-Canada
-etc etc etc

Actually, as it stands the ATF uses background checks and CCW licences as a sort of backdoor method of keeping a log of gun owners.

0

#358 to #356 - nigeltheoutlaw (12/10/2015) [-]

Slippery slope fallacies are a weak argumentative point at the best of times. However, yours does have some merit, so what's an alternative? I don't think not screening for criminals trying to buy guns is a rational alternative here, so do you have any ideas?

I get where you're coming from, but there's never going to be complete and utter freedom because that would come at the expense of any attempt at societal safety. Unfortunately they're usually based off of a sliding scale, and the goal is to hit that sweet spot of maximum safety with maximum freedom. I don't think large sacrifices should be made, but principle shouldn't stand in the way of realism.

+1

#364 to #358 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

To further outline my point, here's some data for you. This is according to the CDC by the way.

There are roughly 32,000 deaths a year is the US and declining from Gun Violence

60% Are suicides thats 19,200
3% are accidentals that's 960
4% are justified that's 1,280
33% are homicides that's 10,560
80% of homicides are gang related. That's 8,448
>That leaves 2,112 in a society of 312 million people.

>That leaves a 0.00010256410256 chance of death by gun.
>0.000009846153846 if you don't hang out in the hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and not planning a crime.

0

#382 to #364 - hirollin (12/10/2015) [-]

Would just love a source on these.

0

#362 to #358 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Slippery slope would be unwarranted conclusions drawn from little to no evidence. Actually, we have all the evidence in the world to draw these conclusions. refer to the pic and to what I said earlier, I'm not speaking figuratively when I say that literally every place that made background checks mandatory used it for registration.

Be careful not to misuse that term. It's the same as saying putting food in front of a dog will cause the dog to eat it is a slilppery slope.

The fact of the matter is that gun related deaths are statistically rare and are far outnumbered by things like car accidents and medical malpractice. If the news made a report every time someone was killed in a car crash, you'd be too scared to drive. Gun crime is a non-issue.

> principle shouldn't stand in the way of realism.

You're absolutely right, which is why I refuse to accept any policy that would invite more gun control.

+1

#75 to #74 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

+1

#79 to #75 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+1

#80 to #79 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+1

#81 to #80 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+1

#82 to #81 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+1

#83 to #82 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+1

#84 to #83 - lulzdealer (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+2

#319 to #74 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

"shall not be infringed"

Ok, let's stop infringing on that right then.

A mentally challenged person who likes to put things in his mouth wants a gun. 2nd Amendment gives him that right, hand him a gun.
A person with a history of violent crime wants a gun. 2nd Amendment, he has a right to that gun.
There's an angry looking man with a shopping cart filled with a shovel, garbage bags, gloves, and bleach, and he wants a gun? You best give him that gun.

Unless, of course, you want to stop them. In which case, you're pro gun control.

+2

#456 to #74 - rainbowrush ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean stricter regulation. It could, however mean "better" regulation. Something we all agree on.

The main actual problems are inconsistent laws across states, as well as bad gun ethics.

Literally 99% of people speaking about these issues have no understanding on this subject. All studies posted are wrong or extremely biased to the point they're worthless. People refuse to look at pros from other perspectives as well as acknowledge cons in their own. This is a very toxic attitude, maybe the worst possible in terms of improving.

+7

#1 - include (12/09/2015) [-]

+36

#118 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

"All too many of the other great tragedies of history Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

-6

#477 to #118 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

I can see you're still striving to be one of the dumbest people on FJ.

One day I hope you'll be forced to engage in an actual discussion in an environment with someone where you can't simply make up your own assumptions and use them as your reasoning.

You are scum. You're using nothing but logical fallacies and assumptions to say things that "make sense" failing to realize the problems with your statements.

-1

#483 to #118 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

A few years back, a government attacked civilians. The civilians armed themselves and fought against this tyranny to protect themselves, forming distinct militias. As the nation became divided for years (with hundreds of deaths and atrocities during all the time) it made way for a group to take advantage of the conflict.

0

#281 to #118 - lordraine ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

To be fair, the Bolshevik Jews were waging unilateral economic warfare against the entirety of Europe. Calling them defenseless isn't exactly correct, any more than calling the modern day oligarchs that control our economies and politics 'defenseless.'

Everything else is spot on, though.

+4

#423 to #281 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

Europe resented the Jews because prominent Jewish families were in charge of most of the largest banks and the money of most royal families. No one in their right mind disputed this. However this was because when they were forced out of the land that is now known as Palestine in the 1st millennium and early second millennium by Muslim conquest and refuged in Europe they were refused employment by essentially every christian in every skill except one, money lending. Usury was a sin and so banks were essentially illegal under law. However because Jews weren't Christians they provided a very useful skill and so the the kings and nobility of Europe entrusted them with their finances, hence the term "Court Jew". During the early 20th century nearly all of Europe's wealth was controlled by a handful of Jewish familes, particularly the Rothschild's, but it wasn't a conspiracy for your average carpenter, shop owner, and schoolteacher. What you have is analogous to the Zimmerman Telegram used during World War One. You really, really need to check your facts instead of looking to 4chan.

-1

#531 to #423 - lordraine ONLINE (12/11/2015) [-]

You disputed nothing I said, repeated facts I already knew, and then tell me to not rely on a site for facts that I haven't been to in years.

World War II started because the Bolsheviks used economic blackmail on England and France to get them to fight on their side. It was originally going to be a war between Germany and the Soviets, and the Soviets didn't feel they could defeat Hitler without help, while Hitler was determined to defeat the Soviets at any cost, as he correctly identified them as a threat to the entirety of Europe and eventually the world. Churchhill admits as much in his own memoires.

Educate yourself before disparaging others and making sweeping assumptions.

0

#533 to #531 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/11/2015) [-]

No it didn't, you're wrong. You really need to accept this.

+16

#341 - skebaba (12/10/2015) [-]

Tyrannical government like the republic, right? With its corrupt politicians and corrupt and prideful religious militaristic police?

Empire did nothing wrong. Alderaan shot first

+80

#13 - republicofserbia (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+3

#105 to #13 - bigswingingrichard (12/10/2015) [-]

he was born a liberal.

+7

#411 to #13 - talked (12/10/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+3

#444 to #411 - lean (12/10/2015) [-]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22

Left wing politics hijacked the term in the US

+3

#446 to #444 - talked (12/10/2015) [-]

I ******* hate how american politics has hijacked random words and took away their meaning. Democrats vs Republican, meanwhile, America is a democratic republic! They're not mutually exclusive! Same with the word liberal.

There's a difference between "Language evolving" and using the ******* words wrong

+1

#450 to #446 - lean (12/10/2015) [-]

Dems and republicans are essentially the same party. Big government, advance the establishment. Having one candidate or the other accomplishes identical goals, unless you get a radical in to office (bernie for the Left, Cruz for the right)

Their rhetoric isn't even fundamentally different. Look at Bush, Rubio, and Hillary's platforms. They want the same thing with a couple minor differences.

0

#481 to #446 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

That's not true. Liberalism in Europe leading to modern age changed its meaning over time due to the changes in the political landscape and beliefs. Liberals believed in fundamental human rights during the time of John Locke, but that view and other similar ones started shifting and the views of early liberals held more in tune with the romantics or more conservative party seeing as European liberalism led to Marxism and socialism.
Don't blame the son for the father's sins Europe!

+28

#66 to #13 - dbqpdb (12/10/2015) [-]

You can only do one, kid

+2

#432 - kingderps (12/10/2015) [-]

If someone wants to murder you, who are you to judge them? Don't defend yourself, you don't need a gun. Maybe murdering is right to them, how dare you push your morals on them. Let them murder you and rape your sister/daughter/mom etc. You need to be defenseless because you can't be trusted with the tools to defend yourself anyway.

+4

#438 to #432 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

what if it's just an innocent muslim shooting peaceful bullets and spreading his culture of rape?! we can't risk offending him and hurting his feelings!

0

#544 to #438 - kingderps (12/11/2015) [-]

That's right, also, If someone doesn't like a Muslim shooting them, that makes them racist.

+3

#484 - metajunky (12/10/2015) [-]

I think the issue is compounded by the fact thst gun nuts believe that every single person calling for gun control wants to take all the guns away forever, while the SJWs believe that every responsible gun owner wants to arm every citizen including the children

+3

#396 - shrinkzz (12/10/2015) [-]

"all semblance of freedom"

Ok, so the usa is now the only country where people are considered "free"?
People sure love to exaggerate when it comes to politics...

+3

#397 to #396 - vonspyder (12/10/2015) [-]

ha ha ha.... yeah... were free alright... ya know except i cant choose not to carry health insurance, I cant buy even a single shell shotgun in numerous states, I cant choose where my kids go to school, my money is taken by force by the government and I get no say so on how its spent, I can only smoke weed in a handfull of states without being arrested, I cant be male or white without social reprisal, I cant have an opinion or else some whiner will cost me my job, I cant be gay and get married without some fat bitch getting in the way, I cant cut hair unless i have a license to do so. yeah... were ****** free alright...

+1

#420 to #397 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

finally someone reasonable without their head crammed up their ass... shame its such a rare occurence

+14

#122 - theonewhoanswers (12/10/2015) [-]

Jesus ******* christ, the salt in these comments. Below are butthurt liburalls that can't read the constitution and "muh guns" *********** that can't shut up and move along.

Jesus ******* christ, the salt in these comments. Below are butthurt liburalls that can't read the constitution and "muh guns" *********** that can't shut up and move along.

-6

#324 to #122 - icewraith (12/10/2015) [-]

le condiment emotion huehuehuhue XDDDDDDDDDDD
look mom i said salt on the internet, do you think le twitch chat will like me now? what if i say kappa too?

0

#453 to #324 - dreygur (12/10/2015) [-]

Well ain't you a salty peanut

0

#523 to #324 - theonewhoanswers (12/10/2015) [-]

God forbid I make a comment observing how people get all hung up on political stuff, sorry someone pissed in your cheerios dude.

le ironic maymay 2dank.

God forbid I make a comment observing how people get all hung up on political stuff, sorry someone pissed in your cheerios dude.

le ironic maymay 2dank.

0

#524 to #523 - icewraith (12/10/2015) [-]

le passive aggressive uber chille stoner with relax bro reaction photo umad lololol huehuehue

+7

#9 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

It's a joke, and a funny one at that, but since some people seem to be taking his suggestion seriously: no, you cannot rush a fix for a myriad of complex societal, cultural, and legal problems. What results will be no better than the problem you started with.

+5

#368 - mikepetru (12/10/2015) [-]

<<<Saw this on my FB newsfeed

Notice how they cut off the quotes for "A WELL REGULATED" just before the word militia. If one decides not to rearrange the order of words in the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to defend themselves in case the military goes rogue. Following their definition of "WELL REGULATED", it is to keep the military under control and make sure they answer to a constituted authority. So if you really want to play with semantics, the 2nd Amendment is saying to let people arm themselves so that they are prepared in the event their government/military decides they no longer recognize the rights of the American people. "In order to control the military, while recognizing that we need them to defend our rights from those who would do us harm, cannot prevent the people from being able to defend themselves in the event the military seeks to do us harm." It's that old back and forth that goes:
"We're trying to protect YOU from THEM!"
"Yeah, but who is going to protect US from YOU?"

I'm not saying a weapon should just be handed out to literally everyone. People make the assumption that if I believe the Federal government should not have the right to regulate citizens' weapons, then I want some militant anarchy. That's what the 10th Amendment is for. Any powers not expressly granted to the Fed is reserved to the states. And the states can impose their own screening process and regulations for the sale of weapons. Just like states can impose their own standards for who drives a car. And if a discrepancy arises, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to argue the constitutionality of such laws made.
But all of that is besides the point I'm trying to make. My problem is that this picture states what it claims the 2nd Amendment "REALLY" says is "A well regulated....some M word that's smudged....free State...PEOPLE! SEE, A WELL REGULATED PEOPLE! IT'S CLEAR AS DAY!"
The Constitution exists to protect citizens from an oppressive government, yes, but that includes STATE governments as well. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment exists, not only to ensure peoples right to defend themselves from the federal government, but also that the federal government will come to our aid if a state government chooses to restrict our right to defend ourselves. The government can regulate the military's weapons, but only the States have to authority to regulate the citizen's weapons. It's the assumption that "if there is no federal regulation, then there is no regulation" that bothers me. Federal regulation of weapons is an act of blind faith and of letting those who we might someday need to defend ourselves against have full jurisdiction over whether or not we can. If the federal government has full regulatory power over weapons, then they can make any restrictions they want, because in that case, they answer to no one but themselves. "The government is not out to enforce an all out prohibition of guns!" But at the same time, if they wanted to, who has the authority to stop them? Would you grant a man absolute power because you FEEL like he wouldn't use it? Why even give it to him?
If a State goes rogue and institutes a military takeover, the federal government exists to stop them, using the military. If the federal government/military goes rogue, it is the duty of the States to stop them, using the citizens and what weaponry/training they possess since they cannot depend on the military for defense. But the states can't stop them if they have relinquished their authority and ability to do so. The States are not made safer by taking away the Fed's only handicap. Both State and federal government exist as system of checks and balances for the other in the pursuit of defending the citizens' rights.
So ultimately, my point is that the 2nd Amendment serves as the States' check on the government, not the government's check on the citizens. The government already has their check on the states, the military.

<<<Saw this on my FB newsfeed

Notice how they cut off the quotes for "A WELL REGULATED" just before the word militia. If one decides not to rearrange the order of words in the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary in order to defend themselves in case the military goes rogue. Following their definition of "WELL REGULATED", it is to keep the military under control and make sure they answer to a constituted authority. So if you really want to play with semantics, the 2nd Amendment is saying to let people arm themselves so that they are prepared in the event their government/military decides they no longer recognize the rights of the American people. "In order to control the military, while recognizing that we need them to defend our rights from those who would do us harm, cannot prevent the people from being able to defend themselves in the event the military seeks to do us harm." It's that old back and forth that goes:
"We're trying to protect YOU from THEM!"
"Yeah, but who is going to protect US from YOU?"

I'm not saying a weapon should just be handed out to literally everyone. People make the assumption that if I believe the Federal government should not have the right to regulate citizens' weapons, then I want some militant anarchy. That's what the 10th Amendment is for. Any powers not expressly granted to the Fed is reserved to the states. And the states can impose their own screening process and regulations for the sale of weapons. Just like states can impose their own standards for who drives a car. And if a discrepancy arises, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to argue the constitutionality of such laws made.
But all of that is besides the point I'm trying to make. My problem is that this picture states what it claims the 2nd Amendment "REALLY" says is "A well regulated....some M word that's smudged....free State...PEOPLE! SEE, A WELL REGULATED PEOPLE! IT'S CLEAR AS DAY!"
The Constitution exists to protect citizens from an oppressive government, yes, but that includes STATE governments as well. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment exists, not only to ensure peoples right to defend themselves from the federal government, but also that the federal government will come to our aid if a state government chooses to restrict our right to defend ourselves. The government can regulate the military's weapons, but only the States have to authority to regulate the citizen's weapons. It's the assumption that "if there is no federal regulation, then there is no regulation" that bothers me. Federal regulation of weapons is an act of blind faith and of letting those who we might someday need to defend ourselves against have full jurisdiction over whether or not we can. If the federal government has full regulatory power over weapons, then they can make any restrictions they want, because in that case, they answer to no one but themselves. "The government is not out to enforce an all out prohibition of guns!" But at the same time, if they wanted to, who has the authority to stop them? Would you grant a man absolute power because you FEEL like he wouldn't use it? Why even give it to him?
If a State goes rogue and institutes a military takeover, the federal government exists to stop them, using the military. If the federal government/military goes rogue, it is the duty of the States to stop them, using the citizens and what weaponry/training they possess since they cannot depend on the military for defense. But the states can't stop them if they have relinquished their authority and ability to do so. The States are not made safer by taking away the Fed's only handicap. Both State and federal government exist as system of checks and balances for the other in the pursuit of defending the citizens' rights.
So ultimately, my point is that the 2nd Amendment serves as the States' check on the government, not the government's check on the citizens. The government already has their check on the states, the military.

0

#394 to #368 - abesimpson (12/10/2015) [-]

Look I don't want rain on anyone's parade but If a government wanted to take over the country, they would and could. It doesn't matter if you have guns or not.

They can just cut the electricity in major areas, poison water supplies, kill livestock, etc, until most of the people are afraid and submit. And then wipe out the remaining oposition. The reason none of this happens is because the government is also formed by what used to be citizens with normal lives and an education revolved around the idea of freedom.

People should just admit that they want their guns because they like them. No one is going to defend jack **** or save the day from some terrorists (If the terrorists know everyone has guns, then they would just bomb everything using the surprise factor).

We get it America, it's your thing. Just do your thing but have some control over it. If every state has different laws regarding guns then it would be hard to effectively keep guns away from criminals and nutjobs, they can just go to the next state to buy it and come back.

"But Abe, if we take away the guns from the good people, the bad people will have guns anyway!"

1) No one's taking away your guns. But maybe every state should have the same type of gun control, either that, or drop gun control all together.
2) If the government were as keen as procuring illegal weapons as much as their war on drugs (which happens to be mostly marihuana for some reason. Yeah let's arrest all the hippies and drug addicts and keep this country safe... and spend billions each year because of prison overcrowding)

Of course it's not going to take two days to take away guns from criminals, but overtime we can notice some change.

0

#398 to #394 - vonspyder (12/10/2015) [-]

The last time a government tried it it didnt go well for that government.

0

#402 to #398 - abesimpson (12/10/2015) [-]

Well the current government has more ways to do so now.

Also, whose to say they will oppress the people through violence. Look at how gradually the SJWs are limiting freedoms through the media. Those people will be the next big generation and no gun can stop that kind of oppression.

0

#403 to #402 - vonspyder (12/10/2015) [-]

Sure it can. Shoot those people and there is no more problem. Not comfortable using a gun? A knife or an axe or a hammer will do the job too.

0

#405 to #403 - abesimpson (12/10/2015) [-]

What if our own close relatives are also brainwashed with this **** ?

They're eating her....and then they're going to eat me!......OH MY GOD!!!

0

#406 to #405 - vonspyder (12/10/2015) [-]

what if they are? if anything there more motivation to be rid of them. WOuldnt want to be associated with them would you?

+5

#7 - hongkonglongdong (12/09/2015) [-]

Whilst I agree that it would be a ******* stupid decision, this in no way represents "this generation". It represents any and all generations. People are far too quick to assume the problems they face are unique to their time period.

As an example, SJWs have existed for well over a century.

Whilst I agree that it would be a ******* stupid decision, this in no way represents "this generation". It represents any and all generations. People are far too quick to assume the problems they face are unique to their time period.

As an example, SJWs have existed for well over a century.

+2

#431 - jiichei (12/10/2015) [-]

I'm not a gun enthusiast, to be honest I don't really care about the whole gun control law, but even I know that if there is an asshole who wants to shoot people, they are going to get a gun in one way or another, no matter what kinds of laws there is. I think guns are kinda banned in paris, am I correct? still the terrorist got their hands on weapons.
I don't know if a civilian should be able to carry a gun though. some kind of regulation is alright. but I don't think that gun control does that much to prevent some shooty-shooty-pew-pews.

of course I could be wrong. like I said I'm not interested in the topic so therefore I have not studied any of these things.

+2

#473 to #431 - lucariopwnz (12/10/2015) [-]

For the most part you're spot on to be honest lol. Though one small tidbit of info, 98% of "civilians" who legally own firearms will never commit a crime with said firearm. Nearly all violent crimes that involve a gun involve illegal weapons. So yes anyone who wants to create some **** can get their hands on one, but legal gun owners are some of the most honest people you'll meet.
Source: I manage a gun shop

+2

#128 - kibbleking (12/10/2015) [-]

>>#74, unblock me

+8

#70 - foelkera ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-]

S H A L L N O T B E I N F R I N G E D
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

I
N
F
R
I
N
G
E
D

0

#155 to #70 - failtolawl (12/10/2015) [-]

B E V E R A G E P U R P O S E S I S H E R B Y P R O H I B I T E D
E
V
E
R
A
G
E
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
I
S
H
E
R
E
B
Y
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D

0

#415 to #70 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (12/10/2015) [-]

Does that include nukes or nah?

-14

#94 to #70 - rockerforlife (12/10/2015) [-]

W E L L - R E G U L A T E D
E
L
L
-
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
E
D

0

#147 to #94 - obanesforever has deleted their comment [-]

+4

#407 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

2 Muslim Terrorists in Gun Friendly Texas = 0 innocent deaths, 2 terrorist deaths.
2 Muslim Terrorists in Gun Restricted California = 14 innocent deaths, 2 terrorist deaths.

Ah yes, gun restriction works! *cough*
I dont get why lefist socialist ********* dont understand that people that want to do wrong, will ALWAYS get weapons one way or another and that they're only helping the government in to taking full control without anyone to stop them because no one owns weapons to defend themselves anymore. Even against terrorists...

-3

#419 to #407 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

You're an idiot.

0

#470 to #419 - asotil (12/10/2015) [-]

good argument

+3

#110 - anon (12/10/2015) [-]

>Yet the people that kill the most have melee weapons

[ 572 comments ]

Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

<

>

Friends (0)