| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#7
-
drawesomeballs (05/09/2012) [-] its weird... i know that america is widely known as the most free country and all, but im in the united kingdom and... i dont know really... it just strikes me as a lot more 'free' over here. gays can marry and stuff. granted we dont have guns. makes us sound like a pussy country, but god damnit i love gay rights.
#32 to #30
-
dispensa (05/09/2012) [-] Honestly, it's stupid.
The point was, that during war times every man would be able to grab his rifle, head to the nearest armory (or just a big house, pretty much every bigger city has a set location to get ammo from), get ammo and protect his country and loved ones.
I don't see a violent war in the future, atleast not one that switzerland is involved in.
The point was, that during war times every man would be able to grab his rifle, head to the nearest armory (or just a big house, pretty much every bigger city has a set location to get ammo from), get ammo and protect his country and loved ones.
I don't see a violent war in the future, atleast not one that switzerland is involved in.
#484 to #32
-
Jewssassin (05/09/2012) [-] >stupid policy
>ignores fact that they have an almost zero crime rate
Lets play a hypothetical game here.
You're a criminal and want to make a quick buck, and your in Switzerland.
You suddenly learn that every house has a rifle in it, and atleast one person that knows how to operate it efficiently. it is always highly possible for there to be more then one rifle with more then one person in the house that can operate them.
Do you REALLY want to break into a house now?
Even if it was a policy made for a different time and reason, it still helps today.
>ignores fact that they have an almost zero crime rate
Lets play a hypothetical game here.
You're a criminal and want to make a quick buck, and your in Switzerland.
You suddenly learn that every house has a rifle in it, and atleast one person that knows how to operate it efficiently. it is always highly possible for there to be more then one rifle with more then one person in the house that can operate them.
Do you REALLY want to break into a house now?
Even if it was a policy made for a different time and reason, it still helps today.
#38 to #32
-
commontroll (05/09/2012) [-] I honestly think that's the best defense plan a nation can have. Not to get involved in wars, unless attacked, and for EVERY person to have weapons to fight with. Because then, if you're being invaded, you have to fight every single civilian. It's not just their army and a few armed soldiers. That's why I'm glad I'm in Texas. Nobody would ever start an invasion in Texas.
#55 to #48
-
commontroll (05/09/2012) [-] Back in the days when we didn't have just as many people as them... Mexico is not a problem anymore. If a nation wanted to invade America, they would not start with Texas, due to how much desert they would have to go through to get to the major cities, and how many people here have guns, even in the large cities. After a day, a large amount of the military could already be deployed and fighting off the invasion. Texas is a terrible place to invade. Maybe New Mexico or Arizona, hiding in the mountains and establishing bases, then taking over while also attacking SoCal.
#43 to #38
-
dispensa (05/09/2012) [-] Sure it's a great plan, but I think it's obsolete for switzerland.
Nobody really hates switzerland, we don't even have much stuff, we don't have natural resources, we only have a small amount of land, etc.
The only reason to invade us would be for our scientists, which is pretty damn stupid because the best ones work for other countries or the UN anyway.
Nobody really hates switzerland, we don't even have much stuff, we don't have natural resources, we only have a small amount of land, etc.
The only reason to invade us would be for our scientists, which is pretty damn stupid because the best ones work for other countries or the UN anyway.
#49 to #46
-
dispensa (05/09/2012) [-] I don't think that the next world war would be like the previous 2. I think it would be pretty much the same as the cold war, or maybe a hacking war.
And even if it would be like WW2, I don't think that maybe 2 million swiss people would be a big help against devestating tanks and drones.
Well, I guess it isn't too bad, I mean...hey, a free rifle, right?
And even if it would be like WW2, I don't think that maybe 2 million swiss people would be a big help against devestating tanks and drones.
Well, I guess it isn't too bad, I mean...hey, a free rifle, right?
#63 to #49
-
commontroll (05/09/2012) [-] xD Exactly! Even still, the problem with nations that have a lot of armed civilians is that even if they do succeed in invading, occupying the nation would be incredibly difficult. Drones are still super expensive, and can still be destroyed fairly easily. Tanks would be difficult for sure though.
But, my thoughts on the next World War are that it's probably going to end up being fighting over water sources, or possibly oil if we run too low without a replacement that's just as powerful as oil. If it was over water and fertile lands, then they'd probably just waste as many soldiers as they could, so that there would be fewer people to use up the water.
But, my thoughts on the next World War are that it's probably going to end up being fighting over water sources, or possibly oil if we run too low without a replacement that's just as powerful as oil. If it was over water and fertile lands, then they'd probably just waste as many soldiers as they could, so that there would be fewer people to use up the water.
