Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #115 - slumberdonkey (04/30/2013) [-]
Lot of butt hurt people. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. In america we have guns for a reason. The founding fathers wanted us to be armed because they didn't want the government to ******* take over. If no one has guns, the government will take over. Seriously, that **** happens all the ******* time. Also, why would holding arms be the ******* second amendment. The founding fathers thought it was pretty ******* important.
#672 to #115 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
Oh, please, if the Govt wanted to take over, they would simply just do so. NONE of the gun owners in the US would make a difference when a drone can simple blow them to kingdom come. Stop using that as an excuse for owning a gun. They would get raped.
#468 to #115 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
I disagree with this. Have some faith in your government and take the guys away from irresponsible people. I know, then you cant protect yourselves from all the criminals who will keep their guns illegally! Even if 1/5 of the retarded with guns lose their guns its worth it. Dont get so butthurt over something that was decided over 100 years, L2 adapt.
User avatar #473 to #468 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
Decided over 100 years ago? What the **** are you talking about? The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment did, in fact, guarantee and individual right to own firearms. And the only way you'll get guns away from people and keep them out of their hands is to begin violence against them to forcibly confiscate the firearms, or to threaten to do such. Gun ownership is a nonviolent and victimless crime, and to initiate violence against people for that means you're no better than the common thugs that people need guns to defend themselves against anyway. Gun control defeats its own purpose.
#467 to #115 - breakfastlunch (05/01/2013) [-]
See, that's the idea behind it, but do you really think that a bunch of civilians armed with assault rifles and large-caliber hunting rifles can match the most powerful military on the planet, armed with millions of fully armed and armored soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.?   
   
The only reason guns are still around in our society is that they're so deeply ingrained in American tradition and culture.  'Murica needs its guns, and people don't want them taken away.  In a practical modern view, it has nothing to do with preventing tyranny.
See, that's the idea behind it, but do you really think that a bunch of civilians armed with assault rifles and large-caliber hunting rifles can match the most powerful military on the planet, armed with millions of fully armed and armored soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.?

The only reason guns are still around in our society is that they're so deeply ingrained in American tradition and culture. 'Murica needs its guns, and people don't want them taken away. In a practical modern view, it has nothing to do with preventing tyranny.
#606 to #467 - tankthefrank (05/01/2013) [-]
Sun Tzu, the American Revolutionaries, North Koreans, the NVA, Vietcong, and the Taliban would all like to have a word with you
#618 to #606 - breakfastlunch (05/01/2013) [-]
None of those apply.  The Revolutionaries in the colonies and the communist groups fought against the most powerful nations in the world, yes, but you must remember that they did so fighting them from the other side of huge oceans and against limited effort, so to speak.   
   
A domestic uprising in the USA would be completely different from an attack on a US-owned or US-supported territory.  You're not sending people across the ocean, you're not fighting politics (like Vietnam).  You're going on an all-out war with people trying to topple your government.  If the US brought its full and total military might upon Korea and Vietnam, it might have made the Cold War too hot, so it held back.  Also, the people were against the wars in both situations.  In addition, both N. Korea and N. Vietnam had armies and support from the USSR, not just armed civilians.   
   
TL;DR None of those examples had a country pouring all of its resources into crushing the opposition.
None of those apply. The Revolutionaries in the colonies and the communist groups fought against the most powerful nations in the world, yes, but you must remember that they did so fighting them from the other side of huge oceans and against limited effort, so to speak.

A domestic uprising in the USA would be completely different from an attack on a US-owned or US-supported territory. You're not sending people across the ocean, you're not fighting politics (like Vietnam). You're going on an all-out war with people trying to topple your government. If the US brought its full and total military might upon Korea and Vietnam, it might have made the Cold War too hot, so it held back. Also, the people were against the wars in both situations. In addition, both N. Korea and N. Vietnam had armies and support from the USSR, not just armed civilians.

TL;DR None of those examples had a country pouring all of its resources into crushing the opposition.
#625 to #618 - tankthefrank (05/01/2013) [-]
fair point, (and as a disclaimer i do not think there is a chance in hell there will be a civilian uprising here any time soon) but what I was trying to express is the one thing that American civilians would have in common with these groups, they wouldn't play by the rules, guerrilla warfare if you will, which is also why i included Sun Tzu in there, since he practically wrote the field manual. It doesnt matter how big, bad, and organized you are, you cannot beat an unorganized force.

reference The Art of War.
#390 to #115 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
Are you seriously afraid of the Government taking over? Great argument, lets have your low grade weaponry stand up to America's finest military.
User avatar #677 to #390 - undeadwill (05/01/2013) [-]
Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't seem to have any problem fighting back.
#629 to #390 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
your implying that the military would fight against its own ******* citizens that include family and friends. Not that they won't but i can't see all of the military doing that hell maybe not even a single dam military personnel will.
User avatar #597 to #390 - mrstalin (05/01/2013) [-]
14+ million registered gun owners in the US. Around 300,000 armed service members. Granted the military is very powerful, 14 million is a tough nut to crack.
#270 to #115 - warlordtitan (05/01/2013) [-]
to be fair a smart leader will not openly oppress the people. A smart "leader" would trick them into following him by acting upon what they want to hear (Hitler) and in doing so he will get so much of the population on his side it doesn't matter how many people have guns. Although I fully agree with you that people can have a firearm if you want. Theres just the problem that alot of the "responsible gun owners" are not really responsible and cause mayhem which is why i personally believe there should be mental examinations and background checks.
User avatar #199 to #115 - screamingdemon (05/01/2013) [-]
The second amendment also says that you should have the same firepower as the military, AKA nukes and tanks.
It was written at a time where muskets was the most powerful firearm around. I don't think they had Accurate automatics in mind.
Also, it's not like the government is going to "take over" more than it already has. This is where most of Europe and Canada is a fine example.
Why would the government try to "take over" when they already have control? And how would they do it? Do you think people in the military would agree to that?
User avatar #139 to #115 - ningenpoop (04/30/2013) [-]
Take over are you ******* listening to yourself like the gov is so hungry for power they will turn against the only thing keeping it up.
User avatar #189 to #139 - useroftheLOLZ (05/01/2013) [-]
****** you went full retard.

Power corrupts absolutley, absolute power corrupts absolutley.
User avatar #193 to #189 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
since when was our government absolute power ******* swaggot
User avatar #430 to #193 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
It is not absolute yet, but it is slowly becoming that way. With minor freedoms being restricted eventually leading to major freedoms being restricted. It is the peoples job to make sure the government never obtains absolute power
#166 to #139 - sirbutterballs (05/01/2013) [-]
>Implying governments haven't oppresed unarmed civilians before
>Implying governments haven't oppresed unarmed civilians before
User avatar #181 to #166 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
no I understand its happened but it is not like we are living under the rule of some primal leader like back in the days anymore, the united states government won't just go against abounch of innocent civilians, for what reason?
User avatar #431 to #181 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
Talk to any 9/11 truther and they'll tell you
User avatar #184 to #181 - sirbutterballs (05/01/2013) [-]
Simple, money and resources. Even if they're the government they're still people. They are still looking out for themselves. All you need is an intelligent power hungry man with a plan and boom. It's Germany all over again.
User avatar #195 to #184 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
I don't think our gov is abounch of gold hungry jews that want world domination, there are still moral and ethical people in the government surprisingly enough.
User avatar #204 to #195 - sirbutterballs (05/01/2013) [-]
Ambition doesn't stop at morals. A wave of the hand and those politicians are in prison or found in a river down state. Bad **** happens to the good my friend and usually it's in the "bad guy's" favor.
#143 to #139 - boothead (05/01/2013) [-]
Considering how the Government gets whatever money it has left from the Federal Reserve (Owned by the Rothschild family, it's about as federal as federal express) if they decide to enslave humanity, disarm us, put us all in camps unless we assist them, and promise the Rothschild family world domination they'd have every single bit of money at there command. The only countries they wouldn't be allowed to have their fingers in money wise is Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Otherwise every single Dollar, Peso or pound you hold in your hand is an IOU to that family. So no. We don't keep anyone afloat.
User avatar #147 to #143 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
Yea but still we are a developed society and thinking that our own government is going to "enslave humanity" and put us in camps is just pretty ******* far fetched
#496 to #147 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
did you know that they put the Japanese in camps during ww2
#155 to #147 - harryblazer (05/01/2013) [-]
so was Germany, Bosnia, Paris,Rwanda, and Syria ,ect. Just because we are a first world nation, doesnt make us imune to power hungry people with to much power. Crack open a history book
User avatar #156 to #155 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
Sounds like your living ******* good with a computer and resources on demand, you guys should stop whining.
#161 to #156 - harryblazer (05/01/2013) [-]
Im pointing out that a power hungry goverment takeover is more commonly seen in 3rd world nations, but can just as easily happen to a 1st world nation
User avatar #163 to #161 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
alright I can acknowledge where your coming from but it might not happen just as easily as a third world country
User avatar #441 to #163 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
This debate isn't about the impending government takeover of our lives, we are just simply discussing the plausibility of such an outcome. None of us think that a New World Order is imminent (except for a few conspiracy theorists) but a lot of us seem to be in agreement that such an event could happen
#165 to #163 - harryblazer (05/01/2013) [-]
defenetly not as easily, but we are just as prone as anyone else. And if we think we're not just because we arent a "poor nation' it'll happen before we know what hits us
User avatar #150 to #147 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
so if you don't want a government that takes ******* care of you how about you go to Somalia and don't call me when you get hungry.
User avatar #460 to #150 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
A successful government needs to maintain a healthy balance of security and freedom. You can be the freest individual in the world living in Somalia, but you will be fearful for your life. On the other side of the spectrum, security that restricts any freedom makes you feel worthless and is very depressing. These kind of countries would be Cuba or North Korea. It is a good thing that the government is taking care of us, but at the same time we must be protective of our freedoms
#149 to #147 - boothead (05/01/2013) [-]
That's how the Germans felt when Hitler took power... Legally... And used his version as Chancellor's 'Executive Order' to post-pone elections due to economic stability, people supported it was so bad at the time. Seriously the only reason we are'nt revolting here is because the FDA helps keep us fat and the Media keeps us entertained, otherwise we'd be putting foot to ass alongside our military in a coup.
User avatar #151 to #149 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
that was in the 1900's and the mindset by Hitler clearly was not moral, he wanted domination not the best for the people.
User avatar #222 to #151 - asschwitz (05/01/2013) [-]
Hitler wanted the best for all of his white, non-jewish people. He had his morals, albeit he did some pretty ****** up things.
User avatar #159 to #151 - karson (05/01/2013) [-]
seriously? over the course of humanity, 70 years isn't much. I'm sure the germans thought death/concentration camps were a little far-fetched, too. "I mean, come on, its the 1900's! we're much more civilized now! our government would never do that to us."
#410 to #159 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
so because something might happen again someday we are supposed to let our preventable death toll from massacres and everyday shootings just stay huge like it is? because in some hypothetical fantasy world the government is going to start a city to city gorilla war with it's own people to achieve..... i don't even know what you think the reason is. the government is already in power, and it has a military behind it that wouldn't obey an order like that even if it gave one. what pro gun people forget is that the status quo is killing people in real life not just in their conspiracy theory soaked heads. so when the next newtown happens (and one will) i hope you all realize that it was preventable but people who think like you are what allowed it to keep happening.
User avatar #466 to #410 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
You are living in a fantasy world. People kill people, it has been the law of history since the beginning of time, it doesn't matter if you outlaw guns, people will continue to kill people. Isn't this what the boston bombings have taught us? Is that people will be murdered via explosives, knives, poisoning, fire. You can outlaw guns, it will not prevent homicidal death across the nation.
#662 to #466 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
that is such a dumb argument. of course there will still be murders, no one is arguing that gun control is going to fix everything. but because it only reduces gun violence and crime in general so much that means its not worth doing? even you should be able to understand that a maniac can do less damage with an ordinary rifle than with an AK 47. maybe people will still find way to kill huge numbers of innocent civilians. that doesn't mean we should make it easy for them.
User avatar #747 to #662 - laelaps (05/02/2013) [-]
The point of keeping guns legal is to give the innocent a way to protect themselves against the resourceful criminal. If a 250 lb burglar who is skilled with using a knife is attacking you, only a citizen of equal strength and skill will be able to combat him. Criminals can find dozens of ways to kill you, whereas your average citizen does not have nearly as many defense mechanisms, except for being able to fire a gun. That's why guns need to stay legal because its a sure way a citizen can know he's protected from any time of psychotic killer
User avatar #160 to #159 - ningenpoop (05/01/2013) [-]
exactly thank you
#154 to #151 - boothead (05/01/2013) [-]
And Obama wants to take our guns away, the same guns that would help us defend ourselves from his cronies... Putting two and two together yet?
#135 to #115 - rodneyabc (04/30/2013) [-]
The government has taken over...

that's why they're the government.
User avatar #136 to #135 - slumberdonkey (04/30/2013) [-]
The government is a form of representation. We elect people who talk about problems that we can't be bothered to deal with. They are not supposed to ******* take over.
User avatar #378 to #136 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
They don't represent us, though. They don't even know who voted for them, so there's no way they're representative.
#137 to #136 - rodneyabc (04/30/2013) [-]
Take over what exactly?

Governing? I'm pretty sure that's their job.
User avatar #262 to #137 - Ruspanic (05/01/2013) [-]
He probably means "assumes authoritarian control".
User avatar #120 to #115 - laelaps (04/30/2013) [-]
I personally believe gun ownership should be legal. But if you honestly believe us having guns will stop the government from taking over, you are seriously diluted. The government has drones, and bombs, and jet planes. Literally hundreds of things that can bring raining hellfire down on any dissenters in the country, and there is nothing a redneck with a hunting rifle can do about it
User avatar #379 to #120 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
300,000,000 people could put an end to it. But too many people are willing to be the frog sitting in the slowly-boiling pot.
User avatar #422 to #379 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
300,000,000; including elderly, infants, children, immigrants, any and all people who are not fit to own a gun/ or choose not to. Not to mention all the people who do have guns and don't know how to use them, and are very inexperienced. The American population is much weaker than gun nuts like to believe
User avatar #463 to #422 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
It's a much better check against government tyranny than a disarmed populace. Look what happened to communist China and Russia, and to fascist Germany. Huge death tolls committed by government against its own people, who were by law disarmed.
User avatar #471 to #463 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
You misunderstand me. I support gun ownership, I'm just saying the government could still suppress us through military might nevertheless. Yes it is a better check than being unarmed, but it is still an insignificant check
User avatar #477 to #471 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
So it's inevitable? I disagree. And even if it were inevitably to happen, it wouldn't last indefinitely. One side would run out of soldiers, money, and morale before the other ran out of conviction and the desire for freedom.
User avatar #481 to #477 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
Again, you are somehow misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say it was inevitable at all. I don't think it is inevitable, I am merely stating that a authoritarian government police state is plausible.
User avatar #488 to #481 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
We're in agreement there. I think here in the US we're getting closer every day.
#267 to #120 - anonymous (05/01/2013) [-]
viet cong, taliban. they fought us for goddamn years
User avatar #425 to #267 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
apples and oranges. They were fighting in a strange country against an unknown enemy. If the government did want to control the masses via a military state, they know the exact strategic features of the land, and no exactly who the target is. The American people.
User avatar #465 to #425 - douthit (05/01/2013) [-]
Government tyranny rarely comes in an all-out war, with the only goal to eliminate all the people. It comes in the form of ever-increasing control over individuals, their property, and their labor. They still need the people to get the money and goods and services to remain in power. That's why a guerilla war is possible.
#129 to #120 - theonlytinman (04/30/2013) [-]
Yes. But its much harder for the government to decide to start a civil war against armed civilians (even if it would be an extermination) than it would be for them to take away the guns and then point them at us.
User avatar #244 to #129 - admiralen (05/01/2013) [-]
dumbass detected!
you realize the government is the people right? its made by the people, for the people and of people

inb4 any grammarnazi
#144 to #129 - rodneyabc (05/01/2013) [-]
Why would the government start a civil war!? How would that even work!?

"Oh god, the governments attacking! they want to kick out the president and replace him with the president!"
#219 to #144 - sirbutterballs (05/01/2013) [-]
It wouldn't be a civil war, it's oppression. Which calls for rebellion, then it's a civil war. Not arguing
User avatar #148 to #144 - theonlytinman (05/01/2013) [-]
Nono. It was a comment towards the individual who thinks that us having guns wouldnt help against the govt because they have drones, bombs, jets, and whatnot. Its not why they would start. Its not if they will start. Its when it will start.
#162 to #148 - rodneyabc (05/01/2013) [-]
What the **** does that even mean?

Are you 100% sure you're not confusing the government with Skeletor?

Just to be clear, the government are the people CURRENTLY in charge of taking your money and deciding what you can and can't do without going to jail or being executed, along with a whole load of other stuff like managing city planning and road maintenance. They don't need to take over America, they already control it.

Skeletor is a big evil dude who want's to arbitrarily take over things by killing people for no reason. He also looks like a large muscular skeleton. While you may be a ******* idiot, I can understand you being confused by the oxymoron of a "muscular" skeleton, do not fret, it confuses everyone, I suggest you look him up on google images to get a clearer idea.
User avatar #479 to #162 - laelaps (05/01/2013) [-]
Yea, you are seriously missing the point. Government has control of the country (duh) but they do not have control of public opinion, so if they wanted to pursue greedy, relentless self-interest pursuits at the expense of other countries, civillians, and the environment they would need a supressed people to pursue such goals, so they would have to "take over the country" (i.e. the public)
#486 to #479 - rodneyabc (05/01/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure the government does all that stuff already.
User avatar #164 to #162 - theonlytinman (05/01/2013) [-]
...Are you really this dumb? Do you just want a debate? Ines that what you want? Because its not going to happen.

I was just telling him WHY the government doesn't attack the civilians with guns.
#171 to #164 - rodneyabc (05/01/2013) [-]
Actually I must admit I am quite dumb.

I actually assumed you were the OP of this comment thread without checking the usernames.

AWKWAAAAAAARD.
User avatar #123 to #120 - slumberdonkey (04/30/2013) [-]
Assume the government didn't want to lay waste to an entire country and would prefer to use the people and land as resources.
Why would they drop nuclear warheads on their own country.
On the other hand certain people would want to become a dictatorial giant with the army walking the streets and killing people who defied them.
User avatar #124 to #123 - laelaps (04/30/2013) [-]
That is why I never mentioned nuclear warheads
User avatar #125 to #124 - slumberdonkey (04/30/2013) [-]
Once again, "Drones, bombs, and jet planes" are not military infiltration of cities. Once again, no dictator would blow up their own cities.
 Friends (0)