Americans couldn't defeat their government. So why would
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Americans couldn't defeat their government. So why would they need guns?
Yea, yea, I know Vietnam but Americans are way to decadent and technology dependent to be compared to the Vietcong, who was backed, by the Soviet Union and China, btw.
Also, if the military with it's arsenal would side with the people anyway, why would civilians need guns? And if they didn't side with the people, well, it's back to point one.
Maybe instead of investing all that money into guns, that don't keep them save anyway, Americans should invest into a better police force.
Can't patrol a street with a jet
>>673916486
It makes us horney
Yeah. Cool.
Assault Rifles should be legal because owning one and having fun shooting it doesn't make you to a full psychotic murderer.
Owning a small firearm, a crosswbow, a sword or a heavy ash tray doesn't turn me into a murderer either.
>>673916486
Yep, after Saddam's forces fell was the point where we won the war and went home, right?
>>673916486
300,000,000 firearms in the us
1,200,000 members of the armed forces
300:1 odds - i'd take that chance
>>673916486
Because even a single shot weapon in the right hands and circum stances can kill. Random chance is an uncontrollable variable. Also look up the golden bb.
You're fucking retarded.
>>673917533
>>673916826
You could use a tank.
smell of napalm in the morning, is better than glue
>implying every service person would take up arms against their people
>implying there's going to be a revolution anyway
>>673917417
>Yep, after Saddam's forces fell was the point where we won the war and went home, right?
Yes.
>>673917694
so i guess we shouldn't even have a chance at overthrowing our government
>>673916486
The USSR and China backed the NVA/Viet Minh/PAVN, not the Viet Cong, dipshit
>>673916486
Guns do keep us safe. Lrn2johnlott
>>673917943
Never failed, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%9311)
>>673916486
insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing pretty well with weapons dating as far back as the late 1800's vs our military. With the number of guns ion civilian hands approaching 320 million in the US, yeah, I think we'd do pretty well.
>>673916826
Actually the Citizens of america could defeat the US Government, as massive amounts of US Soldiers would defect and bring heavier hardware with them.
I don't think soldiers would willingly roll into their neighborhood and murder their entire family's and parents to uphold a tyrannical regime, do you?
ice ice isis
sadams army hasnt been defeated and the farc is also still around (gorilla)
>>673917533
>300,000,000 firearms in the us
>1,200,000 members of the armed forces
>300:1 odds - i'd take that chance
How many firearms can you fire at the same time? And what's the concentration of armed people across the entire country?
Your numbers are worth shit, kid.
>>673916486
You are a moron. No military on Earth can defeat guerrilla warfare, not even the US military.
>>673918340
lol how dumb are you.
>>673916486
>Americans couldn't defeat their government. So why would they need guns?
you're right
class 3 licencing should be abolished
tanks, bombers,fighters, and warships for everyone
>>673917280
I'm Canadian. We have more guns per person than the US.
I have a double-barrel 12 gauge and 4 rifles downstairs.
I agree 100% with your post. Guns are fun, we don;t have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem combined with a gun CONTROL problem. but those problems are utterly dwarfed by the KNIFE PROBLEM. So many fucking people are stabbed that guns don't even register.
regardless, Individual rights > collective rights.
>>673918264
This
>>673918121
>The USSR and China backed the NVA/Viet Minh/PAVN, not the Viet Cong, dipshit
And the NVA backed the Vietcong, you mouth breather. Do you get the concept of a proxy war, you halfwit?
If I go down, I'm goin down swingin
>>673918496
How dumb are you retard. Name one war where the US won against guerrilla warfare.
>protip: you can't
You statist bootlicking shill.
>>673918078
this isn't an argument cuckboi
> pic, you
>>673918759
The Moro insurgency in the Philippines.
>>673918535
>I'm Canadian. We have more guns per person than the US.
>I have a double-barrel 12 gauge and 4 rifles downstairs.
Wow, does your dick even reach inside a lady?
>>673918205
They're well trained fighters who know their awkward terrain and how to use it to their advantage better than anyone. But how often do you hear about the talibananas holding a city/town against a western army?
>>673916486
The results of a government attempting to overthrow an unarmed populous would be different had they been armed, which would also act as a deterrent from doing so. Do you just pretend to not know the difference?
>>673916486
>Americans are way to decadent and technology dependent
dude we got people using their phones alot, were not in the matrix, hairless and having no use of or legs. Most of our youth spend all day training using tactical shooter video games...
>>673916486
If our AR's were no threat to the government, why do you statist pricks always want to take them away?
>>673916486
>So why would they need guns?
Because other Americans, especially aggressive niggers, have guns.
It's a self-perpetuating vicious circle now with no way out.
Which is why they will have school shootings until the end of Western civilization.
After that there will be no more schools.
>>673918121
poor bait is poor
>>673918915
Guerrilla warfare's going is to prolong the conflict, while their opponent slowly bleeds out, loses men, wastes their resources, and finally loses their will to fight.
>the enemy of guerrillas has more to lose
>the enemy of guerrillas loses more men and money
>also that war hasn't ended yet
>>673916486
hi /pol/
you're baby tier in knowledge
>>673916486
Is it so hard to understand that 2nd amendment rights serve more more than one purpose?
The right to keep and bear arms is one of many checks and balances that exist in U.S. government. It keeps power in the hands of people. It's a deterrent against tyranny, a means for personal protection and a tool to overthrow government if necessary.
>>673918915
>>673918915
Guerrilla warfare's goal is to prolong the conflict, while their opponent slowly bleeds out, loses men, wastes their resources, and finally loses their will to fight.
>the enemy of guerrillas has more to lose
>the enemy of guerrillas loses more men and money
>also that war hasn't ended yet
>>673918340
Today's generations of Americans or any western culture are all ready to go wolverine's in the forrests/mountains?
>>673918964
Like the local population anywhere in the US wouldn't know how to use their local terrain better than any non local military unit? MOST of the US military would be just as unfamiliar with the varied local terrain as with any other country.
>>673918296
has the US actually one a solo conflict?
vietnam, iraq and afghanistan we're draws at best
>>673916486
Assault rifles must be legal because a free man must be able to overthrow badass guys when the government does not.
>>673919717
They wouldn't go to the forest, that's suicide dumbass. It would happen in an urban environment where the conventional military can't just nuke the whole population.
>human shields
>urban warfare
>>673916486
> cant overthrow their government:
> no point to own guns. take em away
> small farms cant compete with corporate farms:
> no point in local produce. take away seeds.
we could go on and on about what people should have, and what people should buy.
could argue small farms could poison a community.
could argue everbody with an ar 15 is going to go ape shit and allahu akbar
truth is you have no say, you wont be taken seriously.
nobody on 4chan will change on the whim of a shit thread like this
>>673919582
>Weapons give power to the people
Americans are so cute
>>673919717
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare
An oldie but a goodie.
>pic related
>>673919841
the war of 1812 (technical us victory as all stated reasons for going to war were resolved in the US favor)
the barbary war
the civil war
the indian wars
the mexican american war
the spanish american war
>>673920089
>terrorism
>urban warfare
>guerrilla warfare
>cyber warfare
>the many concurrent tactics can never be defeated by conventional methods
>can't be defeated at all
>>673920109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Outfitters
>>673916486
Nobody expects a ordinary war between the US armed forces and the US citizens.
What gun nuts are essentially saying is that they need guns around, just in case they feel the need to carry out terrorist attacks.
>>673916486
>silly evil southerners we'll just have the army kill you for not bowing down to your swj overlords!
>you and what army.jpg
>mfw it's estimated that there would be a 75% desertion rate in the US armed forces at all levels during a civil war with a standing democuck president.
>mfw everyone who isn't a stronk independant whimman mp/deskjockey is male and from the south in the US armed forces
>mfw the national guard is pretty much government funded insurrection training and the unspoken rule is "report, grab your shit, roll out, and desert immediately and kill the statist fucks who stayed behind"
>mfw police and sheriffs publicly state that they'll tell state and feds to fuck off come gun confiscation
>mfw the liberals think defending niggers on the internet will save them from the cultural enrichment squads come an interruption of basic services.
>mfw da "why do u need dat hurr it says da militia bruv!" retard argument doesn't work because the militia act of 1903 says every man over the age of 16 is in the unorganized militia; gg disarming women and the elderly "progressives"
>>673917730
Tanks are only good for other hard targets.
>>673920089
I'm glad you see things the right way.
>>673916486
the taliban are doing it, why cant we? :)
I'll like to see a new us civil war, te fucking massive scale of that will be amazing to witness, it could destroy the entire country
>>673919987
Urban warfare against people who are extensively trained in said scenario and have proven to disregard civilian casualties. They'll bomb you and your human shield just to get the chance to finish off the orphanage
>>673916486
Backwards thinking OP. There are many reasons folks in the United States own firearms. Many, like law enforcement, military, or pest control, buy their own for their job. Others, like civilians, either purchase for defense or recreation. There's an entire hobby based around rifle shooting. A lot of people ask the question, "why do Americans NEED their guns." Truth is, we don't. They are not necessary in the day to day on goings. The reason we are allowed to keep them, is to turn the people into a standing army. It's one of our earliest survival assurances against invasion. No one wants to invade a nation where every civilian is a potential threat. It foiled the British and in turn has foiled us overseas. That's why these middle eastern countries have proven so resilient to modern warfare, at the end of the day, civilized warfare will always lose to deception and guerrilla tactics.
>>673920302
U mad, you statist cuck?
>>673920383
what are canister rounds?
also /r/ing the webm of isis running that guy over with a tank
/thread
>>673916486
>Americans should invest into a better police force.
You mean like China?
>>673920610
You can't be trained in what you haven't fought yet. There's methods that have not been even used yet retard. See, that's why governments lose against this form of warfare, because your minds are so limited and closed you can't even think of possibilities.
>>673916486
This image is fucking retarded on the basis who ever made it doesn't understand the further implications of a civil war. A country can't use planes and bombs on itself without hurting itself.
GOODBYE EVERYONE. I DOUBT YOU CAN TALK ME OUT OF IT BUT IF YOU WANT TO SAY GOODBYE, YOU CAN
(402) 3190276
>>673916486
You've made an excellent point why American people should be allowed to have military styled assault weapons like the constitution intended.
No argument needed. Good job OP.
>>673920504
> being willing to strap a few explosives on your neighbors 6yo daughter, and send to enemies in promise to spare her parents
there are some fucked tactics you hear about being used.
its a sick world anon, lets pretend only taliban could do that
>>673920723
>let's fire a punt gun on steroids into a crowd
>surely this will win the hearts and minds of the civilian populace
>>673920610
>They'll bomb you and your human shield just to get the chance to finish off the orphanage
This is a good way to get other countries to invade you over human rights abuses.
>this is why it wouldn't happen
>if you did it
>this is why you wouldn't win
>>673919593
Moro rebellion
early 20th century
you're on the wrong article
>>673916486
>vietnam war
>enough said
>>673921430
implying tyrannies give a fuck about winning the hearts and minds
>>673916486
you don't think that American military deployed on American soil for the purpose of destroying American people would even consider that maybe it's their government who is in the wrong?
>>673921170
This.
Pummeling an enemy into oblivion is one thing. But you can't turn dead people into willing subjects. At some point, you've got to send troops door to door to force your will on people. That's a much more difficult job if there's an armed person behind every door.
>>673916486
They have small penises.
>>673921513
>indigineous people
Are you fucking kidding me?
Let's discuss people who have access to modern day food and explosives ok, people of contemporary society, in our century? Doesn't that make sense.
>>673921660
>Bombing your own tax base and infrastructure is a good idea
>>673918251
because every police officer is going to be running around in those.
>>673916486
>implying all soldiers would blindly do what the government said killing there own friends and family
>implying hig ranking militry staff wouldnt join with the rebels taking with them equipment
>implying the current us government would have to balls to carpet bomb cities
if it were a trump presidency sure he would say fuck em but as it stands our government is a push over and if a real revolt happened enough military would back it since most hate our current leaders.
guns must remain legal because we have a nigger problem
>>673916486
Well if the people serving have any conciousness they wouldn't kill their US brothers. I really want to start a revolution to take down the government but I'm in no way a fighter
>>673922024
better than losing everything to disidents
>>673921897
you asked for an American victory over an insurgency and gave one.
The moros were not armed with just knives or something if that's your impression.
I have no idea what modern day food means.
What are you objecting to?
>>673922068
>>implying hig ranking militry staff wouldnt join with the rebels taking with them equipment
Robert E Lee was a general in the US Army prior to Virginia's seccesion
>>673921660
what about the hearts/minds of their servicemen?
>you there, soldier. Shoot that civilian.
>no thanks
>you there, other soldier. Shoot your friend because he won't shoot that civilian.
>no thanks
>>673922170
And guess what, those Moros are continuing to fight the same entities in the Moro Conflict here today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Conflict
>guerrilla warfare never ends
>>673920721
seems like your jimmies are a little rustled my friend
>>673921813
This is true. I'm an amerifat and my guns compensate for my small package much more than the sock I used to stuff in my pants. My dream is really to be a eurocuck. That way I could let Muslim migrants gangrape my wife while I sit in the corner and cry.
>>673920260
so nothing since you've had all this sweet high tech gear?
>kek
>>673916486
It isn't really about being capable of overthrowing the government (which could not be done, assuming the police and military fracture not at all); it's about presenting a deterrent to action that would result in a direct conflict with the general population.
Tanks will beat assault rifles every time, but it will take tanks. Without an armed general population, assault rifles are enough to subjugate any uprising.
The difference between offering a token resistance to tyranny and offering no resistance to tyranny is the difference between bloodless oppression and bloody oppression, and a dictatorship wishing itself to be and present itself as peace-seeking cannot afford bloody oppression.
It's a PR play.
>>673920345
Am I too old for /b/ if I read that in his voice?
>>673922455
Seems like terrorism's effectiveness rustles your jimmies, bootlicker.
>>673922151
>Participating in a great society < ruling over ashes
>>673922595
what terrorism?
>>673922291
yes just like generals would join the rebels like i said
thank you for adding historic reference
>>673922068
honestly there would be a lot more talking than necessary when it comes to using weapons in the military especially if the order is legal or not
>>673922426
servicemen are the boys and girls you grew up next to in highschool. it's nice to see someone that doesn't think they'd all be school shooters.
>>673921443
The UN has never given the green light for any army to invade a country in civil war. They've never even sent 'peace' troops without both sides permission. Bureaucracy prevails, civilians perish
>>673916486
if obama asks for military to surrender guns would military surrender them?
> no
so why would civilians?
> most wouldnt. guns are investments as much as they are home defense, as well as hunting tools. yes, a weapon can be considered a tool.
we have amendments not for the reason of exceptions, or basic old time limitations, but for the reason as to prevent clowns from wiggling into goverment and robbing the people blind. this is why our laws and rights are considered racist.
>>673919168
Playing videogames is not training. Explain how you gain anything other than CQC tactics ultra-lite edition? Stamina? Strength? I'd like to see anyone with 1000's of hours in CS and no military training repeat an order whilst being shot at. Don't worry about actually executing it. Just repeat what you are asked to do.But yeah war is point and click right, kid?
>>673922429
warfare itself never ends. some conflicts last centuries with intermittent periods of peace. if the moro insurrection doesn't satisfy you would you like another example?
>>673918928
that isnt an argument. most likely cucks like you have small dicks
>>673918264
Who needs US soldier cucks when you have private armies of criminally insane mercs?
a country can never defeat a geurilla warfare. Its in the history books, show me one war where the army won over militia
>>673916486
>if the military with it's arsenal would side with the people anyway, why would civilians need guns? And if they didn't side with the people, well, it's back to point one
The military wouldn't use traditional weapons to fight a way.
It would be all remote drones and air strikes. The idea of guns providing protection are less against military invasion (although that is where the 2nd amendment is historically based) than protection against criminal home invasion.
>We need to give the "FSA" (whoever the fuck they are) guns to help them overthrow a government they feel doesn't support them
>You don't need guns, BTW
>>673922068
You gotta think there are some dickheads that don't give two shits about killing their civilians. I mean hell, The president has a nuclear button for crying out loud.
>>673920153
Try saying that again whilst cowering in your basement praying the jet doesn't fly over again. People really do not understand the psychology of war at all.
>>673916486
US military works for the government if there was something to cause US to overthrow the government do you think the military would side with shitty politicians or their friends and families
>>673923341
The Mahdist War.
Oh so you're saying you're just having fun shooting?
Okay. Why not:
>Make licensed shooting ranges
>People not allowed to carry guns and ammunition anywhere but the said shooting range
>Shoot as much as you want in the shooting range - do not allow people to carry weapons outside of it - all the fun with none of the risks
>>673922854
Kosovo
>Yugoslavia disintegrates
>Bosnians start deporting and killing ethnic Serbs and Croats
>Serbia and Croatia send troops into Bosnia to protect ethnic Serbs and Croats
>UN sends troops in to stop the Serb and Croat invasion of Bosnia
>tell Milosovic that Bosnia can do what it wants to ethnic Serbs in Bosnia
>ethnic Albanians start shit in the Serbian province of Kosovo
>Milosovic sends in troops to deport and execute ethnic Albanians
>UN authorizes invasion of Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing
It's funny to me that this subject rustles so many Euro jimmies.
>>673923566
worse than that, some of the people working for the government would join the rebellion but stay in their job as a plant
>>673916486
think why us failed at afghanistan, vietnam and couldn't afford the iraq. you can't just bomb everywhere, shoot everywhere, run tanks and all that military crap 7/24. it's economy will collapse. even with those crappy ak 47's they managed to stand their ground because us military has to patrol a place 7/24 with all the soldiers and military crap. soon, with the tyranny and working class on the strike, economy totally collapses. the soldiers on the patrol will always have be on the lookout for the bullet on back of his head once comes out of that tank. but without guns or any weaponry, us military or any military that is currently invading the us will know that they are safe from the resistance. there will be no person that will be there to shoot them once they stopped patrolling. for this exact reason, you just can't afford to hold a place at siege constantly. only way is to use bio/chem weaponry which will cause immense dectruction for your soldiers as well. for these reasons I stated, us doesn't make those expensive overseas operations that often. they just try to create chaos and terrorism on the countries they want to siege. that is the only way to collapse a country as many warlords and generals say, from us to romans and from chinese to ottomans, it is to cause tyranny and chaos in that country in order to cause civil conflict and finally overthrow the government to collapse into total anarchy, as you can see in the arap springs. those flashy f-22 pictures are not scary anymore boy. flying them is not cheap, and us won't be using them often.
>>673922595
It's not terrorism when you're invading their country idiot
>>673922426
over the past 6-10 years the US military has undertaken a deliberate effort to weed out any one who will not blindly follow orders
Obama has deliberately removed combat arms units from the national guard as part of a post war reduction of the forces
>>673923618
> all of the fun with non of the risks
kek. talking about ballistic projectiles. its safe if you are responsible. beer is safe if you are responsible. cars are safe if you are responsible.
each of these things kill people anon. each of these things have very similar statistics for their dangers and abuses.
your opinion does not matter
>>673924243
Underrated post.
The problem in USA isn't the people vs the military, its the people vs the militarized police force. When you're police becomes militaristic, your people become the enemy. Police SHOULD be there for their people, but we've got too many idiot cops, all you need is a HS diploma and a "yes man attitude, and a bunch of niggers (ignorant people regardless of skin color) who these idiot cops interact with.
Education is the fix, but even thats failing us...
What we really need to do is find the richest motherfuckers on the planet, and put their heads on spikes, redistribute their wealth, and start again. If you're gonna own half the planet, be ready to die.
>>673923341
I could give 20 examples if you want.
>>673916486
Because the army comprised of US citizens are all gonna join the fight against their own.
Gun owning Americans can. Liberals would just go extinct.
>>673923341
The question is whether Americans could exist as a guerrilla army. Or spell it
>>673924243
Not to mention that cars accidents kill more people than insane shooters. If anything, we should ban cars before we ban guns.
>>673924419
This is a retarded idea full of autistic spooge.
>>673924750
This is step 2 for libtards.
>>673924419
>oh no theres this one bad cop out of hundreds in my area
>oh no the cops have riot gear when we are rioting
>oh no burning and looting the city didnt solve anything and im poor
>im poor so punish the rich that will solve it
i know 3 people with masters who think every cop is a pig because they were raised that way. yes all 3 are black and raised to hate authoirty because there parents lived through racism but these educated men and woman still think that way. education does nothing when a culture raises you to think a way and it counters the education
plus if the rich arent rich then someone else is then you have to punish them and eventually as the cycle goes round you will be rich then you get punish simply because you are better off. stop being a baby and grow up. there are rich people and there are poor, either be happy where you are or find a way to climb the ladder
>>673917533
how many F-22 raptors, apache attack helicopters, M1 abrams tanks, and Nimitz class naval aircraft carriers do redneck US citizens own?
>>673925178
technically all of them
>>673925178
f-22s suck
>>673925303
also this man is correct
>>673916486
You are delusional if you think the us military could ever conquer the US, they are outnumber more than 100 to 1, maybe 50 to 1 active age appropriate fighters, not to mention not everyone in the military is going to try to kill everyone they know in a war against their friends and family. So yes, citizens being armed is preventing the government from complete power.
>>673921309
Bye, Felecia
>>673916486
lol while there plenty of math and number involved and yes unless all of americans rose up (probably never gonna happen) we don't have too much of a chance. however there is the deterrent factor. we stand a lot more of a chance and the government is gonna think that much harder about it if we have the guns than if we don't.
and also if you think there's a civvies vs the govern't show down and china and russia don't get involved you're fucking retarded the only reason we really put up with the ass clowns we call politicians is because they keep the lights on and they have their finger on the nukes that keep china and russia from just going ape-shit on the rest of the planet.
>>673923618
>do not allow people to carry weapons outside of it
Right, because the people who follow the law are the ones shooting people. You don't make any sense. You already have to have a license to carry, at least with handguns.
>>673925394
Oh, so the government is just going to hand over all of those weapons to whatever stupid ass militia force is trying to cause a revolution? Not gonna fucking happen.
>>673916486
America wasn't meant to have a free standing army as large as it is currently. allowing citizens to maintain militia was an ability to form a defense as quickly as possible to invading foreign invaders.
You can say, Ohhhh but we have a large army and it's not needed now, but the true question is, is our large army needed right now? Even with out an army, Russia and China attacking America would be a hilarious joke because of how well the populace is armed.
You have have to trust me when I say, the founding fathers of america never once imagined we would be the moral police of the world. it was never intended or meant for in our constitution and the forming of our nation. Heck before ww1 and ww2 America was a isolationist nation.
It's funny because, we don't need the military we currently have. If there was some large scale attack america would be able to ramp up production to meet and exceed the threat. but loss of life would be higher vs had we had the large military from the start.
It's sort of a weird risk vs reward ratio thing going on.
The only delusion is the fact we think we are safe because of how large and easy target our military assets are. Our Aircraft carrier groups are fucking massive, I have a friend whose ex military always talking about how prepared we are and how it would be impossible for a successful strike, yet some middle eastern nation was able to do a live fire exercise with rockets landing 1km away from one of our carriers, had it been the target instead of being some baseless chest thumping american sailors would be dead and a 600 million dollar war asset would be damaged right now.
>>673925178
look you retard, stop jacking off to us jet showdowns and read some war history. without working people and an active economy, how do you think government will afford to use all those gadgets you said, when they already struggled and backed off on iraq, WITH AN ACTIVE WORKING POPULATION. and even if those f-22 and tanks managed to kill all the us citizens, the us would collapse as there are no.. citizens.
>>673923513
Because the US military is just going to start bombing cities indiscriminately like it's WWII in Europe all over again. People really do not understand COIN at all.
>>673918949
underrated post
>>673924243
>if you are responsible
Yeah. So how does one know if he's responsible enough? Is there a test that tells if a person is responsible enough? Because if a person who isn't gets a gun? People get seriously injured or lose their lives. Like 4 year old children.
>>673924620
There's no sentiment in cash, motherfucker
>>673925802
There is quite a lot of truth in this statement, however the 2nd amendment was not only meant for the purposes of defending the country from foreign invaders. It's was also meant to defend against domestic ones as well.
And there are a shit ton of reasons why the founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
>>673916486
The police have jets?
1. No matter how much you cry fowl it is in the bill if rights. The same bill of rights that allowed you to open your filthy sewer and spout this shit.
2. The police show up after the violence. Look up every major violent crime and see how many Cops have prevented them. Armed citizens legally defend their lives and property every day. It is my right to chose to take my fate in my own hands or allow someone to do it for me.
3. Criminals don't give a fuck about laws that's why they are called CRIMINALS. Ban all guns and they will still get them. Everyone packing levels the playing field.
3. There are some people that shouldn't breed let alone have access to a gun or a car for that matter. You can't legislate mental, idealistic mass murderers. You can't arrest someone unless there is probable cause. Because of this until someone pops up on the radar as a person of interest than law enforcement can only "react" to mass shootings. Usually the shooter kills themselves so the victims goes after the tools of the deed. Guns.
4. Because you are a sponge bob watching fag and never had a father to teach you proper gun safety and fundamentals you judge what you don't understand. Because it is loud and scary to you don't ruin the fun for us that love firearms, marksmanship an yea, the choice to revolt against a tyrannical government. Those fighter planes are globe by Americans. They can choose to bomb Americans at the orders of a tyrannical government or not. They can also chose to use them against the government, just like tanks, machine guns and the Infantry.
>>673920383
>civilian detected
>>673925710
No, I think what anon was saying is that technically, those things are owned by the taxpayer. And yes, you guys are out of your mind if you think the American military (who are Americans) are going to agree to use those kinds of things against their own neighbors, families, and friends. That's what makes this a stupid discussion.
>>673925710
why do you not realize that a massive chunk of the military would switch sides, hell 1/3 of our atlantic fleet was ready to desert if those secession threats had happened a few years back.
when a base with al that equipment switched sides they wouldnt go ok guys lets send this back to the people we will be fighting. no they would now have it and the moment the government began using the big guns and bombing cities, launching missiles, and straight up massacring people even more of the military would switch sides and the politicians would help because they could see a power play.
everyone who says the citizens couldnt fight are assuming the entire military would blindly follow orders killing everyone who stood in there way because for a revolt to happen it would mean the government has gotten to the point of a tyrant seizing control
>>673916486
You are not a very smart person are you.
>>673925875
Underrated post
>>673923779
Yeah, that clusterfuck would have worked out waaaaay better if they all had guns. 7 people firing wildly in a tight space. GGWAG saves the day, right?
You can't breach and clear a house with a jet.
>>673916826
>Can't patrol a street with a jet
but you can observe everyone on it with a Reaper drone, and drop a missile on a protester.
>>673923258
You need Jesus, and to understand love.
>>673918078
Why are liberals so obsessed with cock?
I have never hurt anyone with my gun, so why should I give mine up?
>protip: there is no reason
>>673925891
>Is there a test that tells if a person is responsible enough?
No, there is not. That's why we accept the occasional death (yes, occasional, despite what the media say, look at the actual stats) as the price of freedom.
>>673916486
>Americans couldn't defeat their government. So why would they need guns?
in the USA, guns are a political issue but they aren't a public safety issue: politicians choose one side or the other (to support gun ownership or not) to play on voters
most guns in the US are owned by people who live in rural areas--and yet, gun crimes is lowest in rural areas
most murders in the US are in the black urban ghettos, and nobody really cares about those people. no politicians will even dare to propose any solution that singles poor urban blacks out and reduces their rights, since that would be considered racist even if it might improve their chances of avoid violent crime.
>>673926435
Appropriately rated post
>>673926729
people tend to focus on things that are constantly poking them in the face
>>673926729
Well, have you seen cock up close?
It's marvelous.
>>673926562
Like niggers get guns.
And yes some well placed shoot with eyes on the background would have been great.
>>673926691
I'm not into dudes, let alone spic dudes. Faggot
>>673918928
>implying this anon is straight
>>673926973
Appreciate the levity, but a poor use of that particular Bateman.
>>673916486
It's called a civil war, dumbass. You really think all of our military would attack it's own citizens?
>>673925891
yes. but you describe a situation where i 4yo has gotten a hold of a weapon outside of its box or trigger lock. granted, for a situation for self defense a firearm suitable would have to be easy for the defending person/persons to access, but there are ways even for that without endangering family.
but like with cars and alcohol and drugs, you are responsible to keep those things from endangering your families or falling into irresponsible hands, and because that is not 100% preventable, bans are not the answer
>>673927206
You gotta strike whIle the iron is hot, even if your gif is somewhat inappropriate.
>>673926562
Because we are all storm troopers like fin
>>673927233
Yes. A quick Google search will help fill you in on how it has happened before.
>>673927555
Also, trips fagghot.
>>673927306
Absolutely, in the situations where a 4 year old shoots someone or themselves, it's a shitty parent's fault. It's just more mediagenic than when someone leaves their rat poison within a toddler's reach.
>>673916486
So when some nigger breaks into your house with a gun you just give him free reign? What about when the race war starts? The military is us, we're not siding with the government
>>673916826
You can get rid of the entire street with the jet.
>>673927378
Haha fair enough. And it's often like defusing a bomb, searching for the right color wire.
Let me ask a counter question. Do you want the government making every choice of freedoms for you? Look at the governments track record. They fucked up healthcare, the economy, welfare, social security, foreign policy. They loose trillions of dollars over seas, cause huge disasters and even tells you what you are or not allowed to watch. Do you want them getting involved with how or if you can defend yourself? Do you need the government tapping the Internet or your phones to defend its citizens? Be a man, grab your balls and take your destiny in your own hands.
>>673926645
You can most definitely breach it. Into tiny shreds.
>>673927808
In other words, cut off your nations nose to spite it's face?
Do I even have to tell you how autistic that idea is?
>>673916486
American guerilla warfare beat the best military in the world a while back. How soon they forget....
All of these arguments seem to assume that 1) the armed populace will prove to be a force to be reckoned with and 2) that the military won't "fight itself."
1) Civilians are well-armed, but are undisciplined and unorganized (a 15-man "militia" in rural Montana doesn't count... sorry). Actual organization takes time, resources, and leadership. We have a bunch of people overly concerned with their own well-being at the expense of everyone else's. Gun culture teaches us that you and your gun are the only things keeping you safe. There's likely to be just as much fighting among those "bearing arms" as there is against their tyrannical overlords.
2) The military will do what the fuck it's told to do, because it won't be so cut-and-dry that they're the "bad guy." Government propaganda already does a fucking GREAT job of turning out good, conservative, patriotic soldiers, and that's without even really leaning into the task. The military is very pro-government. Even if a few split off, it'll be too few, too late. You think they won't force the issue with a "comply or die" scenario?
>>673916486
>Americans should invest into a better police force.
The police are a cleanup crew and goon squad, they can't prevent someone from robbing you or murdering you. That's why the citizens need to be armed. Though guns should be well regulated.
>>673918264
>with such low morale who wouldnt defect to rebel army?
>>673927808
Yes, the government could annihilate the country. You got me there. But then, what would they be the government of?
>>673920610
Our troops aren't going to shoot at us and will defect. Small percentage of CIA will defect and even sabotage US government. Other governments will aide rebel forces.
You have to be a fucking retard to think we can't rofl stomp our own government, you fucking pussy.
>>673920754
/thread
/thread
/thread
>>673923513
are you actually this retarded?
>>673916486
>Implying the war would be conventional
>>673927968
Yeah, right. The government does all that without doing a damn thing for you. Might as well overthrow those bastards.
>>673928286
example of well regulated?
>>673924095
yes and no. There are some orders that will pretty much always get you a "no" or even shot. We're known for killing CO's for being massive cunts.
>>673928181
>because it won't be so cut-and-dry that they're the "bad guy.
In OP's scenario, yes it would. If you are using tanks, bombers, missiles, nukes, you name it...against your own citizens who have no way to defend against that kind of murder-tech, that makes you the bad guy.
>>673927968
Without the government you wouldn't even have an intermet, much less roads, schools, police, firemen, a military, a water supply, a power grid, a sewage system, a constitution, a court system, among other things. You're not using any of those things, are you? That would make you a hypocrite, right?
>>673928801
There's a difference between recognizing the fact that more gov tends to fuck things up and impose arbitrary rules and control, and calling for a revolution.
>>673928181
This is incorrect. None of these assumptions must be made for the second amendment to do what it is supposed to do. Aso long as tyrannical leaders are dissuaded from doing bad deeds, it serves its purpose.
>>673928920
i believe the question was fair and simple.
lets not disappoint anon with a goofy question as a reply
>>673928895
Harder to get a gun than a driver's license, checks for criminal record and mental instability, close the loophole for gun shows, something like that.
>>673925891
Well for starters you could stop raising your kids to be liberal brats. Contrary to your stupid beliefs, most people just want to live in peace. Adding a gun to the mix wouldn't change that. It simply allows them to prolong their life. I'm sorry, fag, but I like being alive.
>>673929274
I see. So you can't answer. Tsk.
>>673928920
Municipal services can exist without overbearing nanny states that insist on elitist liberal ideals.
>>673918264
/thread
>>673928906
I'm saying they'll spin it in such a way that it won't be glaringly obvious. It won't be just an order to bomb a neighborhood. The order will come after masses of propaganda, misinformation, and carefully worded motivation. By the time it happens, they'll think they're doing the right thing, for the right reason.
>>673928501
There's no need to get angry babe, it's just a chat about what could happen in theory. As you proved with your wildly speculative comment. I'd think that they could hold you down pretty well with private militaries while fucking you up with the big guns/drones/the fact they are in control of all resources. Shit man, the disturbance in the delivery of twinkies alone would wipe out 30% of the population. Or make them lean, hungry, killing machines..
>>673929288
Should it be harder to limit gun ownership overall or to prevent poorly educated gun owners from obtaining weapons?
>>673928920
>Without the government you wouldn't even have an intermet, much less roads, schools, police, firemen, a military, a water supply, a power grid, a sewage system, a constitution, a court system, among other things
Completely untrue. Private business has done all of those things in the past, and done a better job on all, with the exception of a constitution.
You do know that for instance, the subway system in NYC was originally built by private interests? It wasn't until they proposed a small rate increase that they were taken over by the gov. And of course, inefficiently and incompetently managed, leading to even greater rate increases. And anon didn't propose eliminating government altogether, just realizing that they often fuck up, and that MORE government is not the answer to all our problems.
>>673929156
They're not dissuaded because of the second amendment. They're dissuaded because it isn't *profitable.* There's no money in killing everyone.
>>673929552
I guess I have more faith in the ability of our soldiers to think for themselves than you do. Someone has to push the button, after all.
>>673920153
lost
>>673929398
Wow, you seem particularly well-versed in common spin-team boiler-plste rhetoric. Do you read from a script, or do you have it all memorized now? How's the pay?
>>673916486
compared to the standing unorganized army of 100+ million armed citizens, any professional military, including that of the USA is pathetically insignificant. thats just a fact you can stew in while you have your anti fun fantasy
>>673929678
>Should it be harder to limit gun ownership overall
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I would think that it would be more important to limit gun ownership to law abiding citizens and people who arent nuts. Of course criminals and whatnot will be able to get the from other criminals, but theyll have to run the risk of being locked up for said guns. I would think some education requirement wouldnt hurt either.
>>673929288
oh fuck off, you don't know what you're talking about. Literally none of that will do anything to prevent mass shootings you retard.
>>673918264
I would gladly kill my family to support Trumps regime. I made a pledge.
>>673929887
I would argue both are true, but it is only because they'd end up killing everyone in an effort to control them. You just can't control an armed population that is resistant to your demands.
>>673916486
>Americans couldn't defeat their government. So why would they need guns?
"A well placed assassin in hiding is worth more than an entire Legion on the field." -- Julius Caesar
>>673930189
I think shall not be infringed means just that
Your ideas do nothing to prevent crime or accidents. I don't understand why you don't understand why your position is so dumb.
More guns = less crime + more freedom.
>>673929156
God bless the second amendment for standing between us and tyranny! You naive little boy
>>673930207
Who said mass shootings? I didnt. I think regulation is a no brainer here. Sorry you want to be irresponsible and let any psychopath on the street have a gun legally.
>>673916486
There are way more citizens with weapons than there are military personnel with weapons
>>673929678
>"Poorly educated"
Not sure if this is a deliberate wording or not, but it feels like a trap either way. "Poorly educated" about firearms, their use, and safety, yes. I wouldn't exclude someone from gun ownership just because they couldn't afford to go to college or something. But otherwise, making people jump through a few more hoops in order to weed out the crazies and knuckleheads is OK with me.
>>673930345
Like in Syria?
>>673929965
It's going very well. They give me my daily script along with some milk and cookies.
I like cookies.
>>673929887
this is why I kek when the left thinks we went to the middle east for oil. lol shit isn't profitable at all. We control resources so they can't fight back.
The point is that the gov cant just take people away as they please..people are able to put up a fight and if it comes to open firefights with the cops the establishment is doomed
>>673917533
>300,000,000 firearms in the us
>1,200,000 members of the armed forces
>300:1 odds - i'd take that chance
Keep in mind, if the US Military was told to assault their own people, the entire command chain would collapse with the military taking out the psychopaths that gave the order.
>>673930207
>Literally none of that will do anything to prevent mass shootings you retard
And hasn't. It's already harder to get a handgun permit than a driver's license. There already are background checks. And the "gun show loophole" is largely a myth. The people that sell in any significant volume are required to be registered federally and perform checks.
>>673930379
How do you figure trying to limit gun ownership wouldnt help anything?
>>673930189
I was getting at the ultimate reason for making gun ownership harder. There are definitely those that think it should be harder just to limit the amount of guns available and those that think making it harder makes for more responsible gun owners.
>>673929965
what he said isn't unreasonable. You're just a fag.
>>673916486
I'm actually all for gun control done the right way: amending the constitution that says we have a right to them.
The only problem I have with any other attempt to do gun control is the circumventing of that document to do it. There's nothing to stand in the way of them circumvent other things like the 4th amendment, 1st amendment or others.
Until then, I have a right to carry a gun because it says I do. That's the only justification needed.
>>673916486
Use of military force of that magnitude could not happen. Since the military is sworn to a document and not a person.. and the document states that they cannot use military force against the population, an internal anti-government revolt would not be met with the military, revolters would be fighting police or other militias. If something were to happen it would be similar to the Egyptian revolution. the military would stand at the sidelines and do whatever they could to prevent too much loss of life.. they can not pick a side. If those in power choose to side with the government, it would result in the complete collapse of the armed forces since subordinates reserve the right to deny unconstitutional orders.
Additionally, a police state could not gain a foothold. As you have seen, street insurgents in Iraq gave hell to the most powerful military in the world for almost a decade. Imagine if americans were having their freedoms taken away on a biblical scale...
Have you seen the hunger games movies? That's what would happen if people lost guns.
>>673916486
Saddam used a standing army. Guerilla warfare all the way. USA.
>>673929911
An individual soldier can be smart. Soldiers (plural) are a group-weapon in the hands a government.
>>673930683
Gr8 b8 m8
>>673930801
Oh ok, Im saying it would be better to have more responsible owners.
>>673929288
You do know the gunshow loophole isn't really a thing right?
>>673923618
>because everyone would follow the rules to a T
>>673916486
Great idea retard! Lets spend even more money on our outdated corrupted police force :)
>>673930801
The ones who REALLY want them will get them, no matter what. That's the market, whether it is legal or black market. It's the drug war all over again.
>>673930683
We did go for money, but not really oil. It was sold to us by the neocons that we'd get cheap oil as a byproduct, sure. Really though, a small group of people at the heads of some very large, powerful companies with friends and former/future employees in government offices made a shitload of money when we invaded, and are still raking it in.
>>673931240
They closed it up? Ok whatever. I still say limit ownership.
>>673930605
Not a trap, just a legit question. >>673930626
Yes. That population is certainly not being controlled. Just slaughtered.
OP is a fag.
For starters, we wouldn't have to defeat our military. Most of the military would be standing with the people if the fight was just.
Half the government would be standing with the people in our heavily partisan politics in 2016.
Civilians still need the guns, though. Situations arise, like in Oregon, where a just cause unites people. Isn't there a rancher somewhere who won't leave his property and the government is too afraid of the loss of life to try to drive him off? Yay, guns!
>>673930571
I think you're a retard. There's no way you can accurately determine mental health. I got a psych evaluation and came out clear, but there are definitely things wrong in my head. I'm not dangerous, but there's still something wrong. You simply don't care enough about your rights or about guns, that you fail to see why your position is so stupid and worthless.
>>673930605
Crazies and knuckleheads will get guns any way they can.
>>673918264
if the army wouldn't follow a dictatorship anyway, then why would the citizens need to have weapon against it ?
if the army is with the governement the weapons are useless
if they aren't the weapons are useless too
>>673919254
because they are a threat to other citizens
>>673930852
The military is required to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, the President. That's a person, not a document.
>>673931353
Absolutely true. Which begs the question. What exactly are we trying to accomplish by making gun ownership harder or disappear altogether?
>>673930946
I'm not talking about 'smart'. More moral and emotional. And the group dynamic might actually help in some cases. You might not give a shit about strafing Bumfuck, AL, but when your patrol buddy is from there...
>>673927808
Which will be an expensive sortie and even more expensive to rebuild the street.
>hurr durr the government can rebuild a country of 320 million from scratch without suffering
>>673931493
>There's no way you can accurately determine mental health
If this were true there wouldnt be mental health facilities. Just because you think you're crazy doesnt mean you are, and nobody said the tests were foolproof. But telling some schizo he cant have a gun is better for everyone, Im pretty sure any reasonable person can see that. But you're crazy right, so you wouldnt understand that.
>all three fan groups of Trump, Hillary and Sanders are equally retarded
>Trump is the president the US deserves, but does not need
>Sanders is the president the US needs, but does not deserve
>Hillary simply gets voted by every 'minority', woman and most of the former Sanders voters, actually becoming the first female president, fucking up everything, but not as badly as Trump would be and leaves the country in a worse state than Bush did
>>673923513
that guy knows what he's talking about
>>673931137
I think legislation will have a hard time accomplishing that task. Unfortunately I think that our culture has changed such that getting people to be more responsible about anything at all is almost impossible.
>>673920260
"We won the civil war against ourself."
>>673931680
The same thing we're trying to accomplish by making a hairdresser have 1000 hours of training before she can be licensed. Pointless, arbitrary control. Total dependence on government for our very lives.
>>673931542
because the military won't 100% side with or against the government
neither will all the people
every revolution has been some of the people and the military deserters against some of the people, the government, and the remnants of the military
>>673931611
they swear to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the LAWFUL orders of the president (or governor in the case of guardsmen) and his appointed officers
>>673930723
Because I've read letters from settlers in the "old west". I've studied history and have first hand seen the difference between unlimited gun ownership and limited gun ownership. I've been pro 2ndA since I first went shooting 20 years ago as a kid. Your bullshit laws would restrict me from owning a gun (5150) when I'd never allow myself to be a statistic for anti gun fags, and when I value life. Not just my own life, other people's lives. I had a guy come into my work and threaten his bitch gf who cheated on him. If he had pulled a gun EVERYONE would have been helpless.
>>673931892
>If this were true there wouldnt be mental health facilities
How do you figure?
>>673931991
I know, but it doesnt hurt to try, there are people that govern for a living that could figure something out. Im mainly concerned about high risk folks getting their hands on guns, not the average citizen.
>>673931892
what is to stop the government from declaring political dissent a mental health issue that precludes weapon ownership?
>>673931436
It wasn't really a thing to begin with. They made it out like you could just go get whatever you want at a gun show and not get checked. That's simply not true. The "loophole" as they called it was just regular people who don't deal guns trying to sell one or a couple firearms. They don't have to do BGCs because they're not dealers and it's legal to sell your property to whoever you want. That being said it's a serious felony to sell guns to someone who isn't legally able to own them. There's a lot of incentive to not sell to a felon. And no criminal is gonna walk into a gunshow and find that one guy selling his AR and be like "yo dawg, lemme get that gat"
yea, we could, easily. bout 35-45 million firearms around america. not many trained soldiers around, though, other than retired ones who are tired of these leech faggot politicians.
>>673930722
>673930722
I live in california, you don't have to tell me. lol
>>673930700
>>673930852
See >>673928181
The military isn't some Superman organization that always fights on the side of truth, justice, and the American way, orders be damned. Soldiers have done some fucked up stuff because orders.
>>673931398
lol no
>>673932105
Only true in a libertarian fantasy world. In the real, physical world, regulation does a lot to keep a nation and its people healthy and strong. Ayn Rand was a fool, you know.
>>673916486
American forces would be divided if the American public rose up against its government. Deserters augmenting the well armed populace give the usurpers a good shot
>>673916486
>need
>>673930700
Something like this. If the US government doesn't acquire a reliable mind control mechanism any time soon, they won't be able to contain an uprising of such epic proportions
>>673932310
Because you couldnt accuratley call somone nuts, so how could you put them in one?
>>673932268
My laws wouldnt stop you from ownig a gun, as long as you arent a criminal or psycho. I think you just dont want to give an inch in case they want to take a yard. You're lumping me in with people who want no guns at all, and thats not true. Im fine with you having all the guns you want, if youre not a degenerate.
>>673932105
So you'd be happy to have your hair cut by someone with no training or experience?
I suppose that's OK with the cuts you kids get.
>>673932314
It's hard to argue for responsibility on one front while espousing the opposite on so many others. I'd love to see a resurgence of responsible people and culture, but those days may be long gone.
>>673926673
>implying the drone operator would be willing to do it
>>673932337
Because that's an idea not a state of mental health. You could use that logic for anything, it isnt rational though.
>>673932349
even then two party gun sales weren't completely two party
the seller had to have a licenced dealer do the paperwork for transfer of ownership otherwise the seller would be criminally and financially liable for any crime commited with the gun
>>673932105
You go to an unlicensed one and let her fuck your head up. Maybe owning a gun should require even 1/10 the training required to fucking cut hair.
>>673916486
>what is Taliban?
>>673929288
here is the thing.
i refrained from replying to this because i dont fully agree.
>mental instability
ok, there are nutcases who get guns, but half the time it is nutcases that swiped a weapon from family or friends who purchased legally. in this situation, the response would be to limit all possible customers. i havent heard many proposals that i agree with in that situation.
>criminal records.
while i understand the importance, there is literally any reason that can convict a man for life under messed up charges like false accusations of sexual harassment, especially with the laws being one thing, and the judge ruling another.
> loophole for gunshows
this is a hard one. there are states that allow second hand ownership without paperwork transference, but honestly, a gun show for me is like browsing craigslist. if there is something cool or a good deal appears, im on it like a bee to pollen.
its easy to spout gun control. its still a responsibility whether control is tight or not. we can limit gun culture or we can focus on why people culture might be the issue and not the guns.
The USA should change it's national anthem to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtjriTYtBAA
>>673932645
Regulation alone doesn't do it. It depends on who is doing the regulation and how much power that entity has. Leaving business to regulate itself is a disaster, but relying on government to regulate and redistribute according to fairness doesn't either.
>>673932794
It's really not that hard to use a firearm safely. You would have to be literally mentally retarded to fuck it up somehow. There's only 3 rules to gun safety that encompass everything.
3 RULES!!!
>>673932834
Well if those days are gone, we need to keep people in check, because theyre now dangerous.
>>673932337
It's not that they'll do that, they'll make it mandatory to do a psyche eval and then load the results so that "no one" is eligible.
>>673932958
>implying legal common sense is the same as real life common sense
legalese has made all sorts of things that make no fucking sense the norm
and historically many things were considered psychoses that aren't currently
>>673933071
Nobody is saying that these ideas are bulletproof, there will always be ways around the laws. But really throwing it all out is like saying it should be legal to murder because some people get away with it.
>>673932756
The problem isn't the mile that they might ask for. It's the infinite number of inches they demand.
>>673933518
Right, and Im saying that now you just want to give nothing. It clouds your judgement.
We need the guns to shoot niggers, muslims, kikes, illegals, and assorted mud people when the time is right.
>>673932961
Maybe in Kommiefornistan. I live in GA. we have best gun laws. 2 party private sales are legit 2 party. But prepare to get butt raped in big boy prison for selling to a felon.
>>673927555
>in a time when the spread of correct information was almost at a crawl
>implying the majority of military units would defect from already knowing the facts
>implying majority of the units have a high morale and love their government
>>673933272
That's dangerous language. Maybe we should keep that in check in case those that are saying it might become a problem.
See how slippery that slope is? We can't do that kind of thing because it will lead to the statement above eventually.
>>673931505
That doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to limit their access. It's the same reason the TSA pats you down before you board a plane. Some guy's eventually gonna get through and cause problems, but it's enough to stop MOST of the Bad Guys.
>>673932756
I was held for 72 hours in a psych ward. I can't own a gun for 5 years, even though I currently have access to other weapons and I would never misuse a gun or use one in a crime. I had a moment of weakness, but was raised to value life. And because of this "regulation" shit, I have the chance of never legally owning a firearm in my life.
>>673933698
You also have to be an FFL to get a booth at a gun show. No private sales booths
>>673932645
I'm no Rand fan, but I do think that 90% of the regulation we have in this country is either pointless, actually harmful to our prosperity, or put in place to favor certain individuals/companies over others. Regulation is usually NOT protecting us, it's actually fucking us over. For instance, who do you think struggles with thousands of pages of regulation in a given industry? The huge conglomerate that has hundreds of lawyers on their payroll, whose lobbyists HELPED DRAFT the bill? Or the small business owner trying to keep his head above water, who cares deeply about his employees, who despises lawyers and has no lobbyists?
>Impying the military would go to war against normal people
>Implying they wouldn't join 80% of the armed civs to wipe out liberals and niggers
>Implying military people would bomb or attack American cities where their families and friends live
Also lost Vietnam?
Didn't more of them die. And also we only "lost" because it was a pointless war that didn't do shit but kill young kids.
You act like we all died in Vietnam and that they just killed all of us in each battle
>>673933673
Why give anything at all if it accomplishes nothing and at the same time removes more personal freedom and rights?
>>673931611
That's actually not true. They are under obligation to only follow constitutional orders of the pres.
>>673932515
All the bad shit that our military has done have either been caused by direct lies(iraq) or shit conditions and poor judgement on the ground (atrocities in nam). No amount of lies can make an attack on american people not an attack on american people. It also just takes a few military people to cause it to collapse in the case of power abuse. American's to dont respond to fear like many other cultures. When a person does something to try and scare us, we just get mad and homicidal to the point were we disregard our own safety.
Even if the army becomes made of 100% backwater rednecks, i highly doubt that same number will be totally with cool dropping napalm on a city, not matter what political ideology it's residents follow. Americans fight with one another, but they will not be able to kill one another.. i think it's why we fight so much.
>>673933386
Im saying thats a really bad reason to do nothing about something so important. If we let that thinking run wild, we would have no laws.
>>673934012
>Didn't more of them die
With that narrative Germany won against Russia in WW2..
>>673933765
Slavery. Segregation.
Google it.
>>673933698
GA might not enforce the transfer of ownership requirement of 2 party sales
but it is a federal law
you probably one of those retards that thinks weed is 100% legal in CO
>>673929390
>tsk
Cuck detected
>>673933177
American history would seem to contradict you. Deregulation, low taxes, private ownership, etc. --> Great Depression. Nearly a repeat under Bush. Seem pretty clear doesn't it?
>>673933907
>I have the chance of never legally owning a firearm in my life.
Oh, such a burden.
Owning a firearm is just so trendy right now.
What will you say to the boyz on the street?
>>673934012
Also, the US was OUT of Vietnam when the war was lost.
>>673932756
>Because you couldnt accuratley call somone nuts
You can't anyway, except for the obvious ones. ACCURATELY, I mean. Psychology/psychiatry is not an exact science. You can't give someone a blood test or MRI and say, "this proves you're batshit". Different psychs will often disagree, even in extreme cases.
be curious who in hell were this guys teacher& textbooks in the courses
>>673933796
Its perfectly reasonable. We need to keep dangerous people from doing dangerous things.
>>673932794
I usually cut my own, but if I ever DO get it cut by someone else, I see no need for them to have 1000 hours of training. It's just cutting hair, not defusing a bomb or performing surgery.
>>673934256
No contradiction present. We never returned to the regulation levels of the pre depression era. Also, correlation isn't causation necessarily.
>>673933907
Well I think thats a good thing, if you're in there there's usually a good reason. 5 years isnt that long.
>>673933698
I'm in GA too. The lax 2-party sales laws can be an issue, or at least a headache. I had a friend buy a gun from another guy. Several years later he got pulled over at a routine traffic stop, and for whatever reason, the officer ended up running the gun. Turns out it had been used in a murder a year before he bought it. Ruh roh! Of course the whole thing turned out OK for my friend, but what a fucking headache. Having a 3rd-party check on all sales would have avoided the whole scenario.