Discussion in 'Politics' started by ttystikk, Aug 7, 2017.
Do you cum in capital letters after masturbating at your keyboard like that?
One of the reasons we think we have a constitutional right to own guns is because of the 2nd amendment and the Supreme court has upheld it. You want the U.S. govt (currently represented by Trump) to be the only one with guns?
The original intent of the Founding Fathers has been subverted by militarizing the police with weapons that the Federal government has prohibited private citizens from owning.
Besides, the place to deal with our government is via the public square, the use of free speech and the ballot box. An arms race only leads to disaster and collapse.
except no one is in an arms race, free speech is being suppressed and the ballot box is a joke.
I don't see free speech bring suppressed, I see far too few people using it.
I certainly do see an arms race, and the police won! Or do you have an MRAP parked in your driveway, full of fully automatic weapons, stun grenades and suits of body armor? If so, we borrow it? Cuz nobody on my street has one...
The ballot box isn't a joke, but it's the end of the process of active full contact citizenship, not the beginning. See the lack of people above exercising their rights to free speech.
Have you considered the idea that they want you to believe the things you just said, so you don't show up to speak your piece and vote?
the public was never gonna win an arms race and don't need to, you ever hear of guerrilla fighters? The Viet cong had no Air force, navy or sophisticated weapons and kicked crap out of the usa. Are you serious about the ballot box not being a joke? With the Democratic party screwing Bernie? With Republican vote suppression? With the billion dollar elections? Get real.
Taking these in order;
A little Vietnam Conflict history reading will inform you that the Viet Cong got their asses handed to them and it was the NVA- armed with much heavier weaponry- who successfully outlasted first the French and Americans in a decades long war of attrition where they took by far the greater number of casualties. They didn't 'win', except by refusing to give up until political pressure from home (mounted by citizens) forced the American military to go away.
Moving on, the last election showed American voters just how corrupt the Democratic Party is in terms of a level playing field for all contestants and they're currently being punished with historically low funding levels and a strong challenge from the Left by a newly energised Progressive Movement. The jury is still out on how the big picture will play out.
Just as the American voting public saw the primary shenanigans on the part of the Democrats, they've also clearly seen the results of the Supreme Court's Citizens United and related decisions- and in fact this is one of the core issues that's driving the rise of the above mentioned Progressive Movement.
My advice to you is NOT to pick up a gun and go hunting officials but rather to find those political organizations that most closely align with your interests and get involved. The alternative of violence will get you locked up or killed- and deservedly so- and even worse, such action will play into the hands of your adversaries by giving them political cover for cracking down even harder on the Civil Rights of citizens.
I know, these things take time. There are no instant answers. But the system was consistently worked by monied interests over decades to get it the way it is. We the People have every right to work the same system to make it more responsive to our needs and rights. We just need to get involved, and STAY involved.
Such is the price of real freedom and the responsibility of citizenship.
First one, a win is a win and the war was NOT won by heavy ordnance if it was WE would have won.
second, you agree with me mostly.
Third, Duh, ok, I put the gun down, you talked me out of it.
Omfg. It's not that it's factually wrong.. more that you are actually in the mind set of gorilla warfare vs your own country. You guys need stripped of guns fast.
A man steps on your lawn, you ask him to get off. He pulls out a gun and mows down your entire family. You run toward him, he steps back, puts a bullet in your head. He's off your lawn, you win.
Anything the government upholds means it's correct?. Do a check of violent murders in America, and this I think does not show the full story such as some cop murders or missing persons. The only places you are likely to find similar or worse gun crime is third world country's and/or country's basically ran by drug cartels. ''Constitutional right'' is no reasoning for these statistics in a civilized country. The truth of it is cultural break down. I don't doubt many government officials can see guns need to go but you guys are so culturally rooted in this falsity guns make you safer they are very much aware of your dumb ass mentality of ''gorilla warfare''. On top of that is the out right greed of gun corp, guaranteed they are playing that shit right up ''you need to protect yourself from yada yada''. Playing all your fears to keep you thinking you need a gun. It isn't them or their children getting shot. Your government created a problem that they probably want to, but is almost unsolvable. That's probably where it ties into ttys's comments on a cop/civilian arms race.
Keep on waving the hate stick at trump (as if he's any worse than bush and co). Is he a good president?, he's about as good as you culturally deserve.
a man steps on my lawn, I ask him to get off, he pulls a gun, I pull mine and blow his head off. He's off my lawn, I win! Makes about as much sense as your post.
A man pulls a gun, you have no chance to pull yours.
We agree here. US gun nuts have this fantasy of small arms resistance against military weapons that include helicopter gun ships and missiles. Fat old white men who talk of armed resistance haven't a clue what they'd face. Oh sure, maybe some could survive for a while in the mountains. Until winter, anyway.
Australia did it right recently with the arms purchases and new gun control laws. Gun nuts here have been distorting how well the program worked to reduce gun crime.
Guns are safe when used properly, we need to restrict the hands they go into and not the guns themselves.
Your distortion won't allow you to see the point.
Yes those are probably, or at-least media stereo typed people who will resist gun laws. It's very likely deeper than that with other ethnics holding the same mentality on top of gang, drug and random shootings. All have very different reasoning/cultures but the goto of a gun is the common factor in acting out the end game. In my country that end game usually results in fists or at worse knives/blunt weapons. Far less damage can be done.
This would limit the problem but not by much. The things you don't seem to account for is bad cultures that heavily depend on guns. For as long as those cultures exist gun smuggling or illegal sales/theft will ensure guns are getting in the hands of the wrong people simply at a greater cost. First time offenses are a thing, giving people with clean records guns will only go so far. The politics, cultures and way of life in America (from an outsider) seem very harsh and create a lot of mental break downs or momentary flip outs. So imagine if your idea worked and only trustworthy people are given guns. What if one of those people become unstable by what ever force (including radicalization) they have a huge advantage over the rest of the town. It basically has to be an all or nothing kind of deal while tackling the core cultural issues such as the glorified gangster life styles and so forth. Gangs and so forth will always exist but the connection between ''you crossed me'' to ''I'll settle this with gun fire'' needs to be broken. Removing guns almost entirely will quickly break that connection purely down to lack of availability. But naturally ''quickly'' would be over a 5 to 10 year period with very harsh crack downs by police force to break trafficking cycles.
I think also is a correlation between gang count and size a long with general crime such as robbery's. It is easier for people who would be considered ''weak'' to bridge those short fillings with a gun. Crime and gang activity over all would decline along with fatality.
The tl;Dr version:
"Gangs will have guns either way, so fuck normal people just to make it a little harder for gangs"
I get it, you're in a culture where guns is a way of life, you lack perspective to see it any other way.. and/or are caught up on short term implications blinding the long game.
And for the record, gangsters tend to kill other gangsters, not saying that's good or that innocents don't get caught up.
The bigger scare is the people pushed over the edge and takes out his/her own family, random nut jobs or extremists who run riot in a school, mall or comparable place filled with innocent life. What are the safety checks you can do on these people?.. bet most of them would pass em. Pretty easy to spot a gang banger.
Yet the police in this country have now proven themselves to be both the worst gang of murderous thugs in American history AND all but completely above the law.
Not really. US accident rates due to guns is orders of magnitude higher than most other countries. Simply putting a bullet into a gun makes one less safe. Not to mention the number of people who should not be carrying and the gun lobby defends their right to do so.
I recognize that gun death and safety are tiny issues in the grand scheme. Not to the people who are affected by it, but as a society this is a small issue. The few hundred killed, maimed or who lose loved ones to guns is a small number, so I guess I shouldn't consider them.
Ive already said we need to restrict the people with access to guns, not the guns themselves.
Stupid people kill themselves with electricity, ban electricity?
Restrict certain people to 12v DC?
Separate names with a comma.