Gun debate thread

Do you support the 2nd Amendment?


  • Total voters
    30
#81
But those will be considerably harder to get, with a lot of risk, and there definitely would be less guns in circulation.
you can't say it's a non argument when there's the example of the drug war of what happens when you criminalize those things lol

at this point guns can be 3rd printed, and I am not even taking into account the massive gun trade between the cartel and u.s
 
#83
Are you reading my posts dude? Or are you going to keep repeating yourself?
again, you act like it didn't play a role in putting pressure and I disagree. You solely want to give credit to 1 march MLK did while I am taking into account everything
 

Uncle Van

Tax the Elderly
#87
Ah yes, because the American Government is well-known for being extremely Uncorrupt. An institution of integrity and transparency, thanks to the fact that there are more guns in the US than there are people. No government corruption whatsoever thanks to the guns
:smart:



China is going to win the Cold War anyway lol. America is far, far, far, far, far too stupid to stop them. And besides, how many Chinese children get slaughtered in schools every year?
Ay man that's what the rights to bear arms are made for, but back them the citizens and government had the same weapons. Nowadays I can see why people think that 2nd amendment don't mean shit anymore since the government has vastly superior weapons compared to the people now.

Armed citizens still makes government oppression(worse case scenario) more risky. No citizen however needs any reason to hold an automatic weapon though.
 
#88
again, you act like it didn't play a role in putting pressure and I disagree. You solely want to give credit to 1 march MLK did while I am taking into account everything
Thanks for proving my point that you aren't reading my posts since I never once mention MLK. Vast majority of the civil rights movement were peaceful dude. The reason why the civil rights succeeded was not because people were engaging in violence, instead it was because there was consistent peaceful movements.

And Einstein, it wasn't just one march, it was literally decades of hundred mobile movements.
 

DoctorIndigo

I will be back before Ragnarok!
#89
I also don't buy the "to fight against the Gov" argument

this could work a few decades ago

but right now your Gov has Nukes, Bombs, Drone Strikes

your simple guns don't matter if that's really your fear

the difference in power is just too great
 

Doggo

To find the All Blue!
#91
Dude are you reading my posts or are you going to keep repeating yourself?
I'm for gun control and all, but saying that "pacifists movements" are what change things is just false.

Not a single great change was made without buildings burning and people dying.
You think slavery was abolished because some white folk came together during tea time and thought to themselves "hey, I think these nice black folk are people and not things. Let's make them people"?

Pacifists leaders were important not because they were pacifists, as you've said, but because they were able to organize people and protests.
But if you're gathering a bunch of people on a sunday afternoon to scream a bunch of stuff on the street and not actually do anything besides that, it does a good amount of "nothing" against whatever system you're trying to take down.

World's history and its marks are bloody ones for a reason. That's just how it goes.
 
#92
Thanks for proving my point that you aren't reading my posts since I never once mention MLK. Vast majority of the civil rights movement were peaceful dude. The reason why the civil rights succeeded was not because people were engaging in violence, instead it was because there was consistent peaceful movements.
and I literally said in my reply to you that armed protest did help put pressure on the gov

but here I am not dismissing your points because I am not an ass
 

Fleet Admiral Lee Hung

Conqueror of the Stars
#95
Armed citizens still makes government oppression(worse case scenario) more risky.
I don’t think it does. If living in the United States has taught me one thing, it’s that you can easily propagandize a population into believing absolutely anything you want them to, no matter how batshit insane it might seem. Even if every citizen in the US has a gun, they could easily be propagandized into eating up whatever oppression is thrown at them.
 
#96
the places with most gun controls are the places you are most likely to get killed by a criminal. mexico, chicago, afganistan, california. lol ots amazing out there that civilans are dumb enough to try and take away their own right of self protection.

makes me laugh also thst we want s femsle president when we see such a clear devide on this subject
 
#98
I'm for gun control and all, but saying that "pacifists movements" are what change things is just false.

Not a single great change was made without buildings burning and people dying.
You think slavery was abolished because some white folk came together during tea time and thought to themselves "hey, I think these nice black folk are people and not things. Let's make them people"?

Pacifists leaders were important not because they were pacifists, as you've said, but because they were able to organize people and protests.
But if you're gathering a bunch of people on a sunday afternoon to scream a bunch of stuff on the street and not actually do anything besides that, it does a good amount of "nothing" against whatever system you're trying to take down.

World's history and its marks are bloody ones for a reason. That's just how it goes.
I never made that claim though. The civil rights movement wasn't because there was a "pacifist" leader or there was a "single march", instead there were hundreds of organized peaceful marches throughout the decades. And with every passing year you had more and more people being influenced by them and getting engaged into making changes which is why the civil rights movement was able to succeed. Peaceful, constructive, organized movements takes years and even decades to show there results. It is slow but the most effective tool citizens have which is way more effective than engaging in gun violence against the government.
 
and I literally said in my reply to you that armed protest did help put pressure on the gov

but here I am not dismissing your points because I am not an ass
The reason the civil rights movement succeeded were not because of the few hundred of armed BP members, it was because of tens of thousands of consistent, peaceful unarmed movements that lasted for years. If you want to believe that those armed members were part of the reason then go ahead.
 
Top