guns vs conspiracy - General

[video=youtube;pnQtBp3kRM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnQtBp3kRM4[/video] Because you use guns to slice fucking cheese, make a meal with etc you read a book using a gun, you use a gun to make friends with -- holy shit!

Piers Morgan is an idiot.

I'm watching a video that unironically sides with Alex Jones, but I'm still more offended by how much of a cunt Piers Morgan is.

[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;48485885]I'm watching a video that unironically sides with Alex Jones, but I'm still more offended by how much of a cunt Piers Morgan is.[/QUOTE] Like why is Piers in the US trying to change our laws? Go back to fucking Britain if you hate the US.

And Alex Jones is still a fuckin loon [editline]18th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=agentfazexx;48485903]Like why is Piers in the US trying to change our laws? Go back to fucking Britain if you hate the US.[/QUOTE] Last I heard they don't want him either.

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;48485923]And Alex Jones is still a fuckin loon [editline]18th August 2015[/editline] Last I heard they don't want him either.[/QUOTE] Please don't send him to Canada.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;48485938]Please don't send him to Canada.[/QUOTE] Let's send Alex Jones and Piers Morgan to North Korea. :v:

Jesse Ventura is also a idiot.

I loved it, wish we had the right to bear arms up here in Sweden.

I'm pretty Gun-control, but I fucking hate Piers Morgan. He does nothing but be a cunt and smear whatever side he is on.

[QUOTE=Tudd;48485976]Jesse Ventura is also a idiot.[/QUOTE] So basically everyone here is a cunt.

It's like a fistfight between Bizarro Superman and Lex Luthor We fucking hate both of them

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48486173]I loved it, wish we had the right to bear arms up here in Sweden.[/QUOTE] I'm really happy we aren't on topic: They both seem like complete idiots

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48486173]I loved it, wish we had the right to bear arms up here in Sweden.[/QUOTE] What would you need them for? If you're not a complete idiot you have no reason to fear for your life, your crime rate and that of the average European country is far below the US.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48486438]What would you need them for? If you're not a complete idiot you have no reason to fear for your life, your crime rate and that of the average European country is far below the US.[/QUOTE] Protect myself from tyranny and violent criminals also for recreational shooting

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48486619]Protect myself from tyranny and violent criminals also for recreational shooting[/QUOTE] Aren't there gun clubs in Sweden for the recreational part? For the crime part, I don't really live in a risky area so I figure there's a rather low probability that I'd ever need a gun. Don't know how it is in Sweden.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48486631]Aren't there gun clubs in Sweden for the recreational part? For the crime part, I don't really live in a risky area so I figure there's a rather low probability that I'd ever need a gun. Don't know how it is in Sweden.[/QUOTE] Better to be safe than sorry. Also owning your own instead of renting some club's guns (which I think is what you have to do in Europe?) is cheaper and more practical.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48486669]Better to be safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] gun-wielding citizens will just generate even more gun-wielding criminals, it creates more problems than it solves And as Axel said, suddenly allowing guns in a place like Sweden would cause complete chaos

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48486669]Better to be safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] I don't think suddenly allowing Europeans to carry weapons when they didn't grow up learning the appropriate safety measures and were only exposed to them through American movies is a good idea. You'd probably get more gun-related accidents and hot-blooded murders in a month than in the US in a whole year. People just aren't ready to be responsible on this aspect. There's not much of an incentive to own a gun in Europe compared to the US anyway. The probability of being murdered is way too low for it to be worth the harm legalizing weapons would do.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48486766]I don't think suddenly allowing Europeans to carry weapons when they didn't grow up learning the appropriate safety measures and were only exposed to them through American movies is a good idea. You'd probably get more gun-related accidents and hot-blooded murders in a month than in the US in a whole year. People just aren't ready to be responsible on this aspect. There's not much of an incentive to own a gun in Europe compared to the US anyway. The probability of being murdered is way too low for it to be worth the harm legalizing weapons would do.[/QUOTE] So introduce it slowly. I guess this is closely the same concept as the US adopting European standards as far as drinking ages go. If we just said "okay everyone aged 16 and up can drink now" we'd have tons of issues. Introduce it slowly, maybe it won't be so bad. Europe had tons of guns pre-WW2 then Hitler and other asshole dictators took them. Not like it's been that long since Europe was armed. Switzerland has tons of guns and they have like no crime.

Piers Morgan gets a huge erection by playing the victim then playing tough by talking down his guests, he has to know people can tell this is happening. While Ventura is a whack job, he's a smart whack job. You don't become a Navy Seal working underwater demolitions, a WWF wrestler/commentator, act in 16 movies including Predator, host a plethora of TV shows, or become the Governor of a State by dumb luck. Yea he did roids in the wrestling days and admitted it, as well as never completed the extended SEAL training (but is still technically a SEAL) but in reality no human is without their faults or limitations. He made far more realistic and plausible points than Piers never even bothered acknowledging beyond "you're wrong/evil for disagreeing with me because I'm good."

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48486838]So introduce it slowly. I guess this is closely the same concept as the US adopting European standards as far as drinking ages go. If we just said "okay everyone aged 16 and up can drink now" we'd have tons of issues. Introduce it slowly, maybe it won't be so bad. Europe had tons of guns pre-WW2 then Hitler and other asshole dictators took them. Not like it's been that long since Europe was armed. Switzerland has tons of guns and they have like no crime.[/QUOTE] The point is that there's no need for that kind of reform. The demand for firearms is close to null and there's no need for them either over here. There's no high crime rate we need to address and protect people from. All it would result in is simply upping the ante. Besides, once you start introducing firearms and making them commonplace it's basically impossible to get rid of them if complications arise, as evidenced by the attempts at introducing more severe gun laws in the US.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48487011]i seriously just burst out laughing like oh my god[/QUOTE] Why? That's what the law is made for. Do you realize Japan didn't launch a full scale invasion of the US mainland during WW2 because we all had guns? That wasn't even 100 years ago. Not like this is 1700's talk.

I'm for more gun control but I don't see anything wrong with allowing regular people to carry concealed guns to stop robberies/shootings.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48487050]I'm for more gun control but I don't see anything wrong with allowing regular people to carry concealed guns to stop robberies/shootings.[/QUOTE] We have plenty of gun control in the US. That's what the FFL process is for. .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% slip through the cracks and cause a problem that make the rest of us that own guns legally, look bad. The other crazies that own them legally don't get help when they're mentally unstable, which is the root cause of mass murder. Not guns.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48487070]maybe it requires some background, but i dont care that much about recreational gun ownership, and fatfatfatty legitimately thinks hes living in a totalitarian state because he cannot get guns[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it totalitarian, but rather; authoritarian

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48487070]maybe it requires some background, but i dont care that much about recreational gun ownership, and fatfatfatty legitimately thinks hes living in a totalitarian state because he cannot get guns[/QUOTE] It isn't that not having guns = totalitarian. It means not having guns = the government has free reign to become totalitarian if it wishes. The entire US government system is based on the concept of checks and balances. Each branch balances out the other. The final part of the equation is the people and the government balance out each other. When people get out of line, they get their peepee slapped by the government. When the government gets out of line, it can, in theory, get its peepee slapped by the people due to them being armed. Removing firearms from the hands of the people eliminates their ability to keep the government in check. However, the absolute removal of firearms would be completely impossible. Instead, a smarter more effective approach would be to employ the frog in boiling water approach, slowly constrict gun laws gradually eliminating certain types of firearms until everyone is left with shitty basic rifles/handguns. I'm not saying that's why our government has consistently restricted firearms more and more over the years, but it's what a smart government looking to expand its power and limit its people's ability to check them would do. As someone in the military, I want the people I serve to be heavily armed. I want them to be able to fight back if something goes wrong. Because honestly, military people wouldn't be able to help much. Any talk of dissent or desertion would get us locked up somewhere ASAP, in that kind of situation the military would be keeping tight tabs on everyone since they know a vast majority of us have conservative views and/or are from the south (the south has a natural rebellious nature to it). There really wouldn't be that many military defectors who could help, since military defectors would be stomped out extremely fast. It would be up to the people to fight back, and they would be severely handicapped if all they had were bolt action rifles and low capacity handguns. As for the, "People could never resist a modern military," argument I sometimes hear, it's completely nullified by the fact that completely illiterate motherfuckers who literally just point their guns in a direction and hold down the trigger thinking Allah will guide their bullets to the enemy with no developed infrastructure, barely any electronics, and nothing but masking tape and shoe string to make bombs with, managed to fight a war of attrition with us long enough to make us tired of that shit and pull out. Vietnam was the same case. Guerrilla warfare is a bitch. Guerrilla warfare with people who have access to the internet and a metric buttfuckton of weapons they are trained to use would be an even bigger bitch.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48487288]Guerrilla warfare with people who have access to the internet and a metric buttfuckton of weapons they are trained to use would be an even bigger bitch.[/QUOTE] Yeah if your government suddenly turned into Third Reich 2.0 Mode and noticed resistance I sort of doubt they'd keep your infrastructure online And seriously, why would they do that, do they want to get hated (even more) by the rest of the world just like how everyone hates russia and north korea?

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48486619]Protect myself from tyranny and violent criminals also for recreational shooting[/QUOTE] Tyranny l m a o Imagine thinking Sweden is gonna go gung-ho North Korea tommorow, and that your average citizen with a .22 would be able to stop their military

The way people portray the second amendment as "people's ability to defend themselves from the government" is absolutely stupid bullshit. The American population is way too diverse and non-unified for that to be even close to being a feasible scenario. There's no scenario where the government of America would all be on one side of a political issue and every gun owning American would be on another side. There are plenty of scenarios where a small group of gun-toting Americans would feel like their rights are being infringed by the government and take up the "second amendment" rhetoric, leading to a stand off and a bunch of deaths. Do people really think that, even if the government didn't severely outmatch everyday Americans, that all of America (except, inexplicably, the government) could agree on ANY issue enough to successfully perform a violent rebellion against the government without it ending in a bloodbath of violence and anarchy, with people with differing opinions turning on each other because now violence and force is guiding the future of the country, not democracy? The French and American revolutions worked because the ruling and the ruled were two incredibly different and separate groups, each with their own internal organizations. In America, the people and the government are incredibly intertwined, and there's considerably more separation between different political parties than between the people and the government. An armed revolution would be an absolute disaster, and 2nd amendment rhetoric is already leading to things like sovereign citizens and politicians being murdered by people that disagree with them. The only reasoning that we need to prevent the banning of guns is the fact that it's unfeasible to accomplish without leaving a bunch in circulation, and that too many Americans are against it. The logic people interpret the second amendment as doesn't make any sense in modern America. This is even ignoring the argument that the Second Amendment was talking about people's right to form a militia to protect themselves from invading armies, not to defy the government.