guns vs conspiracy - General

All that polarity.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48492800]good to know that people on this website are as insane as always[/QUOTE] People disagreeing with your stance on firearms doesn't make them insane. His statement was how most of us from the US feel.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;48492800]good to know that people on this website are as insane as always[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what is insane or disagreeable about what I said, care to elaborate? I was simply elaborating on the viewpoint being discussed in this thread. It is a fact the 2nd amendment was formed (among many reasons) to make sure the people can always have a means of resisting oppression, domestic or foreign. It is a fact the outright removal/ban of firearms overnight would be an impossible feat, slow and steady constriction of the laws would be the only possible way of doing so. Keep in mind, I did not say that is why gun laws are the way they are, that's just the most sensible way for a government to disarm its people in this modern age. I am actually in the military, so I know how the military works. We would not be able to simply grab as much gear as we can hold and walk off base to help rebels or whatever. Any kind of operation on the scale of an occupation would entail spooks keeping all kinds of tabs on us, a whisper of desertion would be instant treason conviction and subsequent punishment. Guerrilla warfare has continued to be the bane of modern professional armed forces. It is incredibly difficult to fight an enemy who looks exactly like everyone else, who can launch a quick attack and disappear into the crowds before CAS shows up. The only way to beat an insurrection force would be the WWII German (and other countries at times) route, full-blown total war. Destroying every house, killing every person in the way, absolute destruction. Obviously, such a strategy would be impossible to employ domestically. Perhaps I exemplify insanity because I do not recognize it, but pointing out the supposed flaws in what I presume to be facts would be a lot more productive than insults.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48492650]You're citing incidents with no respect for the context. The unfortunately reality of history is that virtually all rebellions by peasants tend to end up badly. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts[/url] If the USA became a dictatorship, the most likely outcome wouldn't be patriotic civilians rising up to overthrow them - it would be a long and drawn out bloody civil war killing millions and most likely resulting in the dissolution of the USA itself. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] The point is that guns aren't protecting you. At the end of the day, it's the institutions which have taken decades or even centuries to develop which are doing the work of good government and advancing the common good. If you gave all of the citizenry of an already undemocratic country (like North Korea) firearms and told them it was to protect them from the government, it would dissolve into civil war almost immediately. Like if armed militias were what was defending the US from tyranny, how come they are the most dangerous domestic threat in the US right now? Right wing militia types attack police officers, refuse to pay taxes, go on shooting rampages, and other crazy bullshit.[/QUOTE] A civil war for the people to take down the dictatorship would have all my support.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48495014]if thats how most of the us feels i want to get the hell out of here[/QUOTE] If you're anti-gun, you don't belong in the US.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48495110]If you're anti-gun, you don't belong in the US.[/QUOTE] Luckily our 1st Amendment allows us to not like the 2nd.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48494719]A civil war for the people to take down the dictatorship would have all my support.[/QUOTE] You sound like you have little to no idea about how a society actually functions. [QUOTE=agentfazexx;48495110]If you're anti-gun, you don't belong in the US.[/QUOTE] But the US has loads of anti-gun people living there. Not to mention that the US has an ideal of allowing people to live there, even if they have weird opinions.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48495133]You sound like you have little to no idea about how a society actually functions. But the US has loads of anti-gun people living there. Not to mention that the US has an ideal of allowing people to live there, even if they have weird opinions.[/QUOTE] Yeah sure, let them just vote Kim Jong Un and his goons away, that will work I am sure.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48495163]Yeah sure, let them just vote Kim Jong Un and his goons away, that will work I am sure.[/QUOTE] So if every North Korean was suddenly armed, what do you think the actual outcome would be? Would it become democratic, or would it end up resembling a major humanitarian crisis that would slide back into despotism again?

yeah can see the headlines now * AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CAPITULATES TO THREE MEN IN FORD FOCUS *

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48495171]So if every North Korean was suddenly armed, what do you think the actual outcome would be? Would it become democratic, or would it end up resembling a major humanitarian crisis that would slide back into despotism again?[/QUOTE] They'd probably be better off after a revolution than the state of things right now.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48495239]They'd probably be better off after a revolution than the state of things right now.[/QUOTE] Probably? The whole point of modern society is that it doesn't need a few thousand rednecks with rifles to protect it from some nebulously defined problem of "tyranny". It has a multitude of other existing organisations and institutions and people doing all sorts of things, none of which are dependent on some pieces of fucking plastic and metal being commonly available. North Korea needs those very institutions and organisations, not a bloody and violent civil war which would end up with millions dead.

North Korea is a special example because it's absolutely fucked no matter what happens. Either foreign powers invade to liberate the people and unify Korea at insane cost of life on all sides, or their societal change drags on at a painful speed and they either slip into an even more radical ideology or they spend decades adapting to a modern world while millions starve in the meantime.

In a dictatorship or tyrannical government, they tend to be the ones with the guns. Never seen an "evil" dictator who was outgunned. Contraptions of metal and plastic give power to men who have none.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48495673]North Korea is a special example because it's absolutely fucked no matter what happens. Either foreign powers invade to liberate the people and unify Korea at insane cost of life on all sides, or their societal change drags on at a painful speed and they either slip into an even more radical ideology or they spend decades adapting to a modern world while millions starve in the meantime.[/QUOTE] Most of Sub-Saharas violent civil wars and genocides would have probably been exacerbated if guns were widely available (the Rwandan genocide being one instance). That is, a civil war in which most people are heavily armed is more likely to devolve into warlording states than a democratic society.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48495688]In a dictatorship or tyrannical government, they tend to be the ones with the guns. Never seen an "evil" dictator who was outgunned. Contraptions of metal and plastic give power to men who have none.[/QUOTE] did you learn that from the terminator movies

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48487018]Why? That's what the law is made for. [/QUOTE] Yes, but he means that the Swedish government isn't particularly likely to do something like that in the near future. Although I agree that there is always the possibility and thus, the Second Amendment can do some good in such a scenario. [QUOTE=agentfazexx;48487018]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.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but that is just dumb. Japanese command couldn't invade the US because of logistics; the same reason nobody outside of North America could invade us. Shipping supplies across an ocean for troops is extremely difficult, especially when the US was the one making most of your supplies before you attacked them. The British are a good example. No matter what the 'History' Channel tells you, winning the war had nothing to do with every civilian owning a gun or patriotism or whatever. It had everything to do with the British being an ocean apart and thus being unable to supply and reinforce their men for months on end. Seriously, we as Americans need to get over guns, and Facepunch needs to stop with the anti-gun control bandwagon shit. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MaverickIB;48487288] 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] And in both cases the enemy lost significantly more men than the US military forces. Those wars weren't about attrition; they were about morale. We lost Vietnam because public support for the war dropped, and we lost in Iraq and are losing in Afghanistan for much the same reasons. Americans, for all their talk of glory, tire of war easily when it starts to cost them money. Now picture a civil war in that vein. The rebels might win in the long run but without the aid of military forces it would come at immense cost. Millions would be dead.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48487288] Removing firearms from the hands of the people eliminates their ability to keep the government in check.[/QUOTE] Dunno, if it gets bad enough and the population finally says "fuck this" they can usually win without killing millions of people in a violent civil war. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_Revolution[/url] Americas losing tons of civil liberties and its usually the gun nuts calling for it to spite the terrorists or support the cops.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48496367]Yes, but he means that the Swedish government isn't particularly likely to do something like that in the near future. Although I agree that there is always the possibility and thus, the Second Amendment can do some good in such a scenario. I'm sorry but that is just dumb. Japanese command couldn't invade the US because of logistics; the same reason nobody outside of North America could invade us. Shipping supplies across an ocean for troops is extremely difficult, especially when the US was the one making most of your supplies before you attacked them. The British are a good example. No matter what the 'History' Channel tells you, winning the war had nothing to do with every civilian owning a gun or patriotism or whatever. It had everything to do with the British being an ocean apart and thus being unable to supply and reinforce their men for months on end. Seriously, we as Americans need to get over guns, and Facepunch needs to stop with the anti-gun control bandwagon shit. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] And in both cases the enemy lost significantly more men than the US military forces. Those wars weren't about attrition; they were about morale. We lost Vietnam because public support for the war dropped, and we lost in Iraq and are losing in Afghanistan for much the same reasons. Americans, for all their talk of glory, tire of war easily when it starts to cost them money. Now picture a civil war in that vein. The rebels might win in the long run but without the aid of military forces it would come at immense cost. Millions would be dead.[/QUOTE] What do you classify as gun control? We already have a ton of stupid bans in different states that do nothing. Background checks are already in place. Gun free zones in the US are statistically higher crime. It's all fact.

[QUOTE=xamllew;48495131]Luckily our 1st Amendment allows us to not like the 2nd.[/QUOTE] And also to tell you that you're a fool for holding such beliefs.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48496458]What do you classify as gun control? We already have a ton of stupid bans in different states that do nothing. Background checks are already in place. Gun free zones in the US are statistically higher crime. It's all fact.[/QUOTE] Stricter background checks, especially when concerning mental health. Like, with my mental health history, I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but in less than 4 months I can go and buy one because many states don't even disclose mental health issues in background checks. I mean, I don't advocate total gun control because it is unrealistic and likely wouldn't do much. However, I think this country handles gun control with a history of mental health issues poorly, and it shows our problem in the US at large with recognizing and treating mental health issues. Also like Richy said there needs to be tighter regulations on second-hand gun sales.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48496569]Stricter background checks, especially when concerning mental health. Like, with my mental health history, I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but in less than 4 months I can go and buy one because many states don't even disclose mental health issues in background checks. I mean, I don't advocate total gun control because it is unrealistic and likely wouldn't do much. However, I think this country handles gun control with a history of mental health issues poorly, and it shows our problem in the US at large with recognizing and treating mental health issues. Also like Richy said there needs to be tighter regulations on second-hand gun sales.[/QUOTE] What about spend more money on mental health issues instead of spending money on passing ridiculous ban laws that do nothing?

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48496648]What about spend more money on mental health issues instead of spending money on passing ridiculous ban laws that do nothing?[/QUOTE] Nobody is advocating banning anything. Guns are fine so long as they don't fall into the hands of the wrong people, which includes the mentally unstable. And I agree, we need to spend a lot more money on mental health issues.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48496666]Nobody is advocating banning anything. Guns are fine so long as they don't fall into the hands of the wrong people, which includes the mentally unstable. And I agree, we need to spend a lot more money on mental health issues.[/QUOTE] Like here in Maryland.. After Sandy Hook, they passed all sorts of retarded laws. Even though I already own handguns and an AR15 and an AK, I still have to spend $150 bucks to get finger printed and get some card saying I can buy them....when I already own them. But this only applies to handguns. These "gun control" laws do nothing but fuck with us normal people who own them legally and enjoy this as a hobby. It's utter bullshit and does nothing.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48496495]And also to tell you that you're a fool for holding such beliefs.[/QUOTE] To be honest the 1st amendment is probably several magnitudes more important than the 2nd. Having a well-armed populace means nothing unless they are educated and participate in politics.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48497038]To be honest the 1st amendment is probably several magnitudes more important than the 2nd. Having a well-armed populace means nothing unless they are educated and participate in politics.[/QUOTE] They are both equally as important.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48497138]They are both equally as important.[/QUOTE] Without freedom of expression there would be no point in having the right to bear arms, you could be jailed the moment you were discovered to have rebellious beliefs. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;48496495]And also to tell you that you're a fool for holding such beliefs.[/QUOTE] Just don't deport me for having differing opinions.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48497138]They are both equally as important.[/QUOTE] so a lack of guns is as grievous a human rights violation to you as losing your right to free speech?

[QUOTE=Cone;48497363]so a lack of guns is as grievous a human rights violation to you as losing your right to free speech?[/QUOTE] The constitution is not a living document, and it allows me to protect myself by whatever means necessary if it is deemed warranted. Our lovely government is trying to change the constitution despite it saying it's not a living document. Why change what works? Maybe Britain is fine being anti-gun, but stats prove that gun free zones in the US are havens for violent crime. Cities that don't fuck with gun rights are the safest in the country. Remove the anti-gun cities from the equation (Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc) and the US is almost at the bottom of murder rate worldwide. It's a different dynamic in this country. All I can say, is it's a fun hobby. And I enjoy having a leg up on potential crime to protect my family. If anyone has a problem with that, well that's on them.

Shooting is a fun hobby, having the right to bear arms helps protect the first by design, and there are ways to stop gun crimes rates which are already dropping without having gun control. One would be for politicians to actually do their jobs, which in America is a hard thing for them to do. Chicago didn't need more gun control, it needed someone to actually find reasonable solutions to the issues in the high crime areas, not banning the good guys in the areas from owning a means of protection. Should also mention some of these gun control laws were clearly written by people who know nothing of guns, sorta like that time Feinstein held an AK with a drum mag and managed to aim it at EVERYONE with her finger on the trigger, or that one idiot who wanted to ban barrel shrouds who didn't EVEN know what they were.