Happy Gun Appreciation Day! Anti-Gun Control rallies attract 1000's - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285535] so the second amendment is effective as a check against the government only in the case of grand scale fantasy dystopian oppression. an effective law if you have a big mob behind you, otherwise it's worthless? like, when you'd want it to work the MOST?[/QUOTE] that's why i think the 2nd amendment being intended as a check against tyranny is a fundamentally flawed argument. however, i think the burden of proof is on the people trying to restrict gun ownership to prove that those laws would be effective and moral.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285535]so the second amendment is effective as a check against the government only in the case of grand scale fantasy dystopian oppression. an effective law if you have a big mob behind you, otherwise it's worthless? like, when you'd want it to work the MOST?[/QUOTE] As many individuals on facepunch have said, the amendment was made to curb tyranny, if its effective remains to be seen, and it probably wont in my or your lifetime, its just their as a constant reminder that, if you piss Americas people off, we'll try to fuck you up regardless of power. A single drop of rain wont bust a rock, but a torrent of water will break it over time. The same principle applies.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39283159]Accusing the government of being on par with Hitler and the Nazi's does not have anything to do with regulating guns. I never accused anyone of racism, this is not a case of right to defending yourself. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself. There's no legislation being put out to ban guns. And you're conveniently ignoring the fucking swastikas. Like seriously, why not, like, oh I dunno, pry your head out of your ass and look at the fucking psychotic message behind some of these people Like seriously, are you DENYING the radical craziness that exists among gun owners?[/QUOTE] uh if even a majority of gun owners were crazy and irresponsible, then we'd have a lot more gun crime than there is

[QUOTE=Megafan;39285152]Was there any viable presidential candidate (i.e. that made it to the general election) that would not have done these things?[/QUOTE] gary johnson [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39285302]he was an avowed social conservative...?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform[/url] and he supported the same assault weapon ban shit that obama supports romney is only considered a republican because he's so focused on "family values"

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39286592]gary johnson[/QUOTE] Yes, a candidate who, even among opinion polls that included third parties, never breached 10% support.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39286642]Yes, a candidate who, even among opinion polls that included third parties, never breached 10% support.[/QUOTE] last time I can think of that a third party candidate got more support than that was when Teddy ran for the progressive party

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39286676]last time I can think of that a third party candidate got more support than that was when Teddy ran for the progressive party[/QUOTE] For the popular vote, Ross Perot in 1992 (18.9%), 1996 (8.4%), and Ralph Nader in 2000 (2.74%) both received a greater percentage than Gary Johnson this last election, where he got 0.99% of the popular vote. Even worse for the Libertarians in the previous election, when they got only 0.40% of that.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39286592]gary johnson [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform[/url] and he supported the same assault weapon ban shit that obama supports romney is only considered a republican because he's so focused on "family values"[/QUOTE] so he's an avowed social conservative.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39283159]You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself.[/QUOTE] Where should the line be drawn anyway? The only justifications people can offer for owning an assault rifle could be applied to all kinds of destructive weaponry. If I had the money and if it was legal, why shouldn't I be allowed to put a Howitzer in the backyard?

These threads always go in a circle. Both sides bring up the same arguments and nothing new happens. It's incredibly annoying.

It's difficult to read every post when they quickly explode to 10+ pages.

out of curiosity, how would guns protect from the government exactly when they have planes, tanks, and bombs. It just seems that no matter what, they would always end up overpowered.

[QUOTE=kooper44;39287025]out of curiosity, how would guns protect from the government exactly when they have planes, tanks, and bombs. It just seems that no matter what, they would always end up overpowered.[/QUOTE] out of curiosity, how would muskets protect from the government exactly when they have warships, cannons, and artillery. It just seems that no matter what, they would always end up overpowered. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] if you're stupid, I'm saying that it was never about outgunning the government. it's about having a fighting chance.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39287033]out of curiosity, how would muskets protect from the government exactly when they have warships, cannons, and artillery. It just seems that no matter what, they would always end up overpowered. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] if you're stupid, I'm saying that it was never about outgunning the government. it's about having a fighting chance.[/QUOTE] How precise were cannons and warships of the 18th century exactly?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39287381]How precise were cannons and warships of the 18th century exactly?[/QUOTE] Those were different times. Nothing was accurate back then.

[QUOTE=kooper44;39287025]out of curiosity, how would guns protect from the government exactly when they have planes, tanks, and bombs. It just seems that no matter what, they would always end up overpowered.[/QUOTE] Take a look at any war that involved urban warfare, such as the war in Iraq. If you want to root a force out of a city without just destroying the entire city it ends up being very costly even if the defending side is vastly outmatched.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39286642]Yes, a candidate who, even among opinion polls that included third parties, never breached 10% support.[/QUOTE] So? I'd rather vote for the guy I truly agree with rather than it being a 2 party popularity contest [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] like isn't that the whole point

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39287438]So? I'd rather vote for the guy I truly agree with rather than it being a 2 party popularity contest [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] like isn't that the whole point[/QUOTE] yea and that's all good vote for whoever you want, but that doesn't mean gary johnson was a viable alternative to obama or romney. there was 0% chance of him winning.

I can't wait for malls in America to start handing out nukes like candy just so I can defend the 2nd amendment.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39287438]So? I'd rather vote for the guy I truly agree with rather than it being a 2 party popularity contest[/QUOTE] And that's a sentiment I agree with, I'm more than happy to advocate changes to the electoral system we have here that would create a more representative government, such as proportional representation or an alternative vote system. But at a certain point you have to realize that no matter how much those who voted for him agreed with him, that he had no realistic chance of winning. The Libertarians and Greens would find much more value, I think, in trying to contest Congressional seats as much as possible in the areas where they already have the most support, and building upon that.

OP is filled with nothing but aging bald men.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39282989]and armed the people doing the persecuting, yes[/QUOTE] the government is already armed, and they're trying to disarm the civilians. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;39287381]How precise were cannons and warships of the 18th century exactly?[/QUOTE] as precise as the muskets

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39287865]the government is already armed, and they're trying to disarm the civilians. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] as precise as the muskets[/QUOTE] Seriously stop with the tinfoil hats. "The government might attack the people" is not a valid argument in any way (unless you live in Zimbabwe or something), and I really can't understand why you treat them as such.

all of these "you probably aren't an american" comments feel like only nationalistic, stupid jabs at people to water down the argument "oh you aren't american obviously you aren't qualified or educated to talk about the issue of gun culture there HOOAH" seriously, stop these

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39282632]fucking swastikas. I'd show their owners my WW2 vintage M1 Garand and explain its original function.[/QUOTE] I have a Mauser from WWII. We should get together and shoot em!

[QUOTE=Ownederd;39289719]all of these "you probably aren't an american" comments feel like only nationalistic, stupid jabs at people to water down the argument "oh you aren't american obviously you aren't qualified or educated to talk about the issue of gun culture there HOOAH" seriously, stop these[/QUOTE] I agree, but you know hooah is a term exclusive to the US Army, so don't apply it to everyone else.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39284842]No you aren't, you're insulting it as a whole. Seriously, stop posting.[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39288778]Seriously stop with the tinfoil hats. "The government might attack the people" is not a valid argument in any way (unless you live in Zimbabwe or something), and I really can't understand why you treat them as such.[/QUOTE] America Land of the currently-free, home of the paranoid

It's not like you need a reason for something to be legal anyway.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39291432]It's not like you need a reason for something to be legal anyway.[/QUOTE] Well, if there's reasons why it shouldn't, yes, you should need some reason for as well.