Guns good or bad

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I didn't give you a rebuttal because all you did was give me a shitpost about magazines, something that you don't even understand. Why would I argue with you if you don't even have experience with what you're talking about, and are basing all of your opinions on feelings?

I have a gun to defend my town in the event of a civil war. If that makes me a terrorist, then I'm proud to be one, and I outlined exactly why you're wrong about everything else in my other posts. As far as I can tell, the "debate" ended several posts ago. You're just fucking around, now.
 
ArnoldPalmer said:
I didn't give you a rebuttal because all you did was give me a shitpost about magazines, something that you don't even understand. Why would I argue with you if you don't even have experience with what you're talking about, and are basing all of your opinions on feelings?

I have a gun to defend my town in the event of a civil war. If that makes me a terrorist, then I'm proud to be one, and I outlined exactly why you're wrong about everything else in my other posts. As far as I can tell, the "debate" ended several posts ago. You're just fucking around, now.
Click to expand...

I don't read magazines, so what? Stop changing the subject.
 
I used to support guns but after reading @Dynastia 's insightful commentary I now realize that I was on the wrong side of history and that guns need to be taken away from potential domestic terrorists like @ArnoldPalmer
 
Jon-Kacho said:
I used to support guns but after reading @Dynastia 's insightful commentary I now realize that I was on the wrong side of history and that guns need to be taken away from potential domestic terrorists like @ArnoldPalmer
Click to expand...
I too, although supportive of the right to bear arms, am concerned about @ArnoldPalmer and the strong potential for future terrorist acts committed by him
 
I'm not super into guns just on the basis that I'm a complete nerd who prefers swords and shit, but I do recognize the benifits and advantages that carrying a handgun has over carrying a mace.
For example:
3d3.jpg
 
MerriedxReldnahc said:
I'm not super into guns just on the basis that I'm a complete nerd who prefers swords and shit, but I do recognize the benifits and advantages that carrying a handgun has over carrying a mace.
For example:
View attachment 293138
Click to expand...

Shit, I'm game. Screw you guys sucking Dynastia's abbo cock, I wanna be ready for when the clowns attack.
 
Guns can be either good or bad depending on their owner, but people who want guns banned are bad and probably have aspirations of becoming tyrants. It's not like despots and autocrats are in favor of having armed populations that could possibly resist and overthrow them. That's why people like Hitler and Stalin disarmed the people that they wanted to disenfranchise and oppress.

I'm sure it's been gone over a million times already, but there is a reason for that. It's kind of hard to shove somebody into an oven when he's firing back at you, and the Founding Fathers realized this fact.

Also, Wikipedia is a user-edited online encyclopedia and not always a reliable source, despite any potential efforts to weed out personal or political bias in rather charged articles.
 
Firstly, as I believe most people can agree with, guns are at the end of the day a tool, and are no more good or evil than a hammer, it's just how they're handled and who they're used by that can change the alignment of the end result of their use.

Secondly, and to a point that I've not seen anyone else bring up, the Second Amendment is super duper important in protecting our right to the First Amendment. The Third Amendment is also important to keeping our First Amendment. And so on, and so forth. Literally, that is what the Bill of Rights, at least first ten or so at the very least, boil down to.

I have the Freedom to Worship whatever the fuck I want whenever the fuck I want, and the right to say whatever the fuck I want whenever the fuck I want to however many people I can get to listen to me say it, and when I feel like someone is fucking up I have the right to peacefully protest and make a hella fuss about it in an attempt to get others to realize that I think something is fucked up and maybe nag/shame who/whatever into not being so fucked up, as long as I'm not causing any actual harm in doing so. I have the Right, as an American, should you( being an individual and/or some group or gang or invading country) decide to try and stop me from any bit of that First Amendment and everything that entails, then I can do my damnedest to stop you, with force if necessary. If I'm too good at keeping you away from me and my family to be suppressed, the Third Amendment means you can't hijack my Neighbor's house forcibly to try and scope me out, and if you try to invade and set up shack there, they can shoot at your ass and keep you out. And it keeps going. And it all comes back to that very first one. All those very first bits in the Bill o' Rights can be read as This is my very most important Freedom, and here is how I'm going to undermine, curtail, and cease any attempts of which it might be taken away.

Also, I live out in the boonies where there are, occasionally, Bears and Moose and Mountain Lions, oh my, and you can all kindly suck my ass if you want to take my shotgun that could help keep the beasties from doing harm to me and mine. Thank you.
 
Historical revisionists and SJWs are trying to tell us that George Washington used free speech to defeat the British...so fucking LOL

1377568_10153352436100515_1520008930_n.jpg
 
Jon-Kacho said:
Implying the American Revolution was justified
Click to expand...

Would you rather we still be part of a country that wants to ban anything with a pH under 7, criminalize the carrying of bread knives, arrest and criminally charge people over internet trolling, and throw people in prison for 15 years for watching YouTube videos?

We kicked the crown out of the colonies for a reason, but what you Brits are bending over for today is much worse.
 
Duke Nukem said:
Would you rather we still be part of a country that wants to ban anything with a pH under 7, criminalize the carrying of bread knives, arrest and criminally charge people over internet trolling, and throw people in prison for 15 years for watching YouTube videos?
Click to expand...

In hindsight it's the best thing to happen in the history of the world but that doesn't mean it was reasonable or justified at the time.

Duke Nukem said:
We kicked the crown out of the colonies for a reason, but what you Brits are bending over for today is much worse.
Click to expand...
lmao I'm American I just think 1788 was a much more respectable year in American history than 1776.
 
Jon-Kacho said:
In hindsight it's the best thing to happen in the history of the world but that doesn't mean it was reasonable or justified at the time.
Click to expand...

Not going to argue opinions here, because assholes everyone's got them blah blah blah, but I'll point out that looking back at history with a modern eye is pretty off perspective. In hindsight, it proooooobably wasn't such a good idea for Hannibal to march past Rome in an attempt to gain more support from those under Roman rule who weren't in the least bit interested in getting out from under it. In hindsight, the Wars of the Diadochi didn't have to happen if the generals had gotten together after Alexander of Macedon's death and split things betwixt themselves all civilized like, or if Alexander had even set up a proper will before death. Hindsight says that maybe after that first world war, maybe we should have collectively as a group attempted to keep Germany's economics from totally tanking and letting the people get into a situation where they felt like the only possible way out was to follow the leading of an absolute mad man. Hindsight says that America giving Bin Laden a whole bunch of weapons was not the best move we've ever made in history. That's both the joy and the curse of Hindsight.

My opinion- not that it matters, but if we're showing assholes here- fall on that we were pretty damn justified. It wasn't about the taxes. I mean, yes, it was a bit about the taxes, because let's be honest, money is a very important thing for why anyone does anything, but! I've been of the opinion since I was first learning a bit more about the War for Independence in middle school, that we'd have had a revolution at some point anyway, because every country under another country's rule will at one point or another, but it would have happened much later, if it hadn't been for one thing. The southern colonies were pretty okay with being under British rule. Everywhere but Massachusetts weren't particularly bothered with being British citizens. And wars are hard. Very hard. Especially when you're thirteen colonies out in the middle of nowhere and your opponent is one of the most powerful nations in the entire known world. But England refused to let us have even the tiniest bit of say in our taxes. If they even allowed us the lipservice that America allows it's own citizens today, the majority of the citizens probably would have been okay with it. But they didn't. They denied our right to representation- I know we all know that one, chant it with me, No Taxation without Representation-, and then we we called them out for it, they tried to silence us via force( and here is where I tie this back to defending our right to speak with the force of the 2nd amendment just to keep this whole spiel vaguely on topic). If suddenly Britain decided it was completely in charge of Canada, hiked up the taxes 210% without talking to Trudeau about it- Trudeau of course being the representation of the people of Canada himself, who would in theory have their best interest and thoughts at heart in a perfect world here-, and then started shipping over people to be tried for treason when they try to protest, I would personally be wondering why they WEREN'T fighting tooth and nail, with whatever force they deemed necessary, to get out of it. I didn't question why the IRA did what they did- I questioned, to myself, whether what they did was terrorism or freedom fighting, and if I even had the right to judge that, but I never wondered why they did it. I don't question whether Vietnam over reacted when calling independence from France.

This is not all to say that I thought we were perfect in everything we did during the war. I don't. I don't think we were perfect in everything we did PRE-revolution. But I just don't personally see where our end justifications for it were wrong.
 
Cyborg Scars said:
That said ownership of illegal blackmarket guns would be easier to track down if gun ownership was low.
Click to expand...
how so? it's not like blackmarket dealers are required to keep significant records, and most buyers aren't hanging onto receipts to get a warranty. gun laws affect people who tend to follow the law: generally not criminals. reducing or completely outlawing private possession of a firearm has no direct, and arguably no indirect impact on a blackmarket for such illicit goods except drive customers towards it.

i mean, the trade in humans, drugs, and arms occurs regardless of the planet's laws against such things. it's a multi-billion dollar business that has zero insight or control from outside forces and you would want to expand on it?

Cyborg Scars said:
I also think that a background check wouldn't be a bad idea before guns can be sold to a person just so that people who are seriously unhinged or known criminals have a harder time getting their hands on deadly firearms (though it is hard to say how much this would help given how people can see normal before majorly snapping and repeat criminals would have access to other means of acquiring the weapons).
Click to expand...
the US has many gun laws. they are different than the rest of the world. since 1993, nearly all dealer-transferred firearms, and all interstate transferred firearms must be booked and recorded and a background check conducted with few exceptions, often determined by a state's authority (sworn peace officer, conceal carry permit holder, another dealer or collector, et c). this background check covers any sort of forcible felony (murder, rape, kidnapping, et c), any convictions for narcotics trafficking, any domestic violence restraining orders, and you must fill out a little sheet that affirms as much. there is additionally a list of prohibited persons that cannot possess firearms at all. this information is a point-in-time reference that is used to deliver a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS because fuck acronyms that make sense) query where reporting agencies (most courts, most state and municipal police agencies, some state departments like the DMV or DoHS, et c) send their files to. once the query is completed a return is sent affirming or denying (or delaying) the sale, and the results discarded.

the US is not in the business of pre-crime, or thought-crime. people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and are given the option of a trial by a jury of their peers. to do otherwise invites the premise that "certain people" should be denied human rights recognized as inalienable and protected from government abrogation.

Cyborg Scars said:
Also, if guns were mostly illegal I would suggest that police officers should hold onto their guns so they aren't horribly outmatched by dangerous criminals.
Click to expand...
most criminal steal their firearms from unattended homes and vehicles, including police vehicles. police officers are often required to have affirmative control of their longarm, and their sidearm is often in a retention holster that is very difficult to remove it without training.

Tennis Monkey said:
In an ideal world (which we don't live in), you should be able to own a gun if you actually need it for some activity you do on a regular basis
Click to expand...
in an ideal world you can do whatever you wanted since there would be no crime, and the very thought of performing a criminal act would be naturally reprehensible. to most law abiding US citizens - above 100 million of them being gun owners, usually multiple gun owners - they follow the laws and surprising don't commit heinous crimes. punishing the many for the unpredictable actions of a few, using punishments that the perpetrators will ignore is completely pants.

AnOminous said:
Also just the sound of racking a shotgun will drive off most would-be intruders.
Click to expand...
may drive them off. MAY. the theory here is the involvement of a firearm immediately makes the assumption that your life is immediately threatened. if you can rely on scary noises to drive off home invaders, why not just have a stereo with "Gun Sounds Vol 5" on repeat?

do not rely on speculation during a possibly life-threatening situation where you think "maybe it'll scare him away". by all means use the sound as a tool if you feel that you must. but do not rely on it.
 
Of course a thread about gun control turned into a bunch of autistic sperging.

Let me specify what I mean two pages ago. You don't need an assault rifle, SMG, or automatic shotgun to protect yourself from muggers or protect your home from intruders. You don't need those guns for hunting either. A shotgun would be enough for home defense. A handgun is enough to protect you from a mugger. And a rifle is enough to hunt. And talking about needing automatic guns to protect yourself from the government makes you look like you've got a screw loose.

Honestly gun spergs are a lot worse than sword and knife spergs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom