No one can give me a rational reason why

[candycorn]

Only until a neighboring country decides it's a good idea to invade

This is why you have armies

or an immigrant group to decide it would be better for things to more resemble the way they are at home and they take up arms to force it.

keep dreaming.

We have the means to amend the Constitution if we need to.

We've seen the last constitutional amendments until there is a massive purge of conservative ass-hat-ism. Anarchists just don't care.

 

[hadit]

This is why you have armies

You don't need as big an army when every house has weapons.

keep dreaming.

We're not seeing violence between immigrant groups determined to transform their new host country into what they left? Are you sure about that?

We've seen the last constitutional amendments until there is a massive purge of conservative ass-hat-ism. Anarchists just don't care.

Well, that's the mechanism, and if your idea isn't popular enough to convince the sober-minded, tough. You don't get to simply ignore the Constitution, which restrains the federal government from disarming the people.

 

[LibertyKid]

A bad idea is a bad idea. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a high price to pay for a rule that was implemented before we had a standing army (of any size) and indigenous populations that were dangerous, a colonial master who was sending troops to quell a rebellion and many places didn’t have much in the way of a police force.

Than we should ban alcohol again, tobacco, weed, and have a zero tolerance on drugs in this country because they kill hundreds of thousands a year.

But we have the 2nd Amendment and all of the carnage that comes with it.

Carnage? A bit hyperbolic.

Other nations don’t and they enjoy the same freedoms.

On the surface it seems they do. But, when the gov't goes to far, the people will have no recourse. And that is the difference. There are plenty of other humans that support our 2A in other countries. They understand the point that the 2A provides.

But let's talk about freedoms. In the UK, they are banning the ability to carry a knife. They have knife crimes so let's pass bans on carrying knives. What's next, sticks, stones? The point, you can't ban, legislate away every potential form of evil that an evil person will come up with.

 

[hadit]

Than we should ban alcohol again, tobacco, weed, and have a zero tolerance on drugs in this country because they kill hundreds of thousands a year.

That is a valid point. We lose tens of thousands of lives every year on our roads, yet none of the anti-gun activists would even consider rendering vehicles physically incapable of exceeding 50kph. They are perfectly willing to trade all those lives just so they can drive fast.

Carnage? A bit hyperbolic.

Seriously, take a few blue run cities out of the mix and all of a sudden gun deaths are quite rare. But to listen to the usual suspects, you'd think somebody's shooting at you whenever you leave the house to feed the cows.

On the surface it seems they do. But, when the gov't goes to far, the people will have no recourse. And that is the difference. There are plenty of other humans that support our 2A in other countries. They understand the point that the 2A provides.

But let's talk about freedoms. In the UK, they are banning the ability to carry a knife. They have knife crimes so let's pass bans on carrying knives. What's next, sticks, stones? The point, you can't ban, legislate away every potential form of evil that an evil person will come up with.

It wasn't long ago that kids could bring a gun with them to school and use it to hunt on the way home. They could take shooting courses in school where they would utilize live ammo and get hands on training in gun safety. Guess what, no one shot up any schools. It wasn't long ago that you could get a catalog advertising firearms next to the toy advertisements and, by mailing in a check, get a gun delivered to your house, no questions asked. No one went into the shopping malls and gunned down as many as possible. Today, you have to fill out forms, have someone dig into your private life, wait a predetermined length of time, then get your gun if you successfully jump through all the hoops. People are shooting up schools and shopping malls. We have more gun laws and more restrictions on firearm ownership than before AND we have more gun violence.

What changed? Not the guns.

 

[candycorn]

You don't need as big an army when every house has weapons.

Hmmm...are you saying we should slash the defense budget?

We're not seeing violence between immigrant groups determined to transform their new host country into what they left? Are you sure about that?

Some examples of this violence please.

Well, that's the mechanism, and if your idea isn't popular enough to convince the sober-minded, tough. You don't get to simply ignore the Constitution, which restrains the federal government from disarming the people.

Yeah, the constitution is still the greatest founding document ever written. But it is no match for 1/2 the nation being hopelessly paranoid and unable to embrace the fact that 30,000 gun deaths is too high a yearly price to pay

 

[LibertyKid]

It wasn't long ago that kids could bring a gun with them to school and use it to hunt on the way home. They could take shooting courses in school where they would utilize live ammo and get hands on training in gun safety.

I read this not too long ago. A school in Wyoming teaches marksmanship to 5th and 6th graders. Granted air rifles, but the safety in handling these rifles is still the same. And I would trust these kids at defending home, state, and this country over some of the lefty liberals who will have no recourse if shit ever hit the fans.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/nation-world/national/article258174698.html

 

[candycorn]

Than we should ban alcohol again, tobacco, weed, and have a zero tolerance on drugs in this country because they kill hundreds of thousands a year.

Addictive drugs are hardly the same thing. Do you know anyone who is addicted to guns?

 

[LibertyKid]

Hmmm...are you saying we should slash the defense budget?

At the founding of this country, the idea of a federally backed army was frowned upon and distrusted. That's why states had militias. That's also why several states also made it a right for citizens to bear arms for the protection of self and state

Yeah, the constitution is still the greatest founding document ever written. But it is no match for 1/2 the nation being hopelessly paranoid and unable to embrace the fact that 30,000 gun deaths is too high a yearly price to pay

The paranoia comes from false narratives from politicians and the media. The gun problem in this country isn't the legally armed citizens that have their firearms for protection of self, state, and country. Rather the issue is the subculture that exists today that consists of gang and thug related mentality. As long as this is ignored, the media and politicians can continue to create their paranoia.

 

[LibertyKid]

Addictive drugs are hardly the same thing. Do you know anyone who is addicted to guns?

Maybe. Sure the crack head who overdoses doesn't hurt me, but there is indirect harm and hurt. Or, they drive high, get into an accident and kill or hurt someone. 2nd hand tobacco smoke kills 41,000 people a year. Why aren't people fuming over these deaths? Tobacco-Related Mortality.

You know why, it's not a politically divisive and vote generating issue. As soon as politicians can make smoking a political issue and they can get people divided over it, damn right it will be come political tool for votes. The gun narrative is no different.

13,000 people died from Drunk Driving. So, what's the number before we have to ban alcohol again. Is 13,000 not enough to make it an issue. What's too many? Where do we draw the line. And I will wager that the number of responsible gun owners significantly outweighs the number of responsible alcohol users. We've all been to the restaurant, sports bar, etc., and have seen that one person that shouldn't be driving, but they do. I don't know how many times I've seen empty bottles of beer or booze on the devil strip and you know damn well someone tossed that out of car.

Can we just be honest with ourselves and admit, that the gun narrative isn't nearly the issue that it is if "deaths" is the measuring stick.

 

[hadit]

Hmmm...are you saying we should slash the defense budget?

If we stopped being the world's police force we could. As it is, we're expected to step in virtually every time there's a conflict anywhere in the world, and we can't do that without a large, expensive military. So, when everyone is willing to pull our presence out of Europe and watch the world descend into chaos again, we can do it, and slash defense spending.

Some examples of this violence please.

Charlie Hebdo shooting | Facts, Victims, & Response
6 teens found guilty in connection with the beheading of teacher who showed cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

Yeah, the constitution is still the greatest founding document ever written. But it is no match for 1/2 the nation being hopelessly paranoid and unable to embrace the fact that 30,000 gun deaths is too high a yearly price to pay

1. Take a few blue run cities out of the mix and gun deaths drop off a cliff. To listen to the usual suspects, you'd think somebody is shooting at you every time you leave the house to feed the cows.
2. It's really a very weak argument to insist those who simply disagree with you are suffering from a mental illness. It kind of destroys your argument right out of the gate.
3. We have that many deaths and more on the roads every year. Are you going to also say that is too high a yearly price to pay just so you can drive your car fast? Making all vehicles physically unable to move faster than 35mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, to say nothing of gasoline and diesel, yet I see no anti-gun activists willing to give up speed for safety. It would seem to me that accepting deaths just so you can drive fast is weaker than accepting deaths to uphold important liberties.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I’ll take my chances as I believe in the power of democracy; our courts, our checks and balances.

At any rate, I don’t think anyone’s persona arsenal is going to stand much of a chance against a standing army.

It worked quite well in the1770s.

 

[hadit]

I’ll take my chances as I believe in the power of democracy; our courts, our checks and balances.

At any rate, I don’t think anyone’s persona arsenal is going to stand much of a chance against a standing army.

As always in these arguments, you don't have to "stand against a standing army" to keep them from occupation. All you need to do is make the cost of occupation higher than what the occupier is willing to pay, and that's a whole lot easier when there are millions of guns available to the home team. Why do you think the Russian military was driven out of Afghanistan by a bunch of nomads armed with small arms? Not because the Russian military was inferior, but because it got too expensive when every time they turned around, a few more would die, a helicopter would be brought down, etc.

 

[Billo_Really]

Except NONE OF YOUR POSTS mention automatic weapons, just semi-auto ones.

Show me one post of mine where I bring up semiautomatic weapons?

 

[Billo_Really]

The great thing about the 2A is you don't have to be a gun guy. What is important is that you understand that the forefathers understood the importance of armed citizens for the protection of freedom and tyranny, whether the tyranny was foreign or domestic. To stand against armed citizens is putting more faith in gov't to do what is right for the people, than letting the people decide what they want.

That's a bunch of crap! Do you really think your little pea shooter can stop an M1 tank? Or a Bradley army troop carrier? Or a helicopter gunship? Get fucking real!

If the government wants your weapon, they will take it! If you disagree, I got two words for you.....Ruby Ridge!

 

[hadit]

That's a bunch of crap! Do you really think your little pea shooter can stop an M1 tank? Or a Bradley army troop carrier? Or a helicopter gunship? Get fucking real!

It doesn't have to, all it has to do is make the cost of oppression too high to sustain, and when there are millions of firearms in the hands of civilians, that cost can get very high, very quickly. Why do you think the Russian military was chased out of Afghanistan by a bunch of nomads with AK-47's? It wasn't because their military was inferior, it was because the Afghans kept chipping away at them, taking out a few soldiers here and there, knocking down a chopper by getting above it as it flew through a valley and dropping stones on it, then melting back into the countryside. Eventually, Russia decided it wasn't worth the cost and left. The same would happen with a few million rednecks armed to the teeth and hiding in the swamps. Then, to make it even more difficult, if an American democrat president really tried to use the military against US civilians, there would be mass defections and some of those advanced arms would end up in the hands of said rednecks.

If the government wants your weapon, they will take it! If you disagree, I got two words for you.....Ruby Ridge!

That's just a numbers game. How successful would Ruby Ridge have been if there were several dozen rednecks hiding in the trees, shooting back at the agents?

 

[candycorn]

As always in these arguments, you don't have to "stand against a standing army" to keep them from occupation. All you need to do is make the cost of occupation higher than what the occupier is willing to pay, and that's a whole lot easier when there are millions of guns available to the home team. Why do you think the Russian military was driven out of Afghanistan by a bunch of nomads armed with small arms? Not because the Russian military was inferior, but because it got too expensive when every time they turned around, a few more would die, a helicopter would be brought down, etc.

Uhh...we sold them like a zillion stinger anti-aircraft guns.

 

[candycorn]

That's a bunch of crap! Do you really think your little pea shooter can stop an M1 tank? Or a Bradley army troop carrier? Or a helicopter gunship? Get fucking real!

If the government wants your weapon, they will take it! If you disagree, I got two words for you.....Ruby Ridge!

This is the one area where the movies really affected the gun debate.

These dumbfucks have seen these movies and they believe they are Rambo or whatever.

 

[Batcat]

The great reset cannot be implemented to full extent with an armed citizenry.

Rulers do not like an armed citizenry. It interferes with their tyranny.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Show me one post of mine where I bring up semiautomatic weapons?

There are too many to link to. You are allways talking about the evil AR-15. It is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm not saying anything about gun ownership. I'm saying there is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon.

And your opinion is noted and given the consideration it deserves.

None.