If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:


Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos?

The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM.

Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home.

A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect.

On April 11 2013 10:41 Fruscainte wrote:


You need to understand that we are a country that wasn't, like Germany, formed out of mutual agreement of independent states to come together for mutual good. We are a country formed out of revolution, revolution from a government whose executive, we believed, was overstepping his bounds. So it's only natural we have an entire section of our Constitution based around the theme of the people being able to protect themselves from overreaching executives in the future.

Aus der Schwärze (schwarz) der Knechtschaft durch blutige (rot) Schlachten ans goldene (gold) Licht der Freiheit.

On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week.

If the US army wanted to wipe out Americans--having guns will not stop them.

On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week.

If the US army wanted to wipe out americans--having guns will not stop them.

On April 11 2013 11:18 Fruscainte wrote:


And Vietnam was a total shithole, what's your point? Yeah you just struck a nerve, so prepare for a wall.

That was an organized military. Want to know how well we handled guerilla combatants?

Iraq in the midst of the Conflict had 2,500 enemy combatants. At its height in 2010, they had 10,000. Ten. Thousand. That's it. During the midst, and height of the conflict in the mid 2000's with the Conflict only 2500 were doing that much damage that required a troop surge of the most powerful military on Earth to handle it. Imagine a million. Imagine a million people resisting government control over themselves, which is perfectly reasonable in our country. It might be upwards of 10 million or more depending on how serious it got.

What would our government do? Go around kicking in doors? Yeah that'll go well. They going to go around and start shooting up civilian rallies and shit with tanks blowing up peoples houses with jets, causing the inevitable collateral damage? Do you think that troops would, in large, shoot their own countrymen down? Do you think that shit will fly? No of course not. In fact thousands of troops would dissent as well. You see soldiers are all volunteer and they all take an oath to protect the people and the Constitution. I know plenty of men and women who serve in the military personally, some liberal and some conservative but I know for a god damn fact not a single one of them would ever follow an order to kill a fellow American.

We aren't in 1860 anymore, a revolution wouldn't start as an official secession with an organized military. We were the most powerful military on Earth when we were in Vietnam and even though we killed a ludicrous amount of Vietnamese, we still lost every damn objective we were aspiring for and had to pull out of the country due to major dissent amongst our own. The same would happen here.

I said it before and I'll say it again. A jet can not stand on street corners enforcing non-assembly edicts. An aircraft carrier can not kick down your door at 3AM to search your house for contraband materials or anti-social propaganda. A fighter jet and aircraft carrier and tank is useless for maintaining a police state. Police are needed for a police state and the people will always outnumber the police. And if you think the average citizen can't take out a tank, I can tell you right now how to make an IED connected to a tree and pressure trap in the road that will disable any armored vehicle permanently with shit you can buy at any Wal-Mart.

You think hunting Al Queda in an open fucking desert where we can use shit like FLIR effectively was hard? How about hunting dissenters in urban centers and forests and marshes and URBAN CENTERS. With millions of innocents in them. Imagine 100 people with sniper rifles and automatic weapons in, say, New York City. Imagine those 100 people were dedicated to causing as much havoc and as much social unrest as possible. You think that would be something easy to clearly stamp out? The problem with guerilla warfare versus conventional warfare is that guerilla's are the people, and unless you are willing to genocide all the people to get all the guerilla's, the guerilla's can hide among the people and there's not a damn thing you can do. There WILL be collateral, and you WILL be blamed for it, and even more people will continue to rise up against the government because of such.

Don't believe me? Look at Syria. A small little rebellion against one of the most organized military's in the Middle East that started out with a few hundred, maybe a few thousand doing basic disruption and dissent operations and having their doors kicked down and shit. Not much they can do. That spiraled out of control into a full on organized rebellion that is now taking on that army of tanks, jets, and helicopters. A rebellion that is winning and owns half the country. You think Vietnam was bad? You think people got pissed off when we were getting our asses kicked in a country halfway across the world? How about Vietnam on our own soil. Yeah let's see how well that goes.

The government isn't stupid. Politicians aren't stupid. They wouldn't dare try to do shit like you describe if there is any level of gun freedom in this country.

On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:


Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos?

The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM.

Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home.

A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect.

On April 11 2013 12:48 HellRoxYa wrote:


No.

A police state requires that you have police willing to do the dirty business of the state. If you (all) believe so firmly in not having a police state then surely there will be no police to enforce such a state?

Furthermore, passive resistance is often times more effective and most certainly less costly in human terms. This is a vital point often overlooked. If, for some reason, a dictator would take power then simply collapse society from within. If you can't organize that then you can't organize an armed uprising either so it would be a moot point if you try to argue that the police state would stop it.

On April 11 2013 12:54 Sermokala wrote:

We bypassed the whole police state problem by making the police contracted on a county and city level. passive resistance works in large cities where organizing hundreds of thousands of people is just walking a few miles and finding them. Its a lot harder when theres just a few thousand people over hundreds of hundreds of miles.

On April 11 2013 13:25 Kaitlin wrote:


Where are you looking for people, the moon ?

On April 11 2013 04:20 MidKnight wrote:


Are you kidding me?
"and trying to quantify which is "more" tragic is not only petty but extremely disrespectful". No it isn't. Trying to appeal to some kind of emotion here to avoid the numbers is lame. YES, OF COURSE it's better if 41 people got stabbed and not a single person died compared to 20 people actually dying. It isn't even close and anyone with common sense will realize that. None of these scenarios should happen and both are tragedies but the point is that the difference IS huge.

I completely agree with you that mental health is the main concern and the root of the problem. Maybe it would be better to invest more in that field rather than trying to apply gun control, I don't know. But attempting to limit access to guns/ammo seems like something that could help in the meantime even if it inconveniences some gun nuts who are terrified of "government taking away their guns".

On April 11 2013 09:24 Nachtwind wrote:
You people in the us must fear your goverment, your institutions, your police and even your neighbors? How come?

On April 11 2013 11:13 Sermokala wrote:

rofl iraq was far far far far away from ever being mentioned as having a powerful military. Where on gods green earth did you get that from?

I doubt they had the 4th most powerful army in the non isreal arab states (iran saudies egypt to name a few). Even then the sheer extent of how big the USA is would make it impossible for any force to hold down. Yeah planes and tanks are powerful but they're extremely expensive and would be so insanely spread out that they would be a non factor. The entire extent of a Europa country is the size of one or another us state and we have a ton of those states.

They teach us how to make shaped charges in high school and have all the ingredients to make them in our house's and our hardware stores. The rual areas will be kept safe from trryany with the 2nd amendment.

On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities.

On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:


If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded?

On April 11 2013 23:36 Silvanel wrote:
The problem isnt the fact that owning a gun will help You in VERY LIKELY event of US army turning on its people. I am not denying that in this circumstances it good to have a gun (if You wish to fight). The problem is that: so easy access to guns icnreases to likelyhood of You dieing in gun related accident or crime ten or even twenty times.

And it affects everyone in Your country, even if Your peace loving neighboor despise guns, nothing protects him or his child from Your 4 year old son grabbing a gun and taking them down.