Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong.
Revisionist history to shit on the graves of "gun control" aka democide victims, certainly.
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 135. (Read 450471 times)
Revisionist history to shit on the graves of "gun control" aka democide victims, certainly.
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans.
Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people!
The basic idea is that dictatorships would be more cumbersome to construct amongst an armed populace. Some of the authors of our founding documents were fairly clear about this. All that '...enemies foreign and domestic...', '...it is their right, it is their duty...', stuff.
Functionally, at the vary least, a well armed population helps the plebs select the flavor of dictatorship they prefer, and helps totalitarian rule be such an expensive pain-in-the-ass that it reverts back to a democracy, or some other more tolerable form of government, that much more quickly.
Again, the 'full court press' against the 2nd over the last few years certainly makes me wonder who has what visions for the future.
Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong.
A lot of people have misused and abused this system of owning a dangerous weapon and the government needs to crack down on who and who cannot own a gun. So, in my view Government should not allow any weapons to public.
You are right, it's better banning all type of weapon completely without any negotiation of incenses and all, this must be a good long term solution in my view too.
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans.
Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people!
The basic idea is that dictatorships would be more cumbersome to construct amongst an armed populace. Some of the authors of our founding documents were fairly clear about this. All that '...enemies foreign and domestic...', '...it is their right, it is their duty...', stuff.
Functionally, at the vary least, a well armed population helps the plebs select the flavor of dictatorship they prefer, and helps totalitarian rule be such an expensive pain-in-the-ass that it reverts back to a democracy, or some other more tolerable form of government, that much more quickly.
Again, the 'full court press' against the 2nd over the last few years certainly makes me wonder who has what visions for the future.
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans.
Give an example of a dictatorship that came into existence despite all civilians being legally armed (who wanted to be, and weren't infringed). Oh wait, dictators and their loyalists are invincible, and shrug off any amount of incoming fire from their innocent victims, nevermind.
Well say whatever you want but most of the time a dictatorship gets more than 50% of the population as a support at least at the begining.
And please give an example. Cause WWII was exactly that: population fully armed.
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans.
Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people!
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans.
Give an example of a dictatorship that came into existence despite all civilians being legally armed (who wanted to be, and weren't infringed like all democide victims, who obeyed "gun control"). Oh wait, dictators and their loyalists (who count their own votes to falsely claim majority rule) are invincible, and shrug off any amount of incoming fire from their innocent victims, nevermind.
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA.
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks.
What an argument...
You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity!
Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that?
Distinction without a difference. If the government (the minority of the people) wants to kill people, it does, over all objections by the majority of the people, who have been disarmed by "gun control".
Oh, you ignored the historical example given.
And the government can't kill the majority because the army is also the majority. It never did. Give me one example.
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks.
What an argument...
You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity!
Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that?
Distinction without a difference. If the government (the minority of the people) wants to kill people, it does, over all objections by the majority of the people, who have been disarmed by "gun control".
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks.
Because you actually think it will change anything if people have guns?
Look at WWII. During WWII there was no gun control. Did it change ANYTHING?
I guess if you have only a few notions of history you already know it didn't.
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks.
What an argument...
You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity!
Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that?
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks.
A lot of people have misused and abused this system of owning a dangerous weapon and the government needs to crack down on who and who cannot own a gun. So, in my view Government should not allow any weapons to public.
You are right, it's better banning all type of weapon completely without any negotiation of incenses and all, this must be a good long term solution in my view too.
Perhaps with less gun control we would have fewer annoying users on this site, just saying.......... 
Gun control, as defined by anti-2nd
I am against gun control 100%. I think those for gun control are missing the real reason behind crimes with a weapon. And that reason is criminals don’t care about laws
I am against gun control 100%. I think those for gun control are missing the real reason behind crimes with a weapon. And that reason is criminals don’t care about laws
A lot of people have misused and abused this system of owning a dangerous weapon and the government needs to crack down on who and who cannot own a gun. So, in my view Government should not allow any weapons to public.
My opinion about gun control is the policemen and military men should only the one to carry guns with permission of law. Since they are using it to protect people and if someone will use for judicial killings the government can easily track the people with guns.
I completely agree. I think that "ordinary" people who are carrying guns could be as much dangerous on the streets as the criminals are and this is not an meassure that can improve their security. Security is very complex issue and by allowing everyone to carry guns just won't do anything to improve it.
Agreed too.
But people advocating gun freedom talk about the case of a dictatorship and a point where police and military are no longer protecting people...
We should have some emergency stocks for the people, in case of dictatorship "break the glass" ^^
Yeah, you need it for your self-defense but if gun will still exist in the world then peace will be hard to claim with the countries who are in war. This is the sad truth.
My opinion about gun control is the policemen and military men should only the one to carry guns with permission of law. Since they are using it to protect people and if someone will use for judicial killings the government can easily track the people with guns.
I completely agree. I think that "ordinary" people who are carrying guns could be as much dangerous on the streets as the criminals are and this is not an meassure that can improve their security. Security is very complex issue and by allowing everyone to carry guns just won't do anything to improve it.
Agreed too.
But people advocating gun freedom talk about the case of a dictatorship and a point where police and military are no longer protecting people...
We should have some emergency stocks for the people, in case of dictatorship "break the glass" ^^
My opinion about gun control is the policemen and military men should only the one to carry guns with permission of law. Since they are using it to protect people and if someone will use for judicial killings the government can easily track the people with guns.
I completely agree. I think that "ordinary" people who are carrying guns could be as much dangerous on the streets as the criminals are and this is not an meassure that can improve their security. Security is very complex issue and by allowing everyone to carry guns just won't do anything to improve it.
Jump to: