1648
1649

That escalated quickly (imgur.com)

Browdown25 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]acidburnz_EU 17ポイント18ポイント  (64子コメント)

No amount of guns will save you from an all controlling malevolent government.

Especially in a time of cellphones, Internet and drones.

[–]cajungator3 -9ポイント-8ポイント  (63子コメント)

Not true. In times of cellphones and internet, all you have to do is have a gun to win. Whether or not you agree with that whole incident in 2013 with the cattle herder, fifty armed citizens defended his ranch from 200 federal agents with rifles without firing one shot.

Edit: Before you reply please read my post where it says "Whether or not you agree with the whole incident". That means I don't fucking care if it was wrong or right.

[–]FUNKYDISCO 14ポイント15ポイント  (11子コメント)

So what you're saying is that the government wanted them dead and just couldn't do it because of their guns? Oh wait, nope.

[–]cajungator3 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (10子コメント)

No, the image portrayed in that scene was all over the media around the world. Think about the repercussions that would have happened had the government fired a bullet.

[–]baskandpurr 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

The world would have gone "Look, the US is at it again. They're always shooting each other. They really should do something about all those guns."

[–]SoapBoxOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

As world shaking and memorable as the waco siege of the branch davidians?

[–]cajungator3 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you even warfare science?

[–]frankxanders 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

Can we really say the rifles made the difference? If fifty citizens stood in the way of law enforcement, armed or unarmed, they're not all going to be gunned down. Police generally don't shoot unarmed white people.

[–]skierboy07 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

No they wouldn't have been gunned down, but the authorities could have simply walked in and detained them, maybe with some deterrents such as tasers and mace. The fact that they were armed excluded this as a possibility.

[–]frankxanders -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure armed people have been detained before.

[–]cajungator3 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

It wasn't police.

[–]frankxanders 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not american, but federal agents and police are pretty interchangeable terms in other countries.

[–]frankxanders 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not american, but federal agents and police are pretty interchangeable terms in other countries.

[–]lubernabei 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. Fifty armed citizens defended his ranch from 200 federal agents so he could continue to break the law. What a great guy. Cheers to the government for realizing that bloodshed might ensue and took the higher path. Seems like the aggressors were the ones who showed up to 'defend' the ranch, not an oppressive government trying to enforce the laws that apply to everyone.

[–]acidburnz_EU 6ポイント7ポイント  (33子コメント)

Yeah sure. The same government could have fired a cruise missle or send in some tanks.

Point is, as soon as they know where you are, you are royally fucked and no guns will safe you. Ever.

[–]superredsy 0ポイント1ポイント  (29子コメント)

When the government using missiles and military hardware against it's own citizens is more ok to you than those citizens wanting guns... Yeah, that's why we want guns

[–]mojomonkeyfish 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's fuckings stupid.

I mean, the 2nd amendment is what it is, and the right to own weapons is something I respect and exercise, but if escalating a conflict that will certainly result in your own death is your reason, that's straight up retarded.

[–]acidburnz_EU -5ポイント-4ポイント  (27子コメント)

They are not gonna help you one bit. It will only escalate and end with casualties and you one of them in the end.

It's really not so hard to understand. Otherwise if weapons were the answer there wouldn't be any dictatorships in the word at all. Most counties with unstable governments have lots of weapons and those prevent the stabilisation of regions. Just look at Lybia. Tyrant removed, first democratic elections held and some groups didn't like the outcome so wet have a civil war. Thanks to the guns. US citizen have no reason to carry weapons other than some old ass law that doesn't belong in this age.

[–]Antspray 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

You Europeans really don't have a clue about how Americans think do you?

[–]baskandpurr 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sure we do. To understand something doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Maybe you think Europeans don't spend time in the US?

[–]cajungator3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

We know when Europeans spend time in the US. We can tell by the amount of people we see wearing socks with sandals and fanny packs.

[–]baskandpurr 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sock with sandals and fanny packs? That's definitely us.

[–]FicklePickle13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Weird, I thought we Americans did that when we went to Europe.

[–]blizzardice -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to mention their false sense that they are far superior than anyone else. Fucking smug bastards.

[–]acidburnz_EU -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

And you seem to think that you still live in the seventeenth century.

[–]Antspray -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And you seem just fine with not having the freedom to protect your self.

[–]acidburnz_EU 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't need weapons to defend my freedom. In a parlementary democracy, I have way more options.

[–]FromMyTARDIS -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Come and take it then!

[–]acidburnz_EU 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Why?

[–]FromMyTARDIS 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

If you are gonna talk the talk you should be willing to walk the walk. But no. the gun grabbers will send someone else to do their dirty work. If you want to give up your right to protect yourself to a government entity fine. But the reality is defending yourself isn't a right, it is a responsibility to protect the gift of life that you were given. And no outside agency is going to do that for you when the time comes. If you do ever come to america first go to the cities where the guns laws are strictest, then check out the places where open carry is common. And then tell me where you feel safest.

[–]FicklePickle13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If I'm in a place where the people that live there feel the need to carry a gun around, I sure as hell am not going to feel safe there at all.

[–]acidburnz_EU -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

My point is guns won't protect you. Good laws and a corrupt free government will.

If it comes to armed conflict, the ones with the howitzer wins.

[–]Antspray 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

So a gun won't protect me if someone breaks into my house?

[–]blizzardice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you want to be a sheep when that happens? Die like a pussy? The North Vietnamese didn't.

[–]Vinnys_Magic_Grits 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bundy and his ilk didn't end up in a firefight because the whole thing was about seizure and sale of property pursuant to a Court Order based on a judgment for money damages. Why risk lives over a property execution? They can just execute a warrant of seizure and sale in a few years, or just keep a lien on his real property and wait until he dies, then collect the judgment balance plus interest.

Basically, Bundy and his little merry band only "won" that standoff because they weren't worth the expense of scorching the earth upon which they stood. If the government shared Bundy's absurd view of himself as something more than a run-of-the-mill judgment debtor, the "standoff" would've ended with a sniper round between his eyes, and not a fed in sight.

[–]EricSchC1fr -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Wrongfully defended "his" ranch.

[–]cajungator3 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't give two fucks what the opinion is on if it was right or wrong.

[–]mojomonkeyfish 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just that suns make it important?

[–]cajungator3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, had they not won a championship none of this would be imporant. Go Phoenix.

[–]EricSchC1fr 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, it's not a matter of opinion that Cliven Bundy was breaking at least one law that warranted the feds' presence there in the first fucking place.

[–]cajungator3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

You just missed the fuck out of the point.

[–]EricSchC1fr 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

My point is relevant. Because of Bundy's guilt, the feds didn't really stand down on account of Bundy's supporters' guns, they "leveled up" from potential violence with Bundy to legal/financial ruination of Bundy. It's cheaper, more ethically defensible and does considerably more damage, in this case.

[–]PM_ME_ALL_YOUR_THING 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like Waco, the government, while wanting you to not break the law, would rather not shoot you as a means to get you to stop. The mistake is assuming that the Nazi's weren't set on the absolute destruction of the Jewish population. If the government decided that it wanted you dead it wouldn't matter how many AR-15s you had, you would be fucked.