58
59

What "gun control" means... (imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

全 38 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]jjlew080 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

I have not seen any proposed gun control laws that call for an outright ban on the public having guns. If I am wrong, please correct me.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

You cannot eat an elephant in one bite.

[–]chrism3 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Soft tyranny leads to an end game. It's up to you to figure out what that end game is.

Banning scary looking guns

Banning semi autos

Banning certain ammo

Placing legal fault on gun manufacturers for killings (why not do this for cars too?)

Calling for a list to be made of who owns what (so they know where to find them later?)

Etc...

It's blatantly obvious if you care to look

[–]PayYourBiIIs 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

In CA, semi-automatic guns they classify as "assault weapons" are banned, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo. Not to mention the government is buying up the ammo so it's harder to find.

A lot of the gun shops here have closed down over the years since they're being taxed and regulated to death. Only the bigger stores remain.

[–]i_like_butt_grape 8ポイント9ポイント  (11子コメント)

Combat vet here. The military consists of average Americans who want to make something of themselves, not government loving terrorists that will murder their own people. Besides, the military has jets, missiles, drones, armored vehicles, etc. So how effective will your guns be if by chance (and it CAN happen, esp. during economic hardship) the government decides to enslave you?

IMO, the gun control issue has become so polarized that people will vote against their own economic interest just to own a SIG.

Also, people who have received treatment of mental health issues and/or have a violent criminal issue should not be allowed to own guns, since they are a deadly weapon.

[–]yertle_my_turtle 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You truly believe that the US government will unleash the full military might against its own citizens when it won't do so against a bunch of militants halfway across the globe? AND, you think citizens here have the stomach for that kind of atrocity?

You're delusional if you think you have a strong argument in favor of infringing on an enumerated right.

[–]dcman00000 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all give us a pretty simple template on how a light infantry force with no air support, no armored vehicles, and no navy can defeat a superior force.

Time plus denying any decisive pitched battles while slowly wearing down your opponent over a number of years.

[–]blacksrule 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

You will follow orders, no matter how immoral.

Your commander won't say execute those American civilians over there.

He will say disarm those rebels. They are a threat to the greater good.

[–]beer_n_gunsMillennial Constitutionalist 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

The military consists of average Americans who want to make something of themselves, not government loving terrorists that will murder their own people.

All through history we see how evil people have raised armies.

[–]MrCuddlez69 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Vet here.

So how effective will your guns be if by chance (and it CAN happen, esp. during economic hardship) the government decides to enslave you?

To answer this question, it's very simple. Put up a fight, but die a free man. I know I can't win if there's a SWAT Team outside my house, but I can ensure I'll never be enslaved.

IMO, the gun control issue has become so polarized that people will vote against their own economic interest just to own a SIG.

Source? The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. There's nothing to vote for as it's already there.

Also, people who have received treatment of mental health issues and/or have a violent criminal issue should not be allowed to own guns, since they are a deadly weapon.

I agree, however, medical records aren't made public due to Doctor Patient Confidentiality - which means they don't show up on background checks. So if someone has "Clinical Depression" or some other mental issue, with no priors and are acting normally at the time of the purchase, the gun store owner has no way of knowing if this person is going to kill someone or not. You also have a "Straw Purchase", or someone who buys a gun for someone who can't. Guns in the hands of the wrong people can do some pretty terrible things, as I'm sure you've experienced; but guns in the right hands have consistently proved why it's in our Bill of Rights. There have been concealed carry holders stopping mass shootings before they even start. The freedom of our country. The country you and I took an oath for. I'm not going to bore you with more examples as I'm sure you get my point.

EDIT: which means they don't show up on background checks.

[–]itchywateryfarts 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ever hear of a little place called Vietnam? Or how about Afghanistan? Why dont you ask the vets of those wars how powerful small arms are.

[–]theFinisher4Ever 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Besides, the military has jets, missiles, drones, armored vehicles, etc. So how effective will your guns be if by chance (and it CAN happen, esp. during economic hardship) the government decides to enslave you?"

To answer your question, look at the Iraq War. In Iraq, we faced waaaay less people over a much smaller area. The Iraqis also had far less guns that US citizens. Now throw in the fact that the military will be much more hesitant to fight US citizens. I think the citizens can do just fine if it comes down to it.

[–]whatsabitcoins 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks but im not really concerned with why someone may join the military. More concerned with having a socialist take guns away when the social programs go bankrupt.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also, people who have received treatment of mental health issues and/or have a violent criminal issue should not be allowed to own guns, since they are a deadly weapon.

The problem is "confusing" someone who had a bad day with someone who is psycho.