58
59

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

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

全 48 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 13ポイント14ポイント  (8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] 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

You cannot eat an elephant in one bite.

[–]chrism3 6ポイント7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 4ポイント5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.

[–]Jmcwilli89 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

After the Oregon shooting, Obama mentioned Australia's policy changes as successful, which was gun confiscation.

[–]i_like_butt_grape 18ポイント19ポイント  (14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.

[–]dcman00000 9ポイント10ポイント  (1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.

[–]ducksaws 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at the casualty discrepancies between American and insurgent forces in those wars. It's not that they were expertly avoiding defeat while sapping the US war fighting ability. They get killed in huge numbers until the US gives up and goes home because it realizes its strategic goals are impossible and a waste of money.

Sure, a bunch of Americans with small arms could be annoying to the military, but they would still be killed in huge droves against modern weaponry if they actually fought.

[–]itchywateryfarts 9ポイント10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.

[–]MrCuddlez69 14ポイント15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.

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter 2ポイント3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?

Combat vet here as well. You would 'behoove you' to realize that while the individual has little chance against the govt --- even a small, single-digit percentage of American gun owners are more than a match for the govt if properly motivated.

One trip to a National Guard armory or special weapons locker and the same small-unit weaponry active duty mil has will be "the people's" once again. For everything else, there's guerilla warfare. Of which the Govt has proven itself to be completely inept at handling.

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

The same dumbasses that go to the military "for the college money", that lack any moral terpitude or guidance from strong NCO leadership, will and would be the same shitbags that would follow an unlawful order --- same as the cops that would also follow unlawful orders because "hey bro, I got a mortgage to pay, fuck the constitution".

And for all the shitlibs that read this stuff and bleat like a stupid fucking pussified sheep about this type of talk --- I hope you are rounded up and shot first.

[–]beer_n_gunsMillennial Constitutionalist 8ポイント9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.

[–]yertle_my_turtle 2ポイント3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.

[–]blacksrule 1ポイント2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.

[–]theFinisher4Ever 4ポイント5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.

[–]b_deam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are more citizens with firearms than the military, I understand the military has more advanced weaponry, but I wouldn't act like it would be a walk in the park dealing with the average gun owner if for some obscured reason that situation happened.

[–]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] -2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.