Sweden

Gun ownership requires license and is regulated by the weapon law, Vapenlagen. The law doesn't ban any specific firearms or weapons, it merely states the requirements to own one. Everything from pepperspray to full-automatic machine guns are technically legal, and license to civilians can be given in 'special' cases. Like the other Nordic countries Sweden has a high rate of gun ownership, due to the popularity of hunting.

So OP is a lying Bastard?

No, OP is just ill-informed and in love with the smell of his own shit.

Probably not even from Sweden.

Är det verkligen på den nivån som en shill argumenterar? Han är inte för Sverige hint hint alltså måste det vara skitsnack?

Translated: Is it really on this level a shill arguments? He's probably not from Sweden nudge nudge so obviously it must be bs?

If you have an argument say it.

I'd just like to take an opportunity to point out how overused the word "shill" is in this community. Contrary to popular belief, a shill is not simply any person who disagrees with you. A shill is a person whose opinion is partial to the whims of another's authority, likely because they are in that authority's employ. The likelihood of that user's comment being the result of corporate sponsorship is less likely even than his being serious -- which is already pretty clearly tenuous. Additionally, I'd like to point out that if anyone has the resources to sway public opinion in this debate, it's arms manufacturers. There isn't actually a lot of money to be made in convincing people not to buy guns -- much less question a Swede's heritage on reddit. The healthy thing for /r/conspiracy right now is to differentiate between a conspiracy and a stiff breeze.

Thank you for a bit of sane and well constructed verbiage.

He must be in the pocket of the reasonableness industry.

Damn genetically modified reasonableness at that!

A shill is a "disinformationist". Someone who intentionally tries to turn the rest of a group against an individual, or group, or an idea. Usually by making false statements, or using partial truths to trivialize their opponents argument.

From wiktionary.org:

n. 1. A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial. 2. An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game.

v. 1. To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly.

From wikipedia.org:

...is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working.

The etymology of the word is admittedly a little murky, but there's a general consensus that the meaning derives from their work alongside a decoy, auctioneer, or circus performer.

Välkommen till reddit ;0)

Och: Vi är inte alla mesar här fy fan. Man behöver ingen vapen för att skydda nån.

Dess inte svårt att tala svenska på nätet.

Jag talar inte svenska.

I just had to: http://youtu.be/yNay4FWlfn8?t=1m21s

Do you even know what a shill is? Obviously you are ill-informed.

Thank you for this post! Much needed

He is a well known shit disturber here, take no offense.

Technically för should be ifrån, but its passable.

I think the top response is the argument. If you were really from where u say u are, you would prolly know what the real laws are.

I'm a non-swede living in Sweden, and I can confirm that people have a right to own weapons IF they take a full hunting exam, or if they're a member Of a shooting club. I'm not even allowed to shoot s fucking rabbit without training and proof that I'm good enough with a rifle to take down a moving wild boar or moose.

Sure. People here own guns, but it's a long LONG way from the way it is in the USA. You can't simply own a 9mm handgun for the hell of it or for "home security", and there's no way you'd get stuff like "open a bank account here and get a free gun" happening.

As for OPs "nothing you can do" though, that's knackers. Sure, I've witnessed a load of swedes stand around and twiddle their thumbs as shit goes down, but some get stuck in.

As för me, My house is my castle, and I have an axe and I know how to throw it. So long as my assailant is standing 2,4,6 or 8 meters away, they're fucked. Closer than 2 and I won't need to buy meat for a while.

Besides, guns here are kept in safes. Not in your bedside table where the kids can get'em. That's just stupid. And people don't just carry them around when they're in town. That's daft too.

Axes. If everyone had axes instead of guns, there'd be a lot less death.

I like you.

Sounds like a badass except the part about not needing meat. I wonder if he rubs the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again?

I live in NZ and it's the same here and in the AU. You need a permit, and a gun safe. Pistols require you belong to a pistol club and extra permits are required to stop them at home.

In other words: sane gun laws! I prefer the gun laws here. The streets in major cities are safe. Kiwi cops don't even carry firearms

Except on special occasions. I was on a bus in Willis St, Wellington once and there were 2 constables walking down the street with guns in their holster thingies. Must've been on their way somewhere important.

Best laws I've seen.

Kiwi cops don't even carry firearms

they should. and so should citizens, in case something bad happens.

Ummmmmmm No. Fuck you. And You're an idiot. Also, Fuck America. Glad I left that shit hole full of morons

cool

they're fucked

Hahaha

Axes. If everyone had axes instead of guns, there'd be a lot less death.

Yeah but then everyone would have to learn how to throw them and you'd already have a head start on us.

I prefer a nice Dane Axe throwing an axe looks nice but is only really effective in a formation.

Maybe not. It would be very difficult for a weaker person to defend themselves against a stronger person, and cannot stop them if they decide to attack. Guns even out the field so much, and you dont even have to be strong/healthy/fast to be able to threaten attackers.

I never said it'd be fair.

It does however promote minimalism. Try throwing a big axe or hacking away with one at speed: They're shite.

A small axe is fast to throw and hack with, and easier to hide in your pocket.

What if they're standing 3,5, or 7 meters away?

Too bad, the dimensional vortex prohibits the path of the thrown axe.

[deleted]

Oh awesome. Thanks for following up.

They're going to get some serious hickory-bruises, and I'm going to have to rape them with the tractor instead.

Jag kan använda Google Translate för

Translated: i can use google translate too

It's "Jag kan använda Google Translate också". ..Really the whole sentence is retarded, it should read: "Jag kan också använda google translate".

sure thing bud!

Yeah, I wish I lived in Sweden. Not to mention the US is so far gone guns can't save us from killer robots.

This really has very little to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about guns for hunting or sports.

And I think that most people can see the obvious difference with the Swedish gunlaw and the Second Amendment. It's comparing Apples and Oranges. The idea of the Swedish gunlaw or "Vapenlagen" is very different then the idea of the US Second Amendment.

What publicly-available weapons are going to help you take down an Apache helicopter or an Abrams tank? Pistols don't do EMP blasts, and AR-15s are pretty weak at AA tracking.

yeah youre right no one could resist the american empire with just small arms.

I just wish someone would tell Iraq and Afghanistan.

You realize the over whelming majority of American deaths were due to simply made IED 's?

Fuck I don't want to type this comment, but you think if it came down to it some geniuses on this side wouldn't be able to put a few together? ... It's not difficult.

Yep I realize that. I'm just saying guns aren't necessary or effective

Yes, but 300 million of them can be.

but they still wont be as effective as IEDS

Depends on the ratio. 300 million guns vs. 300 million IEDS, no contest. 300 million guns vs. 10,000 IEDS...it's a slam dunk.

uhh no. because even though you have all those guns you wont be able to take out one tank.

Absolutely, and that's a great point.

My point is if they had small arms the way we do they would be that much more effective.

They already did.... the entire arms reserves of the Iraqi army was lost after the army collapsed

Guerrilla war is very different than conventional.

It is unwinnable

AK-47s are not legal for civilian ownership in the US and I don't think they ever have been.

You are talking out of your ass and I'm guessing you don't live in the US or have never visited a gun shop.

http://www.impactguns.com/ak47-rifles.aspx

AK 47s and AR 15s are completely legal in the US for civilian ownership.

They are not select fire (full auto) but that does not make them ineffective as a weapon.

Semi Auto is used much more in conflict then full anyway.

Semi Auto is used much more in conflict then full anyway.

Is Full Auto used much outside of Rambo 1-4?

Lol, only people in the military using full auto are heavy weapons gunners. Only rifle infantryman that uses a heavy machine gun is the M-247 SAW either while prone or mounted usually on a Humvee or tank or helicopter.

They rarely use Gatling guns, though those are mainly found on helicopters.

Jesse can carry a Gatling like a pro. He is a sexual tyrannosaurus who doesn't have time to bleed.

The secret service has a Gatling gun in one of their Humvees for the presidential entourage.

EDIT: By Humvee I mean modified Escalade or whatever freakin SUV they have souped up. There are MP5s in the doors of the presidential Limo as well.

They are not select fire (full auto)

And there's your problem.

You clearly know NOTHING about guns.

Full Auto mode on a rifle is almost (read: just about never) used in conflict because you can't fucking aim a full auto gun.

A good shooter with semi auto is MUCH more dangerous.

Stop talking about things which you know nothing about. Do a little research before you misinform people.

Yeah, good luck taking out a tank with a bullet every couple of seconds.

No small arms, no matter how much you fire it, will do shit against a tank besides maybe destroying a periscope or camera on the outside. And to do that you need a carefully aimed semi auto shot. Full auto would just waste bullets and maybe scratch the paint if you are lucky

The way to take down tanks is by flanking them, taking out infantry support, and then moving up to put explosives on the top where the armor is thinest. Tanks are meant for attacking fortified locations, they have no use against a guerrilla force.

Every couple seconds? Wut... honestly have you ever fired a rifle?

So if it was full auto it would take out a tank? Wut

The point is you can't go house to house with a tank you have to go on foot, and that is why small arms are the true weapons of mass destruction.

Just fucking stop troll. You don't know what you are talking about.

Also, you must be retarded if you think semi auto means a "bullet every couple seconds". You can fire a semi auto gun basically as fast as you can pull the trigger. Of course, that would be as stupid and pointless as firing full auto anyway (unless you happen to be 10 feet away from your enemy)

If you can aim and fire ten times per second, all the more power to you. The rest of us are mortal, though.

Who said anything about aiming? That's the whole point I made, if you fire 10 times a second you can't possibly aim, semi auto or full auto. That's why soldiers fire small "bursts" of accurate semi auto fire, maybe one shot a second or so unless they are just laying down covering fire, then they might fire a little faster.

And if you were paying attention I never said I could fire 10 times a second, realistically I could fire about 3-4 times a second. And I could aim just as good as anyone else could while firing anything that fast, which is not at all.

Where an AK-47 on full-auto would take out a tank?

Right, it's easy to take down a tank with 30 unaimed bullets that are expended in a couple of seconds...

Full auto is the fire select for retards. You want semi auto or burst.

You want sustainable fire for suppression, get a SAW.

Yes, they are. However they have to be converted to semi-automatic fire mode only.

That only goes skin deep though. Although I don't know why you'd want to, you can convert them back to full-auto quite easily. Contrary to what "Call Of Duty" teaches you, you've virtually zero accuracy with full-auto fire.

I guess that full-auto would be pretty good if you were prepared and jumped into a room with 5 people in it and were going to be shooting at targets 4 meters away. Then just hose them down like it was an uzi.

Shit, thats what grenades are for.

This is completely untrue.

It depends on the gun you're using, as if you've ever watched any youtube videos of guys dual wielding P90s full auto, you'll see that it's very accurate.

So imagine using a proper firing stance and grip while using only one P90 on full-auto and you have yourself a very accurate death machine right there.

The G36 is also very accurate on full-auto.

Like I said, depends on the gun and the firing position you're in, as an M-247 on a bipod in the prone position is pretty damn accurate on full auto.

Really though there aren't many practical situations in which to use full-auto, which is why it's mainly used as a suppressant so as to advance ones position on the enemy by keeping them pinned.

Dude, I have an FFL and a B.A.R

With the right licensing you can own a M-249 if you so chose.

You don't give people enough credit for being clever. You should.

An Abrams or an Apache doesn't break in your door and black bag you in the middle of the night. An Abrams or an Apache doesn't enforce a curfew on a street corner.

Remember how those Iraqi's and Afgani's failed to kill any troops or reduce moral?

Jesus... People like you....

Motherfuckin' cars...

Lol, bollywood films are fucking awesome.

Stinger missiles are quite effective.

yep, let me go pick up a stinger missile from my local Walmart.

I seriously doubt you'll find a Walmart that sells stingers. Nevertheless there are hundreds of thousands of stingers in the hands of private citizens in the USA. If you actually want to buy one, you can.

i was being sarcastic, and i can't tell if you are joking also. I am under the impression that it is illegal for private citizens to own a stinger missile. What could be the justification for a private citizen to own a stinger missile, when it is clearly a military grade weapon, and has no use for civilians. and would be quite dangerous in civilian hands. so are you saying that a private citizen can buy them on the black market?

I think dude is confused.

Somebody asked "What publicly-available weapons are going to help you take down an Apache helicopter?" and I gave a correct answer. Then you came in and pointed out that they don't sell stingers at Walmart. I knew you were joking, but who cares? I was making a distinction between "publicly available" and "legal", apparently you do not. Marijuana is not legal (in my state) but it most certainly is "publicly available".

so are you saying that a private citizen can buy them on the black market?

They can and they do.

ah ok, i see now. thanks for the clarification.

No problem, and happy Independence Day!

No but that AR-15 is pretty effective against someone trying to take it, and if you want to take out a tank you'll need either an M82 or a RPG.

but that AR-15 is pretty effective against someone trying to take it

So the purpose of owning a gun is to defend against having your gun confiscated?

No the purpose of owning guns it to protect yourself and the other survivors when the zombie pandemic happens duhhhh.

And the purpose of confiscating a gun is to oppress somebody without them resisting. I don't own a gun because I wan't to kill my self. I want to be able to defend myself from someone who would want to kill, or hurt me, or my loved ones.

Why aren't American gun owners using their guns to resist oppression?

Because we have no reason to harm anyone yet. There's four boxes soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. I hope it never comes to violence, but its best to be prepared in case it does.

There's four boxes soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

Did the first three stop the NSA?

So what do you want me to do grab a rifle and go blow my local representatives brains out at his next public appearance?* This kind of thing takes time. Do you expect a full revolutionary movement to just appear from nowhere. What do you expect us to do just pull an entire resistance out of our asses? At the other end of this spectrum we have the militias who are already formed who I'm guessing you call crazy every time they talk about doing what were debating.

*disclaimer for the NSA, and idiots who may think I'm serious this is a purely sarcastic point made in anti violent statement do not take it seriously cunts.

So what do you want me to do

It's nothing to do with what I want you to do. I'm just talking about the purported justification for gun ownership. They're supposed to defend us from tyranny, but obviously that aren't doing that.

What do you expect us to do

Honestly, I expect you to do nothing.

It's nothing to do with what I want you to do. I'm just talking about the purported justification for gun ownership.

so you want me to give up my weapons

Honestly, I expect you to do nothing.

and you expect me to do nothing when shit hits the fan

so you want me to give up my weapons

I really don't care what you do with them, since you're obviously not using them to defend against tyranny. Keep theem if you want. It doesn't matter.

and you expect me to do nothing when shit hits the fan

I expect you to do nothing to defend against tyranny.

Alright...message me when you do something. Ill help you out.

If the NSA is monitoring everything we say on the internet, then that seems like an extremely stupid course of action.

No offense, but marines have like a 10:1 kill ratio... Ar-15 or not...

Edit: changed 10000 to 10, I was exaggerating for effect. A simple Google search will show marine kill ratios varying from 4:1 to 20:1

I'd like to see where you got this number from, and remember here in America a lot of the people who you think are normal citizens are these highly effective killing machines known as marines. And most of them hate loosing their rights and weapons more than anyone else. Also any mortal man can be killed with the proper weapon.

Yeah an IED

OK, as I stated below, 10000 was, what I thought was an obvious, exaggeration. Here is a story about 30 marines taking on over 200 insurgents: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/24/kill-ratio-fifty-zero/

Your statement sounds good, but it is flawed. Marines are trained to follow orders, yes, some will question authority, no doubt. But, their superiors would turn any civilian uprisings into a domestic terrorism story, dispatch the marines, they dispatch you, and game over for you. You might think 'any mortal can be killed' but these people are trained to counter death and get the job done. A group of software developers and liquor store owners brandishing their 2nd amendment rights will barely get the cartridge loaded before being taken out.

My guns already loaded and I'd rather die fighting than bend over and take it in the ass.

Those aren't the only two options.

Exactly, I hope that it never comes to that level. But if it does Id rather be prepared.

Hmm, your logic checks out. Can't argue with you there.

Source?

Alright, well, the 10000 was an exaggeration, that I thought was obvious. However, a simple Google search shows it very from 4:1 - 20:1 based on various conditions.

Besides that here is a nice story about 30 marines taking on over 200 insurgents: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/24/kill-ratio-fifty-zero/

So you're allowed guns? But you can't use them in self defence? That's fully retarded. On a side note: The only time I've ever been robbed was in Malmo (Sweden). That and paying £5 for a pint (this was a while ago). You guys know how to fuck a man when he's down.

Minimum price for a beer at the Etihad Stadium in Australia, Melbourne is 10$ and that's only a light.

I spilt 2$ of beer on my way back to my seat.

Chicago sports events and concerts have similar beer prices, plus significantly lower minimum wage!

And the beer is shitty anyways.Anyone paying 10 bucks for Bud Light I can't take seriously.

As I say, this was around 8 years. I suspect you'd be looking at closer to 20AUD (18USD) for a pint at a sporting event in Sweden now. I could be wrong - but I'm not going back to find out, not until I can afford it at least.

This is why i havent been to a sporting event in years. I can get a better view plus instant replay with the luxury of any food or drink i want for less than ten bucks from the comfort of my living room

$10 for one measly beer!??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCq8XDgrP0

Your argument is purposely being derailed because what you suggest is too scary for some people to deal with.

This is a point on its own and doesn't necessarily coincide with the message OP has.

I think he was talking about our rights to protect our property and being able to use whatever means necessary to do so. In many Eastern European countries if someone comes into your home to rob you, you have no right to defend yourself. You would be charged with assault or even murder. You can't even lock them in a closet while you wait for the police or you would be charged with kidnapping. It sounds ridiculous but it is true.

In many Eastern European countries if someone comes into your home to rob you, you have no right to defend yourself.

[citation needed]

Does pulling it out of his ass count?

Legality of firearm ownership to protect yourself?

That's not a citation.

I haven't read such a wrong comment in a while...

What country do you live in and what are your rights? In Hungary this is how it works.

Lithuania. My rights are protected and enshrined by the EU and national government.

In Hungary this is how it works.

So, in short, Hungarian citizens don't really have any rights?

Noticed a weird trend lately on Reddit of "foreigners" telling Americans how bad it is in their own country and how we should be thankful blah blah blah. It's a really stupid argument and pretty obviously made by fakes and shills. The worst is when they affect some kind of fakey broken English to appear legit.

But the countries these "foreigners" live in don't have nearly the homicide rates or firearms related deaths that the USA has.

The cost of liberty. There are a shitton of psychopaths out there. And there will always be. Regardless of the laws of your land.

Dude. Do I have to point out that you can have freedom and liberty and all that good shit, without having to be in a society where guns are so prevalent.

Not really. The threats are all around. Regardless of the laws of the land. I will protect my loved ones no matter what. Most people are genuinely good, but there exceptions. Always exceptions.

Citation need. My fam is from Croatia and I never heard of this.

EU or outside of the EU? Are you talking Poland, Czech or Ukraine?

Well obviously, he said Eastern Europe. Most of them are in the EU although there are a few outside of it eg Belarus.

Well loosly maybe ... most people don't even consider Ukraine to exist or to matter at all. Same with Belarus. Also people talk out of their ass so who knows.

They do think it exists but not relevant to Europe.

Same here, unfortunately I can't beat the crap out of an intruder without risking an charge for assault or (more likely) grievous bodily harm.

"Gun ownership requires license and is regulated by the weapon law"

Another perpective:

Gun ownership Internet use requires license and is regulated by the weapon~ speech law

Have you the right to express your opinions and thoughts?

Who gave you that right?

Is it a right that you cherish?

How do you plan to defend this right?

There is a logical reason for requiring licenses.

Posting on the internet or otherwise expressing opinions and thoughts doesn't have a chance of killing someone.

A gun does though.

Would you rather that people be permitted to operate automobiles without some kind of proof that they've passed a basic test of competency?

Please keep in mind that a right doesn't require a license. If it does, it's called a privilege.

Gun ownership requires license and is regulated by the weapon law, Vapenlagen

Who is it that issues licenses and enforces the laws, hmm?

Looked into the wiki article section. All i have to say is, "and not a single source was given that day". That article needs cites, badly.

Either Ammerica leads the world in a new movement of liberty and understanding how corrupt our governments are in this global mess, or America falls into tyranny and ushers in a new age of darknes across the globe.

I can't tell if you're serious. Does anyone actually have such a messianic view of the US?

I think that the point here is that the USA with its power, can reach more places through all the world than any other country, that means that if it's corrupt, it will tend to corrupt more parts of the world, if you reveal and expose that corruption, you expose corruption all over the world.

that means that if it's corrupt, it will tend to corrupt more parts of the world, if you reveal an expose that corruption, you expose corruption all over the world.

Dude we are the most corrupt country on the planet, we just hide it in bureaucracy better other countries. How do I know this, I have traveled and lived all over the world from 3rd world countries all the way up and seen all types of corruption. The USA is by far the worst.

US corruption with police means that they ticket and process you for terribly trivial infractions. This all goes through the proper channels and the police get their kick back on the backside with higher wages, benefits and retirements. In other countries police are paid little and make their money more on commission, if you will. The US people call this "corruption".

So say that you are driving your car and you get a minor traffic infraction. You are then technically under arrest. At this point the police are now extorting money out of you by being able to impound your car and cost you $1000-2000 to get it back and to haul you into jail. Then when you sign their piece of paper you are literally making "bail". So you get to go on your merry way to mail them the check. Don't forget to say "thank you" to the cop after he extorts you. This money goes into the system and the "law enforcement" is paid out of that money. Not corrupt or dishonest at all.

I think that most Americans confuse residual wealth with freedom. As the residual wealth bleeds out Americans will only be left with their desperately difficult to maintain illusions.

I need some sources that show how when a cop writes a ticket, the law enforcement is paid out the money. Not that I don't believe you, I just want you to educate me.

It goes into a fund that everything is paid out of like the courthouse lights, etc.

Yes you are right. I mean that the "kickback" (my poor choice of wording) is institutionalized through high wages and benefits. They have quotas.

I'd love to see your sources. Thanks!

I'll try to send them your way as they come. I don't keep a repository of everything that I've ever read, experienced or heard as hearsay. That said reddit doesn't do a very good job of letting me go back in time much to see things. I'll try though.

I wouldn't say that. We're just the most powerful corrupt country.

We are the most corrupt because we have are hands in everyone else's corruption too.

Yes

Me

Does anyone actually have such >a messianic view of the US?

everyone does. Including your friendly neighbourhood Canadians up here.

I think it's really just you who has a seriously poor grasp on global affairs and the sheer size of the U.S military.

For example the U.S naval aircraft carrier fleet is almost 3x the size of every other navies aircraft carrier fleets combined.

Keep posting random facts, maybe if you throw enough of them around it will magically coalesce into an argument!

they have the actual military might to make this happen so yes we "have this view" that things that are capable of happening, could indeed happen.

You make hilarious replies hahaha i like you

Yes.

I think it's due to the fact our currency makes the world go round, and if it crashes / USA falls, it all basically becomes worthless, and you can't even exchange it for other money

If the USA "falls"? What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Also, the dollar is dependent on a lot more than just the US economy.

Seriously get out of this while you can, I can sense incoming retarded remarks heading your way.

Haha I know, I just want to see what interesting things people will say.

english not your first language eh?

fall : to become less or lower; become of a lower level, degree, amount, quality, value, number, etc.; decline. Yes you're right. It depends on oil. The dollar is worthless unless we have the power to point a gun at anyone who threatens it. It was supposed to be 35 dollars for an ounce of gold when it was made world currency. Money now doesn't represent anything but debt to a 3rd party (federal reserve) that can't be paid for. If you don't believe me, just read the words on paper money.

[deleted]

Then we will do whatever is smart at that point. At this point, making a change to the global financial system makes a lot of sense from a social justice and logical point of view.

then you find another object as the standard. For example, in ancient rome, a denarii was worth 10 donkeys. I'm sure there's things that'll remain valuable.

The world we live in today is shaped by the American order.

Of course American influence is huge in the world, but what /u/TheWorldToCome said is hysterical bullshit. "A new age of darkness across the globe"? This isn't Lord of the Rings.

you don't remember the feudal age? it was literally a few generations ago, are you shortsighted or just ignorant?

Put a /s tag on that if you're joking, it's impossible to tell around here.

read a textbook on the french revolution or even russian revolutions, or look at any of the hundreds of actually feudal 3rd world countries, and then read the definition for "few" and "generation" then look up "feudal age" and it will all make perfect sense.

...you're serious. My god.

It's fine. democracy,what with it's long, outstanding track run in human history is now invinceable.

Back to whatever the fuck was distracting you.

You're too goddam stupid to understand what feudalism is and you're going to try to lecture me? Feudalism refers to a specific power structure and system of obligations which was only ever present in the early Middle Ages.

ooo so your argument is semantics. ... i'll just use the word indentured service then.

Do you not know that the ages of indentured service were only a few generations ago and hundreds of countries have populations controlled by indentured service even to this day?

Doesn't take much to go there, look at what happened in korea, a once democratic country, now split. With one that has indentured service,

But yes democracy is permanent, and arguing with shills is fruitless.

Prove it isn't.

The lack of elves?

I caught one yesterday. It's crying in my closet right now. Clever bastards have started clipping their ears to blend in.

So you're the reason there's a lack of elves!

Just to be clear, you're asking me to prove that we do not live in J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth?

That is exactly what I am asking. I don't believe you'll be able to scrap up enough evidence, but I'm going to have to ask you to prove it anyway.

You just went full retard.

Never go full retard.

1. We have spaceflight. There is no spaceflight in Middle Earth

2. Trees don't talk

3. No Dark Lord (no wizards either, unfortunately)

Also there's the whole geography thing.

So the Illuminati can't do magic?

They can, it's just Joo-magic instead of wizard-magic.

Since WW2, The American order has secured international free trade. Billions around the world have been lifted out of poverty.

International trade is less secure with a weak America. A world order controlled by non-democratic regimes slows down global growth and the world enters the "dark ages."

The US Navy keeps the ocean safe.

But current America isn't that democratic so that could be a reason why global trade isn't good now.

You are seriously one of the most ignorant people I've come across in a long time. You sincerely believe that American-backed capitalism is a boon to the Third World? Or that non-democratic regimes can't have growth? China is anything but democratic and is growing economically faster than any country in the history of the world.

Trying to pretend that the NSA or whatever other thing your deluded little mind is fixated on at the moment has anything to do with the strength of the global economy is completely ridiculous.

Seriously, you're a moron.

If it weren't for the American World Order, China would not have experienced growth. Who protected the international waters for China's exports?

I think you must have watched "300 : America Fuck Yeah Edition" a few too many times.

Me, or the guy above? He's the one that seems to think America is the battleground between Dumbledore and Voldemort.

Sorry, the guy above.

Maybe it's just me, but this stupidly ethnocentric.

America leads the world in a new movement of liberty and understanding how corrupt our governments are in this global mess

The Arab Spring? The Turkish and Brazilian protests? Jordan, Egypt? Do the struggles of any of these countries against their corrupt governments not count as a movement of liberty? Or does it only count when America does it?

Truth is, Occupy and Restore the Fourth were inspired by these Middle Eastern protests. If anything, we're being lead. You need to think a little bigger. The world goes beyond America.

If the US is Rome it's been a really short run.

Sounds about right.

Age of darkness! Age of darkness!!

You know not what you ask for boy.

Or maybe it's obvious I'm not being serious.

Depending on where he plans to be during that age, then maybe so.

Plans are fragile.

Canadian here. Feel the same on all points.

I'm trying, friend. The apathy of my fellow Americans is infuriating. People are more interested in the next bullshit episode of whatever show is coming out rather than paying attention to what's happening in the real world. It's getting worse, too. We elected our first "celebrity" president.

I'd say the majority of elected officials over the last century would fall in to the "celebrity" category.

"Politics is the entertainment branch of the military industrial complex."

-Frank Zappa

Nice quote!

Reagan?

You mean the movie star?

We have actually elected celebrity presidents before. Ronald Reagan was a movie star before he was a president

American here, you have no idea how hopeless it feels. My entire township is controlled by corrupt cops. The only thing I can possibly do is try to become mayor and then try to change something.

Me too. If there was something feasible to do I would, but this is something they need to sort out for themselves. Foreign influence will not help one bit.

I'm very hopeful/worried that whatever is going to happen is starting soon.

This is a major reason (real) conservatives desire small government. You can manage local elections, or if things get out of hand you can actually force change in corrupt politicians.. When you have an overarching, bloated, unmanageable government, you end up with too much lobbyist style gang members who sit around like Ebenezer Scrooge hoarding money while oppressing those "under him".

I actually admire what Democrats want to accomplish, however government is made of people, and the ones attracted to the power of government are almost never the ones that will do what's best for the people, they do what is best for themselves under the guise of being for the people.

This is why Libertarianism is growing and why there was such a push for Ron Paul last election. He was the ONLY candidate who was fighting for the rights of the people. (This is not an endorsement, of Paul, just an explanation)

Saying only conservatives want small government ignores quite a lot of people.

I'm going to blow your mind here but there are actually social libertarians. Libertarianism is not strictly a conservative right-wing movement.

The libertarian movement would be much more popular if it wasn't an exclusive club for anti-big-gubmint conservatives.

I wasn't saying that only conservatives desire small government, it's just that in the US the Republicans who are supposed to be conservatives and say they want smaller government do the exact opposite. I posted to get people thinking. The same as you. Your post expands on mine, we are not in conflict. I thought this was on the main front page, not realizing I had a window open earlier from /r/conspiracy. We are both I'm afraid, preaching to the choir.

       Authority
           ^
     Left <-> Right
           V
        Liberty

If you add an extra axis it starts to become a whole lot easier to engage in discussions with others.

Small government is not realistic in a world with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

I would love to have a big, Star Trek, one world government. The US just can't be the one to lead us there.

Neither can any other country. If we had a one world government there would be nowhere to escape to if you didn't like how things were going. Look at Snowden. Yes, he crossed a legal line, but he can't escape the US. Do you really want a world like that? Run by all this global Corporatocracy?

Gary Johnson

It seems to me like the majority of the American public has no idea what their government is really up to. I find that too many people are oblivious to the real reasons for the NSA spying, the Egypt protests, the Syrian conflict, and other issues. The ugly side of the American government is now revealing its true nature, and we're living during a crucial time where we must let others know about the level of corruption that is present in our political and economical systems.

People need to wake up from their lives of distraction and begin thinking about their future from a greater perspective. Our future is not what we think it will be. Our technologies have been shaping our culture and will continue to do so in an accelerated rate. It won't be a future for the individual. It will be a future for the collective. Most, if not all problems, can be fixed if we all act on it. But each of us has to put our hearts and minds to it. We're living in a society that is more connected than ever, and we have more power than we can comprehend. I don't know about you, but I really don't want corrupted, selfish, power-hungry, out-dated individuals to decide the future of our planet. I feel it's time for some real change. And this change will only begin by spreading awareness.

Isn't NSA supposed to be launching astronauts and spying on Mars?

This post is bullshit. Anyone who thinks SWEDEN has brutal police is out of their mind.

"most know better than to call them in times of need"

That's bs.

It certainly defies the reputation. But then again, I'm Canadian. Within the last five-odd years our police have beaten peaceful protesters in Toronto, accidentally tazed an unarmed man to death in Vancouver, beaten a man nearly to death in Medicine Hat and sexually assaulted female RCMP officers across the country, yet we have a fantastic reputation. If OP is legit, it might just be a case of paranoia: buddy focuses on the handful of crazy cops even though 99% of Swedish police are kind, level-headed and respectable.

Buddy may also be a radical gun nut, upset about the fact that you may be charged with use of unnecessary force if you shoot someone whom you think poses a threat.

FWIW I feel safe around Canadian police, but I also don't hold any beliefs my government deems "dangerous."

Do you live there or have first hand experience?

Edit: Thanks for all the responses below me but this question was addressed to secpone. My point was that secpone is not from the country and is holding Sweden as 'holier than thou' which is flawed in and of itself. For /r/conspiracy downvote to me for asking questions shows how bias this sub is. Pretty sad....

Sweden has one of the highest quality of life indexes in the world. Its literally one of the best places you could live right now, alongside Norway.

So I'm from Sweden and have lived in different parts of the country. To say that our police force is as brutal and corrupt as the Americans is just plain wrong, simple as that. Sure, there are some cases where a criminal might have been punched a few times in the face for no good reason, but that policeman got heavily penalized. There's not as much 'going around the system', as Swedish court-laws are very different from American.

Apologies if there are any grammatical errors or such.

My point wasn't that he was right or wrong. My point was he has zero experience with Sweden so he can't speak for that country. Furthermore, reddit has a huge hard-on for Sweden and are blinded by their non-existent rose-tinted glasses when talking about Sweden.

And I'm sure you're happy living in your ivory tower.

Times have changed. The police is not Officer Friendly anymore. There are so much signs and talk about police brutality you have to be completely uninformed or a shill.. to miss it:

Examples: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden-punishes-rioters-police-stockholm-riots http://rt.com/news/stockholm-riots-police-shooting-537/

Why aren't you posting Swedish links?

Most of us don't speak Swedish. I would assume it's on our behalf.

OH COME ON!

The rioters fucking had it coming! Instead of taking it to court or tried talking to the police/government they started a riot. And this riot wasn't a normal one - who the fuck sets a unknown peoples car on fire? If this was a riot against the police's brutal force then why the fuck do you give them the means to actually use their "brutal" force on you?

Shame.

Fuck those rioters, those Muslims are trying to impose their will and culture on everyone else.

A Finn here. While Finland isn't Sweden, we're alike in many areas. Culturally, for example. And in both of our countries the gun culture is very different from that of the United States.

You can't just compare something so vast and diverse as the United States to a rather small Nordic country. Well, you can, but you shouldn't. People here don't have the same affection to guns as the Americans do. We don't want to carry guns around, as our history differs from that of the United States (which, to my understanding, explains a lot of the American gun-loving culture). We feel safer knowing not everyone carries a hidden firearm.

OP is in no way a voice of the majority in Sweden, I'm pretty darn sure of that.

Not to mention, the Nordic countries still have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. It's not like England where no one has guns.

They also have extensive social programs, and little crime, and are generally considered some of the "happiest people on earth" maybe there is a correlation there.

You're forgetting the reason for my post. I'm saying to US: "Keep your guns or face the obvious threat of tyranny and oppression."

But what you are saying is that you think its acceptable having someone else protecting you, i.e the police. And perhaps you do not feel like I do when I say that the police have become very brutal and in a very high degree they simply follow orders. Which to me is no better then being guards in a prison camp.

One might argue that the police in Sweden are simply following the laws. But the laws have become corrupt and doesn't protect or help the people anymore. The US constitution doesn't allow laws to come in its place.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison.

That's the point with my post. If the American people doesn't take their Second Amendment very seriously. You'll end up like Sweden or Finland where the laws can be bent and twisted into whatever they like. And people regard guns as something scary or for sports and hunting. And in the process they become easy pray to a government who oppresses the people.

Its sad. Thankfully more and more people up here are waking up to this fact everyday. But it takes time since indoctrination have come a looong way.

Herre gud. Are you seriously saying Sweden has become a threshold of tyranny and oppression? A corrupt state? Please, you're ahead of many countries in aspects of personal freedom.

I have yet to see any evidence of your police becoming brutal, or like guards at a prison camp. I think you're grossly over exaggerating things here.

Your wordings above, not mine.

And although I appreciate the discussion, I don't think we will come much further.

[deleted]

The economies of the USA and Europe are closely connected and when our economy completely collapses in the next 20 years. Europe will fall too and it will be harder.

*typos

Hm, lemme see...

because our economy also runs on oil?

I am European. Och jag ljuger inte när jag säger att jag är Europe, och mot min vilja skall jag kanske också tillägga. Jag röstade Nej inför att gå med..

If the USA would find itself in the middle of a civil war.. The consequences are absolutely impossible to foresee, but I can say it wont be pretty.

The almighty dollar would collapse and there is nothing to take its place. Markets would quickly collapse and Europe which is as stable as a two legged dog, would have just enough time to enjoy one last time out on the pub before happy hour is permanently over.

And I should point out that this is exactly what I think they are hoping for. They want it all to collapse. "And in the midst of chaos a New World Order will be built" ..and cue evil laughter.

What an obvious circlejerk posting.

(I'm American) I, for one, can see the writing on the wall. I will be protesting the NSA today. Most Americans are too distracted by stupid shit like the Kardashians. A lot of them just don't care. But I think there will be a tipping point where the vast majority of America finally understands the war zone they live in. That tipping point will be the 2nd Amendment. Once the authorities try to take their guns they will finally start to fight back.

I believe in everything here that you said, only I don't think shooting everyone is the answer.

Exactly what a British loyalist would say sir.

Funny, I'm a middle aged white female from rural Kansas, where everyone thinks everyone should have a gun.

As a pro-2nd Amendment & quite often a concealed carrier I thank you for the reminder. Just like to remind everyone the most important thing associated with the practice of carrying will always be...Safety! After the training from a CCW class a greater understanding of carrying a gun takes hold, it teaches you to become more aware of your surroundings, & most off teaches you that your first line of defense is your mind, & choosing to remove yourself from a situation or environment that may have threatening aspects associated with it. Also, it's not all peaches over here, Cali gun laws are the main reason I won't move there, Ever. Even if I take my empty clip (which can hold over 10 rounds) I could face felony charges, ew.

Take it from someone that left the state and moved back. The sooner I get out of LA, the better.

I am thinking that Washington is my best bet.

Seems like what I looked up real quick Washington has CCW's & training classes. Sounds good to me :)

Thanks, and good info.

Statistically speaking, your gun is more likely to be used on you or your family, than it is to be used by you to defend yourself.

Also, a handgun isn't going to save you from the government, and their killer robots.

The 2nd amendment is outdated, and generally useless. All it does is make more crime, and lots of money for the rich.

I was with you till your last 2 sentences.

The second amendment is not what's keeping this country from falling apart. Obama is not lying awake at night worried about a pistol in a night stand. The second amendment was never about protecting the people from its own government, no matter how hard the NRA tries to remake history.

The second amendment was created in a time when someone really good with a gun could get off three aimed shots in a minute with a musket. It was created in a time when the United States had no standing army to defend its citizens. The amendment's purpose was akin to Switzerland's laws. When called upon to defend your state or your country, you would have the tools to do so. A gun in every house was a national defense strategy and, for the time, the only viable one.

Everyone is doing the whole hand-wringing thing about the United States. It's actually kind of cute. However, this country was founded with a strong constitution and a long tradition of the rule of law. In times of crisis in the past we cruelly bent the constitution out of shape. We did horrible things to it. Worse things than we could EVER imagine doing now. Abraham Lincoln basically pissed on the first amendment and made it seditious to criticize his government. We interred tens of thousands of citizens because they happened to be of Japanese descent in WW2. We were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of black men to do a science experiment in STDs. We had a president (Nixon) who actively terrorized his political opponents and tried to blackmail the press into silence.

Even people who whine about Fox News don't get it. William Randolph Hearst had more media power than Rupert Murdoch could ever even in his wildest dreams have. Hearst also used his huge empire to actually try to gain office. It can even be argued that he started a war simply by using that empire to rabble-rouse with false articles. Fox News has only a fraction of Hearst's power in his heyday.

And if it appears that our two-party system is fundamentally broken, I point out that there were many times in our history where congress froze and were at each other's throats. Sometimes literally. Even our "Citizens United" ruling, as dumb as it is, pales in comparison to bought and paid for elections of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Tammany Hall, anyone?

The reason our system works, and the reason why there is (comparatively) little corruption is that both parties HATE each other and want to win congressional districts. There's no better way to unseat an opponent than to accuse him/her of corruption or criminal behavior. And if there are facts to back that up, so much the better. (Though having said that, politics by definition is corruption, so there will always be that element to any government.)

So relax. Put down that gun. There's no need to go and join a militia group somewhere in Montana. The United States is not in the best place right now. We're struggling with some issues. But we are, by NO means, in a place where we're about to shatter as a country.

If I were you, I'd look more to the EU. The only thing holding Europe together is Germany because they weren't stupid with their economy. Greece, Spain, France, and to a smaller extent Italy are all going through what in any OTHER era be called a "depression". There's not enough money in the German economy to staunch the flow of deficits. I'm sitting in the United States wondering when the EU is going to fall to pieces. I'm wondering what effect that'll have on US.

Where do you get the idea that the Bill of Rights isn't about protecting the people from their government? That is what the Bill of Rights is for. Protecting the people from their Government.

I love how you're nonchalant about corruption too. Our political leaders today are experts at extracting wealth from the populous. The right or left thing is a distraction.

Well, the Bill of Rights isn't about protecting people from the government. It's about enshrining a set of expectations about how people are treated. On the one hand you could call that "protection from". I, however, choose to call it "declaration of rights that the government protects". I think my interpretation holds a bit more water, since the Supreme Court is part of the government you say the Bill of Rights is protecting us from, and yet the Supreme Court acts as a (sometimes flawed) arbiter of such rights.

If we take your argument as a rule, then the Supreme Court has no real function. Indeed, the base of all oaths of public service is to defend and protect the constitution, which the Bill of Rights (by way of the amendment process) is part.

And I'm very nonchalant about corruption. And extracting wealth from the populous to give to the rich has a long and storied history. Ever hear of the rail barons? The pre-Union corporate indentured servitude? "Company Store"? We've gone through a couple of periods where the rich ran roughshod over the populace. These things go in cycles.

As I said in my previous post, we are going through a rough patch. What I argue against is the concept that we're somehow in danger of an immanent collapse. And moreover I argue with the notion that the second amendment is all that is saving us from that collapse.

so basically your argument is that we shouldn't worry about corruption, because it was totally worse this one time way back in the day?

I'm saying corruption will always be with us, not that it's a preferable state to be in. I'm saying that corruption will always surge and fall in cycles.

I think we should be concerned about corruption. I think we should keep an eye on it. I also think we shouldn't get out our guns because of it. After all, I was responding to that particular point in this thread.

ah, it sounded like you were saying, "our government is corrupt as hell, but hey its all good...back in the day they were even worse!"

things definitely haven't gotten to the point at which I'd be willing to take up arms against the government, but the 2nd amendment is still pretty important.

Your prose is commendable, but it's imminent not immanent.

I know that...now :D Thanks for the correction.

What real purpose do oaths of public service have when the people taking the oaths are corrupt? As the populous, it is our responsibility to enforce those oaths that were taken. Whether it be by voting, protesting, or simply disobeying. It's is the populous' who enforces the law of the land when the elite become corrupt. This is the way it is throughout all of nature. It always has been this way and always will be. Megalomaniacal leaders believe they can defeat nature. The amount of corruption going on in the world today is going to force people to find truth on their own. The cause of the collapse of America will not be our laws being taken away, it will be from a populous who looks to the corrupt government for direction.

Collapse may not be imminent, but it's certainly within two or three generations. This is sad for our children because we can actually do something about it now.

Japan and Mexico didn't invade the US because of the ubiquitous nature of gun ownership amongst it's citizenry. It would be impossible to occupy.

So, it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about especially when you preface your argument with: I, however, choose to call it "declaration of rights that the government protects"

Well said. It's surprising we even made it to this point with the outrageous level of corruption that existed in the past. I guess it's a good thing that people like Hearst eventually did and take with them their stranglehold on power.

Maybe you should read the Federalist Paper #46, by the same guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. It has fuck-all to do with repelling a foreign invasion, and it wasn't to make up for a lack of standing army. It was to guard against a standing army.

"Let a regular army [equipped with muskets], fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

(But he was wrong in assuming it was absurd to think the people would allow things to get to that point.)

While I am certain that this guy felt deeply about his point of view, he was only one voice and one reason in a panopoly of viewpoints.

Even so, I'd like to make a point here. I'm still technically correct in my view, since at the time states were considered to be much more independent than they are today (the Civil War changed that).

He's still talking about a government defending itself from foreign invaders. It's just that, in his case, he's talking about state governments protecting themselves against a foreign invader (in his case, the federal government). Again, this was kinda settled in the Civil War. But in any case, it's still a GOVERNMENTAL context, not your next-door-neighbor Bob stocking up on rifles because "the gub'ment is coming to take away mah raights".

This thread, to me, is not about the second amendment. It's not about defending it or opposing it. My entire point in this thread is that the second amendment is NOT what is keeping us from disintegrating as a country.

The Civil War did lead to some constitutional amendments, but they served to further restrict the federal and state governments. In no way did they somehow transform the federal government from "foreign" to "domestic". The federal government was never foreign.

I can agree that pistols and hunting rifles aren't keeping the country from disintegrating any more than they prevented all of the unconstitutional encroachments in the name of the drug war, terror war, banking sector, etc.

What is preventing total disintegration is that some people in power still do value the rule of law and the concept of a limited and accountable government. So, for example, in a system governed by law, those who believe the 2nd Amendment is obsolete will follow the constitutionally valid procedure to repeal the amendment.

Disintegration is occurring because too many people consider the law of the land to be an inconvenient obstacle to their "jobs" (or what they perceive as their jobs), preferring instead to slither around it and hope the Supreme Court or the people in general don't wake up and act in time.

What some guy wrote 200 years ago is about as relevant today as what they wrote 2,000 years ago.

If you want to understand why someone wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it is absolutely relevant to read what else he wrote about people keeping and bearing arms. Or just make shit up, as seems to be the trend.

Hat tip for mentioning Switzerland.

Hell yeah to this guy.

You're so full of it.

Not claiming to be a hero, but to you who are and complaining about everyone else then get the fuck of reddit and do something.

Spreading information via the only media that the people have any power over (The Internet) is doing something.

[deleted]

So how did the Iraqis and Afghans hold up so well?

Call back when you understand warfare a little.

[deleted]

Implying that 100% of American soldiers would comply with slaughtering their own people.

Insurgent tactics can fuck the hell out out of a standard military. We certainly wouldn't be able to out gun them, but I'm sure as hell that the many seasoned vets out here wouldn't have a terrible time taking a few good chunks out of whatever pimply faced kids they have just coming out of boot.

To effectively slaughter people without losing your head you have to be under the impression that you're protecting something. My money would be on an armed populace protecting their families than troops protecting their buddies while slaughtering their countrymen.

Of course, there's always the drones.... Honestly those worry me the most.

I agree with you on that going into a armed conflict with the (any) government is not a good idea. That should be the absolute last option. And let's not mistake "government" for something abstract. The people you would be facing would be your own countrymen. The guys in charge will most certainly not be running around killing people, they would be safely hidden inside some bunker somewhere like the cowards they are.

What I meant was that the thing that's keeping governments in check: Is that the people is armed. And can defend themselves if necessary against oppression and tyranny.

And I already said what I came up with that I think people can do:

*"So how about it America, wtf are you going to do? I'm not hoping for a civil war but I am hoping for more whistle blowers, more sheriffs taking a stand, a little civil disobedience (protests) and above all that you start to take your Second Amendment very seriously. Because the moment it is gone, it's game over. This is the only real power you've got as a citizen against your government, it's the power to defend yourself in the face of oppression or tyranny." *

And my first post was really just meant as my own reflections to the problems in the world. I don't say that I absolutely know the solution to this mess and the NWO. But what you have in America with the Second Amendment is really important. Without it, the world would be in a lot more trouble.

This "northern Europe" (Scandinavia in particular) you speak of has some of the lowest crime rates and overall greatest quality of life on the planet. A hell of a lot of people would give their left nut AND their right nut to live, work and raise their children there.

The rite to bear arms allows us to control our government if things get worse.

THANK YOU OP

Same is true for Canada, we are way too far gone.. the model of apathetic subservience that the powers want. That is why they are moving the USA in the same direction as Canada.

This doesn't make any sense. It assumes that second amendment rights have been taken away in the US. They haven't. And what evidence is there that the US is "being plunged into chaos"?

Also this, "This is the only real power you've got as a citizen against your government, it's the power to defend yourself in the face of oppression or tyranny." Is on its face false.

I won't try and argue with you if you don't provide an argument. What you're doing it simply trying to lead the discussion in circles.

I suspect you're trying to nitpick every single thing as to be able and point towards one little thing and then say with a loud voice: "Look I've completely shredded this argument, then the rest must also be equally false".

If you are sincere in finding out the treats to the American Constitution and the very real problems it faces. Then there are lots of examples provided right here in /r/conspiracy/

He's right though. Maybe from over there in Sweden you don't realize this, but America is in no danger of being disarmed. Not even remotely.

There are estimated to be over 300 million guns in America - that's about one for each man, woman and child in the country. Even if the government decided to ban all guns tomorrow, there would be no practical way to actually disarm everyone. Even the most hardcore gun control advocates acknowledge this, which is why they focus on other ways to stop violence.

And the government is nowhere close to passing even the mildest restriction on guns. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and will fund campaign ads against anyone in Congress who votes for gun control.

So yeah, we face a lot of problems here in the States, but the idea that the Second Amendment is in danger is the complete opposite of the actual reality. It also suggests that widespread gun ownership doesn't really protect you from a slowly advancing, oppressive government as much as people would like to think.

If they tried to do it all at once? Sure. That's why they're doing it bit by bit.

How are they doing it bit by bit? There used to be an Assault Weapons Ban back in the 90s. It expired and there has been no support for renewing it. Other than that, I'm having trouble thinking of any major federal anti-gun law passed in the last 20 years.

I'm not nitpicking. Your entire premise is off. Gun rights are under no threat here. We've just had a rash of shootings and not a single law has been passed and none are likely to be. And we're hardly in danger of falling. I can't even tell from your post whether you want the US to fall. Fall to what, exactly? You claim that the "moment is gone", implying that the Second Amendment has failed when it's stronger that it has ever been.

And, lastly and most importantly, the claim that guns are the only "real power" we have as citizens is total bunk. We have the power to vote, locally and nationally. We have the power to speak and to broadcast and organize (which you, yourself suggest) and the power of our wallets.

Maybe rephrase your post to make some more coherent points and I can address them individually, but as it stands, it's close to incoherent.

[deleted]

However in a perfect scenario, I must say that all firearms on this planet should be melted down in one big pot,

Even if you could, people would go right back to killing each other with rocks and pointy sticks immediately. As long as people exist, there will ALWAYS be those who try to use violent coercion against others, and those others have every right to protect themselves.

Damn, Sweden is where I wanted to move :(.

You can get guns.

OP, kan du förklara för mig hur du hade tänkt dig att några killar med pistoler skulle ta ner en hel regering? Är det kanske SvP-mentalitet som lurar i foliehatten på dig?

Well the fundamental problem isn't "money in politics" or any other pseudo solution that the mainstream media will ever mention. Obviously they aren't going to tell you how to dismantle their control system over the government. So I will.

Congress is 51% lawyers (liars) despite the fact that America itself is <1% lawyers. (The recurring <1% vs 99%+ theme here is relevant too.)

Congress is ~40% millionaires (including some of the lawyers), despite the fact that America's constituency is <4% millionaires.

So how do we use this information to dismantle the control system in place?

Vote out all the rich and all the lawyers, with no regard whatsoever for professed political party, because anyone with open eyes can see that there is just one dominant political party in the United States: the Authoritarian Plutarchy party and unwholesome host of lying red & blue members in Congress.

tl;dr: Vote out the rich/lawyers and we can take back America without violence in a single election cycle. Neat huh?

Did you remember to take your government mandated estrogen pills today Lars?

what a crock of horseshit. stupidist thing I have read today

Epic bullshit detected.

I hope to hell that the US does collapse, it's the only hope that the rest of the 'truly' free world has.

Who are Sweden's masters?

The UK?

Germany?

The EU?

The US?

Russia?

What parties do feel controls Sweden?

Get membership to conspiracyv2 dude

Well .... fact remains I live in [censored] and even though the cops would be hard pressed to find anything illegal even if they would make a really good effort they wouldn't find a 4.6mm chambered full automatic firearm. Which I can retrieve in 20 seconds, ready to fire. That western europeans are defenseless might be in some cases be a dangerous myth.

Hasn't it been like this throughout time, only we have technology and the knowledge of history, whereas the Romans didn't?

100% this guy is SD supporter or worse (right-wing racist party). No one fucking needs a gun in Sweden.

Also yet to meet any Swedes who consider America the last bastion of freedom in the western world.

No, No and you've completely misread what I've said in your last statement. I said: We're not looking at it as some kind of last bastion of freedom

And you shouldn't attack the character of the opponent in a discussion. That's considered impolite and is also a quite clear evidence of not having any valid arguments to give. Dumbas.

Who are you to decide if someone needs a weapon? It's not like SD wants to allow people to have more weapons than any other party. They're just as authoritarian as any other Swedish party.

SD isn't a right wing party. Their policy, in for example economical and social matters, is leftist even to Swedish standards. The only part of their politics that is to the right side is their immigration policy. I don't see how that opinion makes the whole party "right wing" when they're clearly leftists in other matters.

After 15 years of Dansk Folkeparti actually being a big party in Denmark, and SD following exactly the same recipe, I assure you they are populist fascists under a guise of being democratic racists.

So whats your point? USA is in control of the world and you hope they wont get into a civil war? Swedens police is nothing compared to different countries how can you compare it even as

And our police are just as indoctrinated and brutal as yours and most people knows better then to call them in times of need.

Sweden is a pussycountry compared to US regarding the police overall, Sweden is a soft country, we're the good cop and US the bad cop if you would compare it at all and that dont even come close.

Though people will mostly tend to abuse if theyre in a state of power so ye but really, it's nothing compared to other countries.

And I dont think anything will happen that will affect EU that much since the US is the mob, king of the hill, they dont care they just run shit. Why would they stop? You seem like some dude that came off a bad lsd/shroom trip over the weekend and in a psychosis where the world somehow have went radically down the shitter compared to what its always been or like, 1 week ago.

Your post annoys me hard, fuck. The fact that you talk about like "hey, you guys, the us, remember the Second Amendment, you dont know how important that is" thats a retarded statement and not only that but you used it in your topic then you didnt even talk about the Second Amendment. :S

So how about it America, wtf are you going to do? I'm not hoping for a civil war but I am hoping for more whistle blowers, more sheriffs taking a stand

like wow, thats how you fight a civil war or whats your point? Again, sorry for sounding like a cunt but your post is stupid. I bets its this snowden thing and now you think like "whoa guys, we need to protest about this!"

"whistleblowers" have been known since like 70 years back, Snowden isn't the first one to leak and theres even conspiracys about the leak being an operation anyway so dont get so psyched all of sudden since its really really really known, its only the dubstep-mainstream-hipster-kids that find out about it in 2013.

Haha just a tad bit harsh

re-read the declaration of independence today and bill of rights

Welcome to Kentucky.....I can shoot you if you enter my dwelling or car. Also, we have a stand your ground law. I have no duty to retreat if I am in a place I am allowed to be, not committing a crime, and someone else attacks me or another with intent of great bodily harm, I can meet force with force, including deadly force. This is my America..... http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/055.PDF

Oh I'm sorry did you forget about the few century's in which Europe was fine without America, even with a big Islamic threat? And don't most terrorists hate America? The only times America was needed was when Europe was in a civil war.

don't most terrorists hate America?

The terrorists are America.

Thus, far and wide, they migrate either to the Goths or to the Bagaudae, or to other barbarians everywhere in power; yet they do not repent of having migrated. They prefer to live as freemen under an outward form of captivity, than as captives under the appearance of liberty. Therefore, the name of Roman citizens, at one time not only greatly valued, but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base, but even deserving of abhorrence.

Look to your screwed up Southeastern neighbors from Stockholm and Copenhagen all of the way to the Black Sea.

What the fuck are you talking about ?

My country has roughly a million more people then the population of New York City.

How many murders were there in NYC in 2012 and how many in Ikea land ?

OP är en fjant som behöver en pickadoll för att försvara sig.

I disagere. I live in Sweden and this is not the way I see it.

where its citizens have absolutely no means to protect themselves in case of a crime

What. Of course you have "means" to protect yourself. Do you have a gun license feel free to fucking use it. Are you trained in martial arts or maybe you have pepper spray in your purse - use it.

Our politicians are so big mouthed that they should be ashamed of themselves! If our fucking people actually did anything against our government we would probably have a better country (not implying that we do not have it already).

Sweden is a democracy. Bullshit. The only democracy we have is that we vote a couple of times and then nothing. When the voting is done the politicians does not care about us, they do not embrace our ideas because they just wanted to get in bed with the voters to get elected. Oh shit, did I just explain all of the bureaucracy in the world?!

People tout the Second Amendment but never actually use it.

If you see this comment, you have probably clicked on the link to my user page.

I soon realized that every comment I make to my own post is being immediately downvoted into oblivion. Not nice guys. That's being a douchebag. But I can see I've obviously made my point.

Upvote because youre dead on target

By the time you realize the truth, it will be too late to do anything.

Goddamn man, you're looking to the most economically unequal developed nation, the richest and yet only one that doesn't guarantee healthcare to its citizens, root of financial bubbles that tanks all world economies, imperialistic power that has toppled democratically elected governments and destabilized entire regions, and hoping that a misinterpreted constitutional amendment ("a well regulated militia" no individual right is spelled out, and 80% of gun deaths in the developed world are in America) comes to the rescue of the world? Fight the capitalistic monster of America, don't encourage it

Yeah, get rid of the 2nd Amendment and put the government in charge of healthcare, then we can be "free" like the slaves of the totalitarian EU states! Hooray!

(it's not incorrectly interpreted, like every other right it applies to the people, there is NOTHING in that amendment that limits it to members of the militia, the notion that it does is nonsense radical leftist/totalitarians have made up to try to nullify it. It SPECIFICALLY says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.)

Yeah and that's why nearly every court in the country including the only Supreme court decision on that matter (United States v. Miller, 1939, unanimous decision) specifically spelled out that no individual right was to found in that amendment because that was the very well understood very well settled history of it. It wasn't until special interest groups representing gun manufacturers in the '70's started pouring millions into revisionist history to sell guns uninhibited that an activist Supreme Court (narrow 5-4 decision, all Republicans in majority of course) that an individual right suddenly appears.

And oh those European slaves! With their higher social mobility, and access to healthcare that doesn't bankrupt them and affordable education. May we always be free to be exploited by corporations and not slaves like those Europeans.

Complete and utter nonsense. Not only does the amendment itself clearly define it as an individual right, the people who made it law also made that perfectly clear. Any court ruling otherwise is wrong, plain and simple.

As to the slaves of Europe, just because they've been taught to love their chains, doesn't make them not slaves. And now we get to watch them and their societies of theft, slavery, oppression, and exploitation collapse under their own weight, as they so richly deserve. Socialism is a foul, anti-human plague on human civilization. Its death cannot come soon enough.

Britain used it's standing royal army to undermine the sovereignty of the colonies and the fear was that if the United States had a standing federal army it would undermine that of the states. So it was figured that the defense of the country would come from state militias, which is what the 2nd Amendment authorizes. Now obviously a patchwork of state militias is a terrible method of defense so by the time the War of 1812 ends we moved to a national defense model making that Amendment, like the 3rd largely a relic of the time in which it was written. That's what that Amendment was to the people who made it. They could've used the very well understood language of British common law of private gun ownership like the first Pennsylvania and Vermont state Constitutions did, but they explicitly did not. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was necessary for a "well-regulated militia", and often men would be mandated to purchase firearms where they would then be stored in local armories; a privately held gun wouldn't do much good for a militia effort. It's not for personal defense, not to fight government tyranny (why would the people who just shed blood to create a country put it in their Constitution that the people can raise a violent revolution against it, no country would be so self-defeating. Diffusion of power among the branches and local, state and federal governments was Madison's built-in defense against tyranny, not violence).

And every country on planet Earth is capitalistic, there is no socialism. Some have a more well regulated form of it as Europeans typically do, but they're still market economies.

I call bullshit.

everyone has these rights, no matter if youre country tells says so or not. its called free will. you and the fellow citizens of your country could lead a revolt and demand freedom just as we could demand ours back. so whats it gunna be world?

As a fellow Swede; absolutely shameful and misleading OP. Literally, the hell did I just read?

Und?

If the shit hits the fan, what kind of harm is possible and where? The cities? Well, there are the whites and the rest, go figure. On the countryside, most dead sure are gun owners or don't even need one, because who the fuck would go there anyway, when there is no gas to drive there?! Also: Behind Suburbia, everyone knows everyone. You already know who you hate. Problem solved, because staying out of everyones business is first point on everyones list in areas where you just do not know what they are up to.

So, what is your problem?

Unfortunately most Americans do not care and only want to be "safe".

Bullshit. I'm an American, but I don't kick strapped. Yet I still carry a dozen different things on my person I can defend myself with, or even kill with. I aint scared.

Do they even crime in Sweden?

There have been riots the past few months in Sweden, you didn't know?

"Riots". Hell, even the Brits can riot much better than the Swedes.

The riots were by disenfranchised minorities, not actual Swedes.

Why would I know that?

Because it was international news. And pretty much turned blue everything liberals/social-democrats liked to say about Sweden about how it was such a paradise.

Yeah, see. International news is small potatoes. I'm only concerned with American news.

It's only rape capital of Europe and one of the highest rape rate nations in the world.

There are a lot of weapons and devices to use against rape. However, many of these won't work in very much the same way a firearm won't work, because often rape isn't violent. Maybe it's different there than it is here though.

At least rape is recognized as a thing. If other countries recognized rape as an actual thing, I'm sure Sweden would drop off the top ten.

http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/news-from-bra/archive/news/2011-01-18-how-common-is-rape-in-sweden-compared-to-other-european-countries.html

Exceprt

Broader definition and extensive registration

Firstly, in Sweden there is a noticeably broad definition of what constitutes rape. This means that more acts in Sweden are regarded and registered as rape than in the majority of other countries. Secondly, in Sweden a lot of effort is made to register all cases that can be suspected to be rape. As this is done at a very early stage of the process, cases are included that later turn out to be some other sex crime, or even no crime at all. In addition to this, all individual acts are registered — not just the latest occasion or the main crime. In many other countries cases like these are filtered out and do not show up in the statistics.

That's a tool of feminist design to continue to allow them to keep their hands deep in the government process. Actual, legitimate rape in Sweden is likely no more common than rape in America, Canada or any other developed nation - they just have a different, more biased way of tracking it.

That's because Somalis are flooding in there.

Their "second amendment" havent been upheldsince... Ever. Americans are too lazy, too fat and too stupid .... By design. We are fucked.

Too much fluoride is making you apathetic. Get up and get out. You cant be sitting around waiting for someone else to do it.

Motherfuckin' cars...

Stinger missiles are quite effective.

No but that AR-15 is pretty effective against someone trying to take it, and if you want to take out a tank you'll need either an M82 or a RPG.

I won't try and argue with you if you don't provide an argument. What you're doing it simply trying to lead the discussion in circles.

I suspect you're trying to nitpick every single thing as to be able and point towards one little thing and then say with a loud voice: "Look I've completely shredded this argument, then the rest must also be equally false".

If you are sincere in finding out the treats to the American Constitution and the very real problems it faces. Then there are lots of examples provided right here in /r/conspiracy/

In many Eastern European countries if someone comes into your home to rob you, you have no right to defend yourself.

[citation needed]

I'm a non-swede living in Sweden, and I can confirm that people have a right to own weapons IF they take a full hunting exam, or if they're a member Of a shooting club. I'm not even allowed to shoot s fucking rabbit without training and proof that I'm good enough with a rifle to take down a moving wild boar or moose.

Sure. People here own guns, but it's a long LONG way from the way it is in the USA. You can't simply own a 9mm handgun for the hell of it or for "home security", and there's no way you'd get stuff like "open a bank account here and get a free gun" happening.

As for OPs "nothing you can do" though, that's knackers. Sure, I've witnessed a load of swedes stand around and twiddle their thumbs as shit goes down, but some get stuck in.

As för me, My house is my castle, and I have an axe and I know how to throw it. So long as my assailant is standing 2,4,6 or 8 meters away, they're fucked. Closer than 2 and I won't need to buy meat for a while.

Besides, guns here are kept in safes. Not in your bedside table where the kids can get'em. That's just stupid. And people don't just carry them around when they're in town. That's daft too.

Axes. If everyone had axes instead of guns, there'd be a lot less death.

yeah youre right no one could resist the american empire with just small arms.

I just wish someone would tell Iraq and Afghanistan.

So the Illuminati can't do magic?

They can, it's just Joo-magic instead of wizard-magic.

I haven't read such a wrong comment in a while...

I think dude is confused.

EU or outside of the EU? Are you talking Poland, Czech or Ukraine?

I'm saying corruption will always be with us, not that it's a preferable state to be in. I'm saying that corruption will always surge and fall in cycles.

I think we should be concerned about corruption. I think we should keep an eye on it. I also think we shouldn't get out our guns because of it. After all, I was responding to that particular point in this thread.

You don't give people enough credit for being clever. You should.

Same here, unfortunately I can't beat the crap out of an intruder without risking an charge for assault or (more likely) grievous bodily harm.

I need some sources that show how when a cop writes a ticket, the law enforcement is paid out the money. Not that I don't believe you, I just want you to educate me.

Those aren't the only two options.

I'd love to see your sources. Thanks!

Citation need. My fam is from Croatia and I never heard of this.

So I'm from Sweden and have lived in different parts of the country. To say that our police force is as brutal and corrupt as the Americans is just plain wrong, simple as that. Sure, there are some cases where a criminal might have been punched a few times in the face for no good reason, but that policeman got heavily penalized. There's not as much 'going around the system', as Swedish court-laws are very different from American.

Apologies if there are any grammatical errors or such.

Sweden has one of the highest quality of life indexes in the world. Its literally one of the best places you could live right now, alongside Norway.

Somebody asked "What publicly-available weapons are going to help you take down an Apache helicopter?" and I gave a correct answer. Then you came in and pointed out that they don't sell stingers at Walmart. I knew you were joking, but who cares? I was making a distinction between "publicly available" and "legal", apparently you do not. Marijuana is not legal (in my state) but it most certainly is "publicly available".

so are you saying that a private citizen can buy them on the black market?

They can and they do.

An Abrams or an Apache doesn't break in your door and black bag you in the middle of the night. An Abrams or an Apache doesn't enforce a curfew on a street corner.

Remember how those Iraqi's and Afgani's failed to kill any troops or reduce moral?

Jesus... People like you....