i need to stop answering these obvious posts, but martial law won't be as effective if people have the means to oppose, we just want our freedom, and many are willing to protect it

Oh but thank you for going soooo out of your way to answer while not wanting too, you should be the unofficial leader of the revolution.

what im saying is this is an obvious shit post to collect data on your question, but ya i should be a leader, peace and freedom for all is all i want

Shit post to collect data.....lmfao ok ya f'n retard, the leader thing was bullshit lol.

the leader part aint wrong, any1 that truley promotes freedom should be a leader, but thats not how the world works unfortunately

You'll never be the leader, you're failing. Dont forget to downvote sugar tits.

lol no downvotes yet, i'll wait for others to help confirm my suspisions, and obvs ill never be a leader, i'm just a poor drunk roofer :) but part of freedom is being able to express ones feelings

now, what is your argument towards my first comment sir? i state that martial law wont be effective if people have means to fight back, meaning them taking our guns makes perfect sense, do you think people are gonna just keep their guns locked up and give their rights to freedom away? some will sure, but i sure wouldn't, i just watched that new red dawn movie, i really enjoyed it as it seems like a plausable future

Suspicions? .......im really a writer for tbe huffington post. Can i quote you as saying i would rather give up my first born than give up my AR-13, a toddler is of no use when North Korea invades.

lololol haha, your a writer for huff post eh, you just earned your downvotes :D you can quite me saying ALL MSM AND ALL GOV ARE SCUM CUNTS THAT DESERVE TO BURN

But can i quote you on your love for the AR-13?

i have love for any tool that can defend ones freedom

my comments r censored as fuck, i only see firsr sentance in ur reply notification, something about defence hammers, fuckin rights :p whatever it takes

lol yup, i literally cant see anything new i comment, nor your replies, it aint just libs, its all scum

same reason gov has guns, we all have enemies

Do you think your gun is actually maintaining your right to freedom?

i never stated i had guns in the first place, when i said our i was reffering to our common folk, but yes, guns can protect ones freedom. Even though america lost it's battle for independance, their guns helped them fight for their freedom, if someone comes on your property and starts telling you exactly how to live your life, yes guns protect your freedom, it's sad that one must kill these days, many people just wan't to carry on with their lives under the current system, but this current system is tightning itself up more and more by the day, so yes, one should have guns to protect their independence.

you are asking, are my guns protecting my freedom from other people with guns who fight against freedom, you know my answer, and you are free to have your own answer

Hmm, so you don't like what the government is telling you to do, so you don't do it.

Government guy rolls up to your house, you shoot him for trying to tell you what to do. You're arrested for breaking the law.

...

Freedom!

and you, will just bow down...

Freedom!!!!

if someone is living their own self sufficient life on a property they paid for, and big gov comes and tries to take their house lets say, wtf r they supposed to do?

we need to quit being useless little pussys and start standing up for ourselves, i sure as fuck dont need any gov telling me what to do, i can live my life just fine without harming anyone without the useless cunts trying to give me rules, once you learn how to rule urself this will make more sense

Alright so stop using anything provided with any support from a local, state, or federal government.

for sum reason reddit stops showing me my comments and their replies.... but i get notifications, so my response to your stop using gov shit post is:

fuck you and your scum gov :) i will do whatever the fuck i want because i am not hurting anybody

"Fuck the government" while everything you do depends on the governments existence. Cheers.

again, cant see my new comments or your replies

you say everything i do depends of government, fuck that it does, nothing i do depends on gov, who built the roads and cities? is it scum fucks you see sitting in offices and multi million dollar roads, is it people like me that grind their fuckin knuckles to the bone so they can buy poisen from the grocery store?

Governments enable everything in the US. Taxes provide funding for highways. Subsidies provide funding for, well, everything.

Using pretty much any ISP right now? Regulation allows that. Buy food from a grocery? Government agencies insure someone isn't selling you literal poison. Moreover, localities ensure business are properly registered with business licenses.

Drive a car or ride a bike? They have to meet government regulations for safety standards. Blah blah blah etc etc etc.

againn reddit must be trying to censor my convos, but the government is only able to to enable shit cuz they are in control of our money, just like they enabled 911, sandi hook and every war, if the money was kept in our hands we could enable a far better society than they ever will

FUCK THE SCUM GOVERNMENT

Almost like our constitution was written to enable taxation because the AoC couldn't. Oops.

again, reddit is censoring me i can only see so much of ur replies in the notifications, the 14th ammendment cancled all others, look it up bud

Yes they do. Do you really think the government cares about average joe getting killed, no they dont. It's about the government protecting its own interests.

Feel free to elaborate on how that is. And how the freedom of a citizen in a country without widespread domestic firearms is objectively "less free".

People in north korea cant own guns....

Okay?

Citizens in the U.K. And Japan can't either.

Guess all three countries have equally free citizens huh

You wanted an example and thats exactly what you were given. Would you like to live in noth korea? Thought so.

Talk about moving the goal posts.

Compare two democracies with completely different gun laws. UK and US. How are the UKs citizens objectively less free in this context?

Choosing a malevolent dictatorship as your example is retarded and clearly just a deflection.

[deleted]

Just answer the question....

And if you won't answer that question then answer whether or not you think Japanese citizens are just as free as NK citizens.

[deleted]

I don't think it does. I think it instills the illusion of protecting personal freedom, but doesn't actually do so in a meaningful way.

What data am i collecting??

If they ever take guns away it won't be door-to-door confiscation, that's preposterous.

They will simply cut off the water and food supply and offer to give food rations in exchange for firearms.

Thats basically what i said!!

Oh wow. I never thought of that. That is sinister and simple.

And also serves no purpose...

....why?

I think your friend makes total sense. The ways you think are better are probably also being done.

50k troops / 100k troops do you undestand how impossible of a task it is to round up 300 million guns. Our military had a hell of a time in iraq with a population thats roughly the same as southern california lol

Totalitarianism isn't easy.

Calm down and pack it in. Got it.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/04/un-small-arms-treaty-full-text/

I have no doubt that the overall goal (decades away) is removing firearms from the publics hands, i just feel that the whole door to door concept is foolish for a government to take on. Too expensive and it would turn into a WW3 like bloodbath on American soil, the government has to know this.

They only know it because of the strong reaction from people like you mentioned. If people did not react that way then they would have known they could get away with it.

Slow and steady wins the race for government domination, they know this. Smart cars are another scary thing coming into play, control guns...control travel...control food...your population is owned.

Smarter robots as well to replace workers who require so much

I don't know who your friends with or what videos you watch but i've never thought gun confiscation would be some people turning up on a doorstep and just taking them. It will be propaganda and new laws which will slowly dimish any rights to own firearms. They may then round up guns from any who resist and don't comply with these new laws.

I agree with you, the sudden move just doesnt seem realistic to me but he just refuses to listen to that.

And the question of course here is: why?

No power wants an armed populace its bad for business. Its better to have a population that cannot defend themselves. Disarming civilians is a tactic used throughout history to dampen the potential of any rebellions.

Im not sure when this will happen though. So far there are no signs it will be in the near future. I am sure that is one of the many aims of these elitists. A society with guns doesn't benefit the people who own the country it is a threat to them.

Privatisation is a constant theme in this day and age. Privatising violence so that it can only be used by the government is a part of this.

It's fantastic for business, have you seen the arms market lately....

If power were so centralized orchestrate this then the population is defenseless anyway. The "they're gunna tek our gunsss" narrative is one of the laziest. It literally serves no meaningful function.

Letting all the retards keep their 9mms so that they feel "safe" just fosters complacency. There's no reason to subvert that to just take all the guns - which has never been seriously floated anyway.

Firearms = power, large or small scale. How often do you see countries with no military getting there way on the worlds stage?

What does that have to do with an answer for how such outrageous crackdowns would be substantively beneficial...?

Short term profit is worth less than long term goals. Money would be meaningless to the powers if they governed everything without opposition. Plus to elitists money is almost meaningless, they do print it freely.

Guns are a threat to an organised power that preys on the ignorance of its people, if they ever became aware they would have the means to fight back. The ratio of people to authority is always massively unbalanced in our favour. So 9mm, as you put it, would still give people all the oppurtunity needed to fight against a suppressive regime. Also anti-gun laws are another great way to divide and conquer people.

To say taking guns serves no meaningful function is ignorant. Many times have people been disarmed so that an oppressive regime can go unchallenged. Hitler did exactly that to the jews. Excuse me good sir let me hold onto your guns, don't worry, we will keep you safe you can trust us....

But I will add you don't have to disarm everyone, just those who are most likely to offer resistance or who you intend to target first.

Everyone jumps straight to the revisionist history...

The Weimar were far more strict in gun control than the Nazis. Very few were entitled to own guns, and even fewer did (1918 Treaty of Versailles banned private gun ownership, 1928 Reichstag very minimally diminishes that).

All the nazis did was slightly loosen gun control for "ordinary" Germans. To say they performed disarmament pursuant to controlling the population is just blatantly untrue.

More importantly, guns or not, the absolutely minuscule population of Jews wasn't going to stop anything (1% of Germany's population).

There's no logic in saying that Hitler needed or would have even cared to use gun control to affect Jews ability to resist when they already didn't own guns.

I never said that at all I said they diarmed the jews. The reason I mentioned jews is because its divide and conquer. Slowly enforce rules on one section, then expand from there.

Gun control is an important part of totalitarianism which is what we are heading to one step at a time. I said earlier there is nothing to suggest gun control is going to be implimented anytime soon. But in the future, whether that is 20-30-40-50+ years guns will no longer be accessible to regular citizens. And this is all done slowly like most things. You start by taking rifles, you bring in stricter laws, you dish out propaganda and embelish or be very vocal about any negative instances involving guns. Its the same with all forms of control. They didn't just flip a switch one day and destroy privacy, it is a slow build up which eventually reaches a climax.

The important part of something like this is to stop it ahead of time instead of waiting for it to happen in the future. Its so easy to ridicule people and claim they are paranoid or exxagerating when these schemes are in the early stages, happens all the time. Yet years down the line all the pieces start falling into place and its to late to do anything about it. We have now reached a point with privacy where governments and corporation own every single piece of information about us. Soon they will even be able to sell your internet history of to the highest bidder when the bill passes.

Privacy - Gun control - Barcodesque system - Media (information) control - Natural resource control etc... basically every aspect of your life needs to be directly controlled by TPTB to ensure you follow their way of life and their rules.

100% Guns will not be apart of any "New World Order" type ideal. The whole idea is to centralize power. An armed populace is a threat to any dictator or dictators.

shit. post.

Sorry i know aliens and assholes are your passion

SHIT. POSTER.

[deleted]

nothing to see here, move along

I don't immediately say they're coming for 'em, I just recognize that with the laws on the books martial law operates outside the normal bounds of the Constitution - gun confiscation is not outside of their legal authority under martial law.

It would be a daunting challenge to go nationwide on a gun confiscation run, however, if this operation were undertaken it just wouldn't consist of all kinetic operations, although they would play a major role - and foreign troops are not needed because between local, state and federal law enforcement there is enough manpower to accomplish the task. It would undoubtedly be a full spectrum endeavor and would, unfortunately, inevitably be successful.

the leader part aint wrong, any1 that truley promotes freedom should be a leader, but thats not how the world works unfortunately