Disarming the general public, you mean like in Aus? Where violent crime plummeted?

There is a huge difference between the right for any schmoozing to be able to buy any assault weapons and having a well regulated militia. The amendment was to preserve our ability to form armed en masse to protect from an over reaching future government. It was not to allow access to convenient deadly force against each other.

well said https://youtu.be/xQtAJH0F_lo?t=16

Australia yes. But on the other hand, you have Switzerland.

You mean the place with mandatory military service and mandatory gun safety training..?

And you don't keep the bullets at home?

...? What?

They can keep bullets at home, just not for their military service rifle when they are currently still enlisted.

TIL training somebody to shoot and to not shoot the gun accidentally prevents crime.

People don't even keep ammo in their house there. Any comparison to Switzerland and America in terms of gun ownership is uninformed and ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worse

I love that the two arguments here are:

1. But the population of Australia is so different! Its much smaller!

2. But Switzerland!

/facepalm

I facepalmed after reading your comment. You know, facepalming is very contagious here on Reddit, don't you? Now I need some facebalm.

I wonder were these myths come from, people aren't allowed to own ammo in Switzerland? Oh boy how can I argue when there's so much fake news.

You're right, i was mistaken on that front. The regulations on ammo are still very strict, especially compared to the us

So true. It's too bad they don't have mandatory gun safety training in the U.S. Could prevent a lot of deaths from stupid/ignorant/careless people. When I was in junior high school back in the day, we actually had a hunter/gun safety class and test they gave us, but I don't think they do that anymore. Now instead of teaching kids about respecting guns and gun safety, they teach them to fear guns and to call for more gun control. Anyway, that's my two cents.

Yes. That's the place! And it seems to be working for them.

Where violent crime plummeted?

Gun violence plummeted, not general violent crime.

Ironically, the US has increased it's manufacture of guns in the same time period, but gun violence is actually down.

Mass shooting gets lots of attention, for a reason.

I also find it funny that users such as yourself completely ignore any assertion that this might be a false flag. There reason for this is once you understand an event to be a false flag, you realize that gun ban is part of a larger program, one that not only lies to Americans in order to attempt to disarm them, but murders them as well.

Australia is a totally different place. Do they have huge amounts of gangs and drug violence? No. Even if they take people’s guns away the bad people who want them will still be able to get them. Hell a couple years ago you could straight up buy any illegal drug off of Reddit.

Is it were easy to buy drugs online... You wouldn't have violence on the street over gang turf or against arresting officers. People who don't fear they are going to serve hard time have little reason to react to authority with deadly force. Knowing that the fugitive isn't going to be in axiety fueled fight or flight will also reduce the cortisol responses of cops. Decriminalizing drugs is part of the solution no doubt to decreasing that kind of gun violence.

...We can’t buy assault weapons, not easily.

I love this argument. Do me a favor and compare the population of Australia to a population of states that equal it. You will find that based on population gun violence in Australia and those states are almost the same. You CANNOT compare 300+ million people to 24 million and expect it to be the same.

You can measure per capita sure, per capita our gun violence is not the most extreme. But you can also measure the rate of rise or fall and speculate about what causes more or less per capita.

Sure but the same argument comes up that gun control had worked in Australia. Gun violence was on the decline in Australia before the gun ban. They have no where near our population and they don't have bears or moose, the outrageous deer over population, etc. You cannot compare one country to another and pretend it is the same. Australia and The United States are completely different. What works for one wouldn't work for the other.

Holy paranoid Batman! People are sick of kids dying it's not some conspiracy to disarm everyone. Why are you so afraid of your own government?

Sometimes people's fear is irrational, and the dangers are exaggerated, like this article explains.

Like the irrational fear of one's own government, and irrational fear of having ALL your guns taken? As far as school shootings being rare, https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html 17 shootings in 12 weeks? doesn't sound rare to me!

Humans by nature are irrational. Eh, what're ya gonna do. Silly humans.

It's a false flag. Elements inside the government murdered children. Why would they do this?

why would you think that? any evidence?

How often do you come to this sub?

I'm not sure if you're being genuine... but if you are, oh boy... just search "parkland" in r/conspiracy and go through it... hopefully most of it still there.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster, but I am here nearly daily. I am being genuine, I have no idea why Americans are so afraid of their own government

you must be young.

do you understand what a false flag is? do you understand what most of us think happened on 9/11? i'd say that's a pretty damn good starting point.

You must watch the news.

You must watch the news.

Do your research. Follow the trails. There’s plenty of EVIDENCE out there of blatant corruption being perpetrated by the US government/those who hold power. People are frightened because the truth is being taken from them.

In what way am I not telling the truth?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

It's a false flag. Elements inside the government murdered children. Why would they do this?

Interesting. How far up in the Trump administration do you think it goes, and why?

It's not Trump... At least, in my opinion, it isn't "his" administration. It's a faction within our government: bureaucratic, unelected. It follows an anachronistic, neofuedal ideology (they believe themselves "superior") that wants to turn the enitire planet into what modern China is increasingly becoming the model for.

The vision has been expressed multiple times. Like here, for example: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/georgia-guidestones

You really think Trump and his people are that incompetent? I guess that's possible.

Yeah... you're missing the point. You're either stupid or a misinfo agent. If Trump was guilty of this he should be burned at the stake... except I have a feeling the reason you see such open idiocy and ignorance such as your own is that he isn't responsible for this and is actively fighting such actions..

actively fighting such actions

"Take guns first,and then go to court... I like taking the guns early...take the guns first go through due process second" -Donald Trump

"I think it's time that a president stepped up [on guns]" -Donald Trump

"As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns." -Donald Trump

"Stop it before it even starts...know who these people are, and get on them and get them the get them the services they need and deny them the right to buy any gun" -Marco Rubio to Trump

"You're afraid of the NRA" -Donald Trump

"When it comes to you talk about stop and frisk you're talking about taking guns away. Well I'm talking about taking guns away from gangs and people that use them, and I really don't think you disagree with me on this." -Donald Trump to Hilary Clinton

Pull your head out of your ass. He's literally bold faced rubbing it in what they're planning on doing to this country's gun rights, and millions lick it up like it's fine wine. They somehow got millions of conservatives to flip on gun control with a tweet and a couple "off the cuff" statements, (the ones that didn't flip are in complete denial) and that doesn't seem really fucking suspicious to you? Learn to see the writing on the wall. They're getting the demographic that owns the most guns on board with or apathetic towords gun control, so when the shit hits the fan there's no resistance.

So... What has he actually done?

Jeff Sessions is in the process of altering federal gun regulations to categorize bump stocks as "machine guns", as per the president's request. It took a few months, but the gun control measures from the Vegas shooting are finally catching up with us right when everyone had forgotten.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-moves-effectively-ban-bump-stocks/story?id=53973301

Plus, Trump even has Republicans pushing for age restrictions on gun purchases and abandoning planned expansions of concealed carry rights that were being postponed until after the Obama administration.

When it was Obama in charge, it was the all powerful NSA /FBI /CIA who were pulling strings. What's changed?

The deep state is real

Shouldn't they stop droning weddings if they don't like to see dead kids?

what does that have to do with gun control? please stay on topic

Dead kids are the topic, so whatever is killing them is relevant.

the topic was using school shootings as an excuse to take guns, but ok... if you say so.

Sounds like kids are being abused as well as murdered. Probably by adults acting out bad ideas on other people.

Woah a conspiracy theory sure where they talk all the time about a genocidial shadow government but then they also fear the government? Who woulda thunk!

It's almost like fear of a tyrannical federal government is explicitly written into the foundations of this country's founding documents!

Look at his post history. He definitely gets his direct deposits at midnight...

Lmao wut?

I think you're lost. Here, I'll help you get back to where you belong, just click this magic blue text: /r/politics

No. No it doesn't.

It does! Just look at Australia. They got rid of all their guns and people just invaded them like crazy. /s

You judge that with a few decades? History move in bigger cycles, the Aus population is indeed now vulnerable to any despot, like Mao said all power comes from a gun.

Not if you can pay the person with the gun. Then surely the power comes from money?

But how did you get that money, if not by hunting it with a gun?

Obviously, you took it from people who didn't have guns. Silly.

Not if you can steal the money with the gun. Then surely the power comes from guns?

Power comes from violence. Money talks, but guns talk louder.

What happens when the person with a gun shoots me and takes my money?

Or the atom.

Nah I would steal his money, who will stop me?

Bold move, disagreeing with reality.

How's that going for you?

Bold move, not knowing history, bet you were one of those "History class sucks! Who cares!" kids in school.

Slit your wrists and die stupid cunt

Crime has gone up since then, especially knife crimes

But their violent crime stats are still lower per capita than the US.

And always have been.

Fun fact: When Australia banned guns, the crime rate in the US dropped more than it did in Australia.

Well shit, we just need to get the rest of the world to ban their guns and we'll be golden.

Isn't that the case already? /s

I'm still trying to figure out what these assault rifles are going to do against a drone strike from a half mile away. These people are delusional.

If you think drone strikes are going to be used against Americans on our own soil, you're (a) delusional and (b) have no understanding of military loyalty (and to whom the American military is loyal).

Maybe you haven't noticed the militarization of police... You think they would care about using drones? Please.

Police aren't going to be using Hellfires and Predators. Ain't happening.

You are correct that police are becoming a domestic military. They will become the "standing army" that will serve as the implement of totalitarianism over the next few years.

Given that, why would you want to give up your best fighting chance? AR-15s are literally the best possible weapon we have, and it isn't anywhere near good enough! But at least it is something. Why would you give it up?

Maybe not strictly drones, but police in Dallas used a robot to deliver a bomb and kill the police-shooting suspect. And Christopher Dorner was killed by dropping a bomb on the cabin he was hiding in.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas

www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dorner-coroner-report-suicide-confirmed-20141003-story.html

No but the National Guard would.

The government would not hesitate to use drones or missile strikes on American citizens if they declare themselves to be in open rebellion like every 2nd amendment proponent says the guns are for. Originally, yes, the 2nd amendment was for protection from an oppressive government, however today the military would squish any uprising with ease without losing a man if they let loose with all the modern weapons they have stockpiled. If people think the government would face an uprising with soldiers in the streets getting non gun fights with citizens they are crazy. They’d rain hellfire on the strongholds of the “revolutionaries” so fast the rebellion would be over in a week

AR-15s aren't about creating strongholds and fighting a war. They're useless for that, and wouldn't be used for that.

If you're going to talk about the gun control debate you should probably know about guns. Your use of "assault rifle" exposes your limited knowledge on the topic.

Because I mentioned 1 type of weapon I have limited knowledged? K.

Yes. Assault rifles were initially regulated in '34 and then banned in '86. The AR-15 in NOT an assault rifle. The AR-15 in NOT an assault rifle. The AR-15 in NOT an assault rifle.

Again I was making a general statement about using assault weapons vs. drones. Where did I mention anything about AR-15s or anything else?

Drone has gotta land. Drone needs fuel. Drone needs weapons. Drone needs communication infrastructure. Semi-automatic weapons provide the means to target infrastructure, ground crews, logistics. In a stand up fight versus an army with drones vs one without, the drones win. In a fight against an insurgency that lives on your home soil, it's less clear.

I'm glad drones allowed us to wipe up Iraq and Afghanistan much faster than Vietnam and Korea /s

It doesn’t take a very deep look into US history to see three excellent examples of poorly armed armies taking on the largest militaries and winning.

1. Our own war of independence

2. The Vietnam War

3. Our war in Afghanistan.

The Taliban still controls most of Afghanistan.

My suspicion is, somebody up top has figured out that the economic systems of the US, EU, China and Russia are all on shaky ground. If it all pukes and dies at once (basically Great Depression 2.0) there'll be civil unrest and hence US guns are seen as a problem.

I agree to this. I asked my dad(gun control proponent) if he thought that if we get gun control "you think The Koch brother's body guards will have guns?" He said probably. So I asked him why if it fair for only rich people to have the protection of guns.

I 100% agree with you, HOWEVER that does not mean there are false flags killing children and pushing gun bans. There is so much money flowing into the government and politicians’ pockets from the gun lobbys and gun sales that it doesn’t make sense to stop selling them if the top 1% are solely profit driven as well all believe.

Looks like they're prepping the home front for a very unpopular war.

For a lot of people's sake, I really hope you are wrong.

Me too.

He's right

Does it matter? What can we do about it?

Well, Bolton has a hard on for Iran so i wouldn’t be surprised if thats our next stop

Why? Any domestic fighting between citizens and government would be seen as an opportunity for attack by outside forces.

I think wile.e meant like, the war would be overseas but very unpopular at home, and disarmament to make sure the populace stays docile.

Did the 2nd amendment prevent the Vietnam War or Iraq War?

No, but I think there is a (either manufactured or perceived) threat of direct action from a growing movement on the right.

Misguided assumption. An attack from an outside force is literally the only thing that could unite the country. That outside force would have no advantage, once the USA unites against them.

Unless they promise to help the under-supplied rebels. Then they'd be seen as a savior to some and an enemy to others.

You might be onto something. Who would it be with though?

Most obvious is a hard push into Syria, which will trigger a military response from Russia. Could escalate to a wider conflict. But regardless the "awake" domestic population will be livid, as they should be.

Honestly think with Bolton there that Iran is the next one.

Iran is a proxy with Russia too. Same shit.

Or unpopular policy changes. I hear the elite prefer China's methods of social control and want to implement them in the US. That shit will not fly. Perhaps the urban hipsters will go along with it, but luddite rural americans pretty much have nothing left to lose except their pride.

Where did you hear this? I'd likes one sources to look into if you don't mind

It coulda been Ben Fulford.

I thought it was going to be North Korea, but now it is looking more like Iran....

You're right. But sadly the majority of our citizens are not even paying any attention at all. And part of the ones who are won't even care until it's at their front door leaving the people who do care and are paying attention staring in shock at how things are going.

Everyone is so consumed by their job, if not 2 jobs to pay that mortgage.

Are they advocating taking guns? Or more restrictions to access to them? Either way, I going to make sure I get a AR this summer

You think there is a limit to what they want?

Yes.

Well that's how it's been in other western countries. Here in NZ pretty much anyone over 16 can get a basic gun licence that grants you access to most shotgun types, and any bolt/lever action rifles.

Handguns require a way more work and being part of a club, and anything semi auto requires more work again.

Then again our Police aren't armed either. They have guns in their cars but have to file a report if they take them out for any reason. As a result our police have shot like 20 people in 50 years, and only half of those are fatal. All of them are heavily investigated also. As a country we find this unacceptable still and push for greater regulation of police.

Meanwhile... in the USA...

https://youtu.be/wZE-EDGw2vo

Yeah it’s nice living in a low pop, homogeneous environment that isn’t pitting ethnic groups and cultures against each other in a hellish multicultural experiment eh?

I just think they want to be able to go to school without the fear of getting shot there. Y'know, they just wanna be like the kids in literally every single other 1st-world country.

Sure, the useful idiots want what they're told to want; whereas, there are no limits to what the players want.

If they want to avoid shootings, then they and their parents should stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans, who are front men for the players.

Do you really think the players, who want to disarm us, and who perpetrated 9/11, have no involvement in any shootings? Reeeally?

Buy early, buy often.

The US government has been practicing asymmetric warfare for 50 years, which means it has been preparing to take on the world's wealthiest and best armed population.

Now it is trying to provoke a fight.

Shit's about to get real.

We could have a few more years, but I don't see how it could be more than 10.

I notice in this sub shits always “about to get real” and then rarely ever does.

I agree, but at least this guy’s timescale is realistic. The US has been running on empty (and debt) for decades. That can only last for so long.

“About to get real” can mean “things have been building up for 10 days, something will happen tomorrow”. Or it can mean “things have been building up for decades, something will happen within the next one”

What do you mean running on empty?

You have three responses in this thread, but you provide no links and no verifiable facts. All you have done is express doubts and concerns about the content of those posting in good faith.

I see you.

I see your link talking about a global cabal because 911 happened, which has no evidence to speak of and just rants wildly. I see you.

shits always “about to get real” and then rarely ever does

True. They are much better than anyone could have known about keeping the economy limping along and getting everything they want with false flags and propaganda; however, it is very unlikely they will get everything they want without a fight, and in fact, I think that they think a fight is necessary to legitimize their power and make it permanent.

Their victory over the so-called right had been so complete, that they have had to breath just enough new life into them through their alt-right psyop, so that they will actually have someone to fight.

Who is they? Congress is unable to get anything done amongst themselves, the president is currently at war with the FBI, DOJ & half the political sphere in Washington. There's no cohesive single unit "they" to be seen.

Seriously?

They are whoever is exercising the power to perpetrate a total global mainstream cover up of an easily accessible, self-evident, and earth-shattering story like WTC 7.

Sure dude. When everything is a "psyop" or "false flag," there's really no point in debating because neither side is going to convince the other.

Everything? Lets startvwith WTC7

Lmao that article directly contradicts your views. So in that article it talks about people who are above the law like Hillary Clinton and how they control everything and will get her elected.

YET she lost and didn’t get elected, so “they” clearly can’t manipulate everything yet you insist that “they” are manipulating everything. Do you have reasoning skills? Use them and see how ridiculous your fear mongering is.

Lmao that article directly contradicts your views. So in that article it talks about people who are above the law like Hillary Clinton and how they control everything and will get her elected.

YET she lost and didn’t get elected, so “they” clearly can’t manipulate everything yet you insist that “they” are manipulating everything. Do you have reasoning skills? Use them and see how ridiculous your fear mongering is.

Trump works for the same people, and I have said that in several articles, so you have made two errors.

Lol “I see you”...

thanks for confirming to me I’m dealing with a mental case.

“I see you”... LMAO ok 👍

thanks for confirming to me I’m dealing with a mental case.

See what I mean?

I really don’t though so explain?

Rule 10

I’m confused after reading the rule. Didn’t he just say “I see you” implying that I’m a shill or something? So why post the rule under my comment?

I don't see how his comment called you a shill.

Ok so English isn’t my first language I deleted the comment in case it was offensive to anyone. But explain please what “I see you” is supposed to imply or mean?

You will have to ask the user that said it.

It’s your job to moderate, not mine.

I don't see an issue with what he said. If you don't understand what something meant, it is your job to expand your own understanding. It isn't a mod function to do that for you.

I asked you what he meant and you didn’t know so how are you helping me expand my own understanding when you yourself didn’t understand what he meant by it.

Lol who is “they”?

It NEVER does

It used to give me a lot of anxiety when I heard people say that stuff.

But then yeah not much ever happened, that none of us actually truly have the picture of what's going on, and that I'm just prone to anxiety lol

all it takes is once

Yes too bad most of our population is mind numbed and brain washed by liberal propaganda.

And conservative.

Yeah

Lmao the irony of your comment is too good.

Just like Obama was going to “ban mahhh guns” for 8 years right?

They primarily wanteded more guns b/c Obama was black, and the right wing propaganda machine sold them racial apocalypse fantasies

100% agree.

That shit is still happening. A friend of mine (vet and slightly alt-righty) was warning me about a "cell of wakandans" in our state that want to commit mayocide...this weekend.

Wow lmao to me it’s crazy these people don’t have the self awareness to see their behavior.

So...you assume that the military, in particular, the infantry, which is necessary for holding ground and is entirley comprised of blue collar type people will engage in a prolonged gurriela campaign against thier own friends and family at the request of some assholes in Washington DC?

If the federal government wanted to wage a campaing against the enitirety of the US population, it would need outsiders dedicated to subjugating the populace. Some good ole boy in the marines isn't going to march into his home town and start slamming bullets into people just because some DC elitist cuck tells him too.

Think about it.

If you ask Marines, as I have, they will tell you that if ordered to fire on a crowd of Americans that they knew contained just one handgun, 85% of them would do so, and that if the one guy fired at the Marines, then 98% of them would fire indiscriminately into the crowd if ordered to do so.

Ehh, I dont know.

It was pretty widely reported that infantry intentionally missed identified enemy combatants during actual foreign conflicts. If many were unwilling to shoot armed brown people in the jungle, I doubt they'd be too eager to shoot their own in the local park.

One possible explanation is the difference between the Marines and the Army.

I'm sure the military has implemented some kind of training or drill to lessen this...but its pretty hard to reprogram something that deeply rooted.

Most people genuinely dont want to take another human life, "other" or not.

Your government is already totally owned by the corporations and billionaires, it doesn’t work for you, it works against you.

Why hasn’t anyone done anything yet? Why does the wealthiest and best armed populations live under the worst government in the western world?

Why hasn’t anyone done anything yet? Why does the wealthiest and best armed populations live under the worst government in the western world?

What is your theory that answers why, and what do recommend that the people should do?

Sure, there is no unity, no smart tactical moves available, they control the media and the schools, they infiltrate and neutralize any grass roots movement, they manipulate the people into disliking and distrusting each other, the people trust the experts, the people still buy the Illusion Of Legitimacy ... I could go on, but ... what is your theory?

Weather. It's mostly the weather. And jobs.

For instance, Canada has a pretty nice system, but it's too damn cold.

California is miserably expensive and our politicians bend over backwards to fuck us, the politicians in California are literally at war with their own constituents.

But the weather is nice so I live here.

I’m happy you said “that they’ve been dishing out to the rest of the world for decades”

Because this is the truth

The rest of the world, with a few people exceptions, is a living hell. Conditions you can not comprehend. Serious suffering and pain 24/7 for most people. That is total insanity. Even public housing ghettos in the USA is extreme torture, and that is like heaven compared to most of the world

I cannot say for sure that when/if the guns in america are taken away, if any horrible event will take place. But..

I can say for sure that things will get worse on the same trajectory that we have currently been on

These current protests with these kids are definitely a bad thing. Something is really off about them and it is by far the hardest, most organized, most energized, most dedicated push for guns so far

It’s not like Americans are finding common ground on political issues, planning the safest, most efficient way forward, and using the vast amount of weapons in public hands to stage an assault on criminal corrupt institutions ..

So I’d say.. why do we even need our guns?

The answer is so that in the future we could possibly use them for the right reasons and in the right way.

Ugh. What the hell are we going to do?

How do we know what to do? For every point, there is a counterpoint. It's doublethink beyond 1984 in a much more subtle way. I guess keep searching for truth, when the truth is confirmed, scream it very loudly into people's faces

You sound like you really havent traveled much, if ever.

Most of the world is not a "living hell."

Yes, there are places that are. Yes there are some ghettos in America. But this is the ridiculous hyperbole of someone truly sheltered.

Are you kidding me? I’m definitly not sheltered, but I also havent traveled much. I’ve only been to New York , New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, canada and Mexico. I read ALOT though and watch the tons of documentaries and videos made by locals around the world. Plus living in NYC gives me constant contact with people from all over the earth who talk to me all the time

Not sure where you get your information or how your worldview was formulated, but most of the world is poor.

About 80% of all human beings live on less then $10 a day and about half of all human beings live on less then $2.50 a day.

This is a living hell. Most of the world lives is torture like conditions. That is fact.

Maybe we are talking about different things, can you explain your comment further?

Saying I’m sheltered does not erase the fact of massive widespread poverty on earth. Like I was saying, even in developed countries like the USA has a majority of people suffering with a low quality of life and a subpar standard of living. I mean, I thought this was public knowledge. Remember our economy being destroyed? Jobs shipped overseas? De industrialization? Massive opiate addiction and suicide? Hell on earth, in the worlds richest nation.. so what do you think is going on in the rest of the world?

Excluding the western nations, which we all know have their own misery and poverty and confusion and general economic/ social issues..
Excluding them.. the rest of the world is living mostly in hellscape realities and conditions so bad that they would be unlivable if not for the amazing adaptation qualities of the human body and mind.

How can you say that a person who makes these claims must be sheltered!? I’d argue the exact opposite. You must be sheltered if you think it’s mostly ok out there across those big blue bodies of water.

Explain!

As an American who spends most of their time living across those big blue bodies of water, let me assure you it's not what you think. I do not doubt that you've done your research, and I will admit that the world is rather shit as of late. However, I believe that the "western" style and standard of living has completely polluted your views. You may not be sheltered, but your privilege is showing. Your opinions seem rather steadfast for someone who's never left North/Central America.

Let me break it down with some numbers. You said that half of all humans live on less than $2.50 a day. That, in the United States, would buy what? A loaf of white bread and a bottle of water, maybe. Take that $2.50 over the big blue body to Morocco, where the current exchange rate is around $1 = 10 Moroccan dirhams, and it goes a lot farther. One kilo of oranges goes for around 5 dirham, sometimes 3 if you're in the right part of town. So that's around 50¢ for 2.2 pounds of oranges. That's a super specific example and cannot be extended to every corner of the world, but it contributes to my theory that $2.50 can go farther than you're mentally giving it credit for.

Life for so many people is shit. People die every day due to exposure to harsh conditions from lack of proper housing, from hunger, and from preventable so diseases because soap is a luxury that hasn't reached every country yet. However, to say that "most of the non-western world is living in hellscape realities", or that everyone living on less than you is living in "torture like conditions" is flatout ignorant and wrong. I highly suggest traveling to literally anywhere. You will find more similarities than differences, and perhaps you will expand your dangerously narrow-minded view of the world.

Things are bad, there's no denying that, but being "poor" does not equate to unhappiness or an insufferable quality of life. Often the two do overlap, but it depends greatly upon who's in question: the one living in poverty or the sheltered observer. What may be unbearable to you may simply be every day life for someone else. That does not make the life insufferable, it merely makes it insufferable to /You/.

So you've only been to 2 other countries and they were both in North America? I see.

I don’t understand how that’s relevant. Like huh?

Yeah I’ve only been to two other countries and they barely count because they were vacations and I was in tourist areas.

But your argument, if there is an argument somewhere in your vapid statement.

Let me make this easy for you.

Modern technology has advanced rapidly in recent history, culminating in the advent of the computerized cell phone and a thing called the “internet”. I know you will not believe this, and your mind may be damaged beyond repair by the internal explosion of impossibility being reality, but this internet apparatus allows the human being using it to be able to receive reliable information, including photo, video, personal accounts, historical facts and everything in between... even allowing the user to find out how people live in other places, how many people are in each economic class, what conditions are like in each class, and what those in the lower classes do to cope with conditions, how bad these conditions are ... and more!

It allows the user to find out about all of this.. WITHOUT THE HUMAN BEING HAVING TO EVEN PHYSICALLY TRAVEL TO THOSE FARAWAY LANDS..

Amazingly, an avid reader can easily have a much firmer, more comprehensive grasp of conditions on the ground in other nations, cities, towns, inside the minds of individual citizens .. then even a local of these nations, cities, towns could have. A resident of NYC can easily know less about NYC then someone who researches NYC thoroughly...

Mind blown?

TLDR— we all can tell how proud you are of traveling.. but no one gives a shit and no one is excited about it as you are. No one thinks you are cool for it. And no one thinks That is makes you the final authority on conditions in the third world or whatever places you have been too. It doesn’t matter where you’ve been, how many places you have been, and if you’ve been to more places then another person. this has no relevancy to if you have more reliable information on how most people live in the world. Just shut up lol

My rule of thumb is that if you haven't lived in a place for at least 40 days, don't talk about it.

I live in a 3rd world country and have a better quality of life than most people in America, can you believe that? Get out of your bubble and travel more.

What country do you live in?

I'm from Morocco.

I get what you're saying, but check this. 4 generations in one house means free child care and elder Care. The grandparents also operate some home business on the first floor. Mom dad and adult children work, so according to your 10 per day, that makes $30. That buys a lot of rice and veggies, and a little meat. They have a house which has been passed down. They can save for the future or expand their home business. A cheap motorbike to commute. And they're all pretty happy. Not a living hell by any means. I think the western standard of life is somewhat ridiculous. These folks are poor, but they are smart.

This was a good answer

Don't down vote this guy just cause you don't agree. He took time to type out his thoughts. Refute him, don't down vote.

Talking about me? People downvoting me? Or me downvoting someone else ?

People were downvoting you.

Oh lol. Yeah. I’m not too we’ll read on the whole down vote thing. I don’t get it and I never know it’s happening. It’s ok

Let em down vote

I'm American but I've traveled internationally enough to have a decent idea of what some of the wealthier countries of the world are like.

/u/praytoyourgods is perfectly correct. Much of the world is living hell. We have it real fucking good in America.

=]. I think the lack of awareness of the conditions of the third world is deliberate and needed by a large percentage of Americans. The wealthy know about it and have largely contributed to it, while simultaneously working to keep the middle class apathetic and lacking empathy for it.

People feel nothing for the suffering of others. It’s a shame.

Tbh the people living in those conditions are the best prepared for what’s been percolating in the melting pot for years now. They are living the life of our nightmares

Our apocalypse, economic collapse event is their everyday life and for that I not only applaud them for their perseverance but I also give them my approval of being first class soldiers in the war of suffering and poverty. I mean, American prison would be hell for us but it would be a hotel for most.

It’s amazing.

American lack of entertaining bad conditions has been shown in our rich militant labor history. We had some pretty bad conditions, as we still do, but these were the days when men were men, and there wasn’t so much technological distraction... and people organized and became violent in opposition to the top down delivery of a shit life and low pay. We had the means to make a difference..

To attain an 8 hour day.. To stop child labor.. To receive adequate health and dental benefits.. To a decent life-after-work and to retire at a reasonable age..

And our elders took these means and reached a temporary end.. There was a chance to do something and they did it..

That’s why I hate when people complain about protesters or say they are losers or unemployed.. shit, someone has to do it. If a chance presents itself and someone steps up, we should support them. Because if we don’t try, we are guaranteed to get the conditions that our bosses and owners feel we should have.. which are never nearly enough for a decent life.

Much work needs to be done.

You do realize these marches are pushing for gun control and not total gun elimination right? I don’t know why people seem to not understand that

You do realize that more gun control will only lead to more gun control when it doesn't work. Most shootings are done with pistols, so it only a matter of time until they go after semi automatic pistol. It's only a matter of time until the go after all guns. You are absolutely dumb and blind if you don't see that coming.

yes.

While this is a legitimate concern, this too is the slippery slope fallacy. There is no rule or no implication that some gun regulations will lead to more.

If you look at the early "free speech" Supreme Court decisions, you will see that the original restrictions of free speech were relaxed not extended.

Sure, but the problem here is that the gun laws being proposed will do absolutely nothing to curb either gun violence or mass shootings. So, obviously, when the next one happens, the call will be for more gun control (since the last rules didn't work).

The "slippery slope" argument is often fallacious, but it can be an accurate argument if the chain of events is logical and plausible (and if the chain isn't too long).

"something something logical fallacy"

checkmate nazi

You think there is a limit to what they want?

If you talk to people in their 60 or older, ask them about toll roads.

It always starts with "This toll will only be temporary until the bridge/tunnel/road is paid for, it will be gone in 10 years"

Guess what, 60 years later the tolls are still there and the prices have gone up!

This is the way government works. Even if they have the strictest regulations, they wont stop there. They will keep pushing for more and more regulation to take away the last line of defense against.

Remember, this country was founded on the fight against an oppressive British government. The reason the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment is because it is the 2nd most important right that needs to be protected.

Social Security started as an option. Then it became mandatory.

Cable was ad-free, until it wasn't. We PAY for those ads, gladly it seems.

Social security was a failed attempt at identification, really. Wasn't even social security's fault, it said "not to be used as identification" right on the card, and has the security equivalent of an air miles card.

Always look at the truth instead of what you’re being told. Ignore what they say just follow what actually happens as a result. Because that is the truth

Sometimes all three come together nicely. Google 'Mao Tse-Tung' for more edification.

Yeah no arguing on that one

The above comment is pure ideology -- the Koch brothers ideology to be exact.

This is the way government works.

In other words, any government regulation leads to total government control.

Just say it. Say it straight out and make sure everyone knows what you mean:

There should be no government or there will be too much government.

Also, the above comment is built on a common logical fallacy: the slippery slope. The slippery slope fallacy says that all these terrible things will happen if some specific thing happens.

How much regulation is too much?

I don't know how old you are but I have watched the slippery slope over and over and over again.

In my city, It took 3 attempts to remove regulation allowing the sale of hard liquor on Sundays because of old religious regulation. 3 attempts over the course of probably 20 years. A movement that started before I even moved here 10 years ago.

Answer this question for me: Why should the government decide what I can and can't buy or sell on a Sunday, an arbitrary day in construct we agree to call a "week"?

How much regulation is too much?

Something between no regulation and total regulation. Since you did not deny what I said, you have adopted the no regulation position. Just SAY IT. Say, "There should be no government or there will be too much government." Don't play games with us.

I don't know how old you are but

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.

I have watched the slippery slope over and over and over again.

Logical fallacy, personal knowledge bias.

In my city, It took 3 attempts ...

Logical fallacy. Straw man example. This is not a slippery slope. This is the same thing over and over.

Answer this question

Non sequitor, answering the general with the specific.

I don't know how old you are

Old enough to know that your entire comment was chock full of fallacies and a failure to address your ideology when confronted.

Something between no regulation and total regulation.

I can agree with that.

Not going to waste my time responding to the rest of your assumptions but I will just say this for anyone who comes across this post:

We do need regulation, no one wants to live in a lawless shit-hole country, we don't need over regulation which is where we are in general right now.

I don't want gangs roaming the streets, but I also don't want some assholes I never met, telling me I can't buy a TV on Sunday because of some stupid blue laws from 1850. As a society, we should start getting rid of old stupid laws before we even think about enacting new legislation.

How about let's legalize and tax marijuana nationwide? Can we start there?

What you are saying now is a bit different from what you said before. I was justified to confront what seemed like very big ideology. So, since, in reality, we both agree that there is a role for government, let's go on ...

we don't need over regulation which is where we are in general right now.

What we have seen lately with regulation and deregulation is increasing regulation upon the people, and decreasing regulation on large businesses and wealthy tax payers.

If we are to subscribe to a view that there is currently too much regulation as many have since Ronald Reagan, how do we make sure that regulations upon regular people are repealed as opposed to regulations on wealthy people?

Now since you are not straight up attacking me on assumptions and seem reasonable, sure, lets carry on.

See blue laws in Bergen County where I live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States#New_Jersey

People actually have to drive to another county to buy shit on Sundays, which makes it a pain in the ass, because all the fucking stores are packed on Saturdays.

I agree with you, we need to break up monopolies like the 6 media companies and other's like Comcast. We already have laws on the books for this. Like him or hate him, Trump blocked the Qualcomm Broadcom merger, and good.

These corporations have too much power. Google(Alphabet) should be broken up as far as I am concerned, way too much power.

....how do we make sure that regulations upon regular people are repealed as opposed to regulations on wealthy people?

Educate people, vote with our dollars, vote at the booth, resist propaganda.

Sadly, people are mostly stupid, and our forced education system is shit.

I'm surprised to find that blue laws still exist. That's not a good thing. I guess if you live in one of the few areas where they are, you cannot help but be aware. They should be challenged again.

break up monopolies like the 6 media companies

There used to be media regulation that came out of the New Deal. It remained fully intact until Ronald Reagan's deregulation agenda. Consolidation is the biggie, but a whole slew of other regulations were repealed and the harm to society from this has been immense.

Slippery slope works both ways.

Not just blue laws, but look at dry towns and counties across the USA.

I recently found out you can't buy a Tesla in NJ because we have a law that you have to buy a car from a middle man (dealership) and you can't buy direct from the manufacturer.

I don't want a Tesla but that is some grade A corruption right there.

Why are you opposed to repealing regulations on wealthy people? Most wealthy people are simply not a problem. Besides, if you're here posting on Reddit, it's a safe bet that you are part of the bourgeoisie that would be rounded up and shot in a proper Communist revolution, meaning YOU are one of the "wealthy."

(Hint: If you have a stable roof over your head and enough food, you're fucking wealthy.)

Jesus, this debate nerds think they're smart but really they're just using made up bullshit terminology and to avoid having to defend themselves.

You belong in /r/iamverysmart

It can become very offensive when someone tears apart a comment. It's not your comment I debunked, but you can take ownership of it if you like. The user who I replied to did not become offended. Rather, we wound up eventually agreeing upon a few things. :)

I don't know why this comment is so downvoted. It may be the best response I have seen in a while. We need more of these to identify which comments are worth discussing and which are just talking points.

Because his attempts to dismiss legit points included misidentifying three of the four claimed fallacies. He's an idiot who can read but is incapable of understanding.

Lots of reaction here, but no good counterclaims. Go ahead and take down my logic if you can. :)

The above comment is pure ideology -- the Koch brothers ideology to be exact.

I don't care if it's Karl Fucking Marx's ideology, if it's true I'll use it.

Also, the above comment is built on a common logical fallacy: the slippery slope. The slippery slope fallacy says that all these terrible things will happen if some specific thing happens.

Most totalitarian regimes have come into being very quickly. A matter of days or even hours. So you're right, there is no "slippery slope" but that is because the change to totalitarianism is usually more like falling off a cliff.

The slow erosion of civil liberties is just pushing you closer to the cliff. You never know how close you are until you fall, though, so anyone with a shred of sense resists every step.

Some of your comment makes good sense, but it is not because of ideology. What you did in part of your comment was analysis.

You did not need to start with ideology to say

Most totalitarian regimes have come into being very quickly [and] erosion of civil liberties is just pushing you closer to the cliff.

These ideas stand up by themselves.

In order to not be an anti-government ideologue, you might try explaining why this specific issue -- the gun issue -- represents a move toward totalitarianism of getting closer to that cliff.

An armed populace cannot be loaded into boxcars.

Banning guns does not move towards totalitarianism. Rather, the principle effect is to remove a barrier to totalitarianism.

Now it is possible to subjugate an armed population. The Russians did it in the Ukraine with the Holodomir. Whenever they found an angry armed farmer, they'd just surround the house, post a watch, wait till he ran out of food, and throw a grenade in the window. Bang. Done.

With that said, firearms remain the only known insurance against totalitarianism that humankind has ever come up with. Yes, we have democracy and free speech and all of these things, but at the end of the day, a change to totalitarianism suspends all of these.

A widely-armed working class maintains their ability to conduct political violence regardless of how totalitarian their government becomes.

A disarmed working class is helpless.

This assessment is just not accurate. A whole bunch of revolutions occurred in unarmed populations just in the past few years.

There are no unarmed populations. Japan and China come very close, but there are no unarmed populations anywhere in the world.

You live in fantasy land. I don't come here to counter Fake Comments. Don't waste our time.

We just saw a whole bunch of revolutions where the population did not use arms: in 2011 in the Arab Spring; in 2000 in Syria; in 1989 is the break up of the USSR, etc.

All were armed populations. Nothing close to American levels of civilian arms, and obviously most were illegally owned, but the fact remains.

I'm not at all living in fantasy land. You are the one not paying attention.

Anecdotal to be sure, but here in Atlanta hey killed off their toll bridge after it made enough money. Granted it seems to be rearing it’s ugly head again by way of an “express lane” but we have had a good run since they killed off the toll bridge.

Atlanta is the exception to the rule.

Yeah the first time I came across that "express lane" idea was when I was driving north on 95 through the Baltimore area. I was confused. I don't even remember if I went that way or not. Very strange and shitty IMHO.

Because most people who believe this are insecure guys who have fantasies about becoming some wasteland warrior, or saving a grocery store full of pregnant women from an angry black man.

Every day, legal gun owners DO stop violent crimes, but the press ignores it or puts it on the back page in small print. Stop being dumb.

You are like 200% more like to hurt yourself or a loved one that stop a crime with your gun

You are literal scum. Fuck outta here

Lol geez bro

Struck the truth, I see.

Rule 10

The only time my gun will be loaded and the safety will be off is when I am using it to stop a crime, it literally will either be used for that purpose or never used at all.

Thats cool, im glad you know you will never experience depression or anxiety in the future, or any life altering tragedy, or anyone else in your house for that matter

I'll remember to blame the gun when shooting myself.

Im glad I convinced you. Because it definitey would be because you had a gun in the house, guns are the 100% cause of shooting deaths

You're adorable.

guns are the 100% cause of shooting deaths

People who kill people are the cause of situations where people get murdered, a gun has never decided to end a life on it's own accord. I would be dead because I decided to kill myself, the method is entirely irrelevant.

Can people spit bullets at speeds high enough to kill someone? Ok then its the gun

Can a gun aim at a person and decide to be shot? Ok then it's the person. Stop removing personal accountability from the people who choose to make bad decisions that harm others and themselves. If you can think of a situation where you shot and killed your mother and couldn't find a good reason to blame yourself over the gun then this conversation is not going to go anywhere.

Lets let every have access to nuclear bombs then. After all a bomb never killed anyone, the person did

Ok. Let's ban all knives. After all, a person never used a knife to kill someone, the knife did it. Cars should be banned to, wouldn't have car related deaths without cars! /s

If you want to go with that deflection then ill bite. One person cant kill 17 people in a matter of minutes with a knife. Vehicular homocides in mass number are extremely hard to pull off these days, not impossible but extremely hard. And comparing accidental car related deaths to purposeful murder with a gun is laughable

And comparing accidental car related deaths to purposeful murder with a gun is laughable

You compared using a gun for personal defense to a nuclear bomb. You hardly don't get to decide what comparisons are laughable at this point.

Nope both of my comparisons have malicious intent by one individual, yours arent even related

both of my comparisons have malicious intent by one individual

So you might even say the root cause of the deaths of human beings in the situations you described may have been human malevolence rather than the killing capacity of an inanimate object. Interesting how you've all but outright agreed with me, while at the same time laughing at the fault of your own logic.

No the root of the problem is the excessive availability of a tool to be used to carry out malicious intent in mass numbers. Humans will always have malicious intent, thats not a solvable problem. Our choices wether to give malicious intent access to killing machines is a clear and present choice

Gonna have to agree to disagree, I started typing out a couple paragraphs of analysis as to the many different levels this type of reasoning is fallacious but I've decided it will be far more productive to let this go. I am simply not going to compromise with "I trust the government to protect us from ourselves because people are bad."

Well im glad you had so many points that would without question refute my argument but decided not to post them and instead posts that you didnt post them

You just keep on comparing using guns for protection to nuclear bombs and sleep comfortable knowing Big Bro has got your back.

And you sleep tight thinking your guns will stop an army with jet fighters, tanks, drones, and missles

Because the answer to fighting tyrannical overwhelming federal government power is... Disarming the masses! /s

You see, the thing about derogatory presumptive statements is that they are a lot more effective when they are actually sourced from your real opinion rather than a low-effort strawman.

So you believe that the firearms on the market today and the amount of people that own them are adequate to successfully defend against the united states army?

I did not in fact say that. Do you believe that if the fear of overwhelming military power from the government were a valid one it would be a good course of action to remove any means that an ordinary citizen has to defend themselves regardless of the odds?

Gun regulations arent removing any means, only certain means. And the answer is yes i would rather deal with the issues that are happening in reality than to deal with imaginary problem in a distopian future

As opposed to real problems in a non-fictional history of our nation that could be used to better inform our decisions today? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

This question has been asked a lot, and answered a lot in many ways, by people smarter than me. 1 2 3 Sources are cited within those, I didn't make a compendium or anything. I left out the Business Insider and Forbes articles on the same paper, because they cover the scenario of full US military might vs. one town.

The TL;DR of those is that if the full weight of the 2.2ish US military members, with no defectors, with nobody who cared about civilian casualties, decided to nuke and WMD and Agent Orange etc. America into oblivion, then they would obviously win. But taking Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples, the American armed populace would win otherwise.

Americas goal wasnt to take over those countries so those comparisons arent really equivalents. You are comparing a total kill and takeover to an occupy situation. Theres no such thing as "winning" an occupation such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These comparisons are really shoddy

If I understand you, you're saying that if the U.S. military, in its entirety, was bound and determined to kill and take over every person on U.S. soil, they would win. I agreed with you on that.

But the entire point of my second paragraph - and mentioned in many of these sources, which I'm surprised you read before replying in 30 seconds - is that the wholesale slaughter of 320 million people on 3.8 million square miles of land is an unlikely thing to happen, and in the event of an occupation where civilian casualties were something to be avoided, smaller and less armed nations have fought America and won.

I think the concept that occupations are technically unwinnable is a false one. Japan kind of springs to mind there, but I pulled up the Wikipedia list of occupations. If your overarching argument is that since an American militia would lose a full-civilian-casualty battle to the death, then there's no point in even preparing for a winnable occupation, I disagree with you on that, and I'm really pretty sure that such a thing would not happen, in any case.

Your definition if won is really skewed. Smaller and less armed nations have not "won" any wars against the US. The wars where the US did not accomplish its goal were due solely to the fact that the US abandoned its mission due to political or financial burdens. In no situation could the US have not overthrown the whole country if they chose to

I get that, and I get that the full-force full-murderous press of the US military could smoke the world to ashes, and no quantity of militia could stop that.

But again, one of my points is that the U.S. military is highly unlikely to do that, especially to its own citizens, especially without significant defection. And in the much more likely event that the U.S. military doesn't go full WMD, even smaller and less armed nations have put up incredible resistances. Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, again, are examples of places where the U.S. military attempted an occupation without nuking the place into the ground, and was rebuffed, though not without casualty, and could not be said to have won. I think the Newsweek article is an example of that.

So you consider the Vietcong, Alqeda (sp?), and isis to be victors of war?

Viet Cong: I can't boil it down to won and lost - the situation deserves more complex consideration - but objectively speaking, North Vietnam achieved their goals and won, and South Vietnam with U.S. support did not achieve their goals, and lost. (I think it's important to acknowledge here that "winning" doesn't mean "getting everything you want, perfectly, with no casualties at all".)1 2 3

Al Qaeda: Again, more complicated than "won" and "lost", considering that conflict is ongoing. But as far as achieving goals, and not failing to achieve goals, Al Qaeda came out poorly, but not really the loser. 1 2 Going off 2 here, AQI/ISI did sort of morph into Isis, though, as a previous satellite, so-

ISIS: Some people saw the Islamic State's split into JFS as evidence that they were losing in Syria, and there are absolutely hard casualties in Syria, and ISIS/ISIL? has been weakened. That said, the situation is tenser and more complex than I can put into one sentence, and having undergone casualties doesn't mean that their goals have been failed, nor that America's goals have been unmet. This, too, is ongoing, also considering the Philippines, Sinjar and Libya, so we don't have the benefit of looking back in history and declaring a winner. I would consider ISIL's short-term goals as seizing militia power, and in that respect, they're succeeding in many places, but you could argue either way. 1 2 3 4 I've left out American news sources on this one where ISIS wins the tech/social media war, because I don't think they're necessarily relevant here?

Just a disclaimer, i dont click on off app links.

But from your own argument, which i prefer responding to, you cant claim ant of the victors

Your disclaimer is that you won't look at any of my sources? Dude that's just lazy. The most awful thing in those is a Newsweek link. I'll... do my best to TL;DR some big, complex wars into a sentence for you.

Won, ongoing and achieved a lot of goals with heavy casualties, ongoing with some decisive victories and heavy casualties.

I just dont click on links posted in debate convos. Its just the IT in me i guess.

On the other hand, i would never outright reject the basis of your argument with my only reason being you have no source, ill take ur word for what u say

The IT in you? Are you joking? Copy the link and throw it into fucking virustotal.com or urlscan.io

Security 101

Id rather not go through all that trouble. Mobile doesnt give you the option to view the link before clicking it

You really screwed yourself with that one, Wormwood. Malicious intent by one individual, huh? He would have done it Whether it was the gun or the bomb huh? Sounds like it was this malicious individual to blame, not whatever weapon ends up getting his hands on.

See above

Cars are the cause of DUI's

You almost got me there and I was about to rebuttal then I realized this has to be satire. I'd love to see that try to hold up in court though - "I plead not guilty, it was the car and I was just along for the ride."

You’re actually retarded. Firearms are a right. None of your bullshit arguments matter and any attempt to keep Americans from owning ANY firearm is an infringement on our rights. No justification is necessary. No debate is necessary. Your “you’re not safe with da gunz” arguments are worthless. We don’t need them based on how we use them for hunting. None of it matters. It’s a right recognized in our constitution in a way that restricts government from taking our rights. That’s all.

Im afraid public opinion is changing on that

Doesn’t matter. It has to change enough to strike down an amendment and that won’t happen.

We'll see I guess. Nothing has stopped a progressive movement in the past, progress always wins

Stripping rights from human beings is the OPPOSITE OF PROGRESS 🤣

Some people disagree on what progress isIm sure slave owners didnt think the civil war was progress

Firearms ownership isn’t slavery 😂

Yeah cuz thats the point i was making, nice deflection... correction terrible deflection

That’s exactly the point you were making. It was the comparison you made. I refuted by reminding you that firearms ownership in no way resembles slavery so your argument is worthless.

It does resemble slavery in that there are two different sides of an issue that has already been defined in the constitution. One side considers freeing slaves an infringement on their rights to own slaves, and another considers it progress.

I can compare a tree and a flower without thinking one are the same

Enslaving am entire race and owning a firearm is very different. They don’t even compare.

Yes they do, in the sense of arguing amendments and infringements

No. Owning humans is obviously inherently wrong. Owning firearms isn’t. Bad people exist. That’s not a reason to disarm America.

Thats not the argument, lets move the goal posts back to their original spot. The two argument are comparable based on amendment and infringement repercussions

Nobody is asking for a ban, you guys dont seem to understand that

What’s the logical conclusion. Give me a line you guys won’t go past. Show us where you’ll stop.

(You can’t because every single step inches you closer to another law and it’s too tempting.)

I can definitely give you a line. We dont go past semi autos, ever

That’s the vast majority of firearms in the United States of America 🤣 it’s a de facto full ban.

Not at all. Im a gun owner myself, an avid hunter. Your options are

-bolt action rifles -pump shotguns -revolver pistols

A gun for every need. If you need a semi auto to defend your or to hunt you are both a bad shot and a bad sport

...and semi-autos. Because America. Fuck out of here. They’re all I own other than my long range firearms and they’re not going anywhere. Period.

Ok thats your choice. Im just here to present my side of it

Human rights are not democratic in nature. It doesn't matter if 95% of the population opposed gun rights, a right to self defense is still implicit and included with the right to life. This includes the use of whatever tools are necessary.

Then why arent you allowed to practice medicine on your family?

I can't answer that, because it is perfectly legal to practice medicine on your own family. In fact, it is legal to practice medicine on yourself.

There are some limits when it comes to drugs. So for example, antibiotics are OK, but state licensure boards would object strongly to prescribing pain pills to self or family. So it's not totally allowed per se, but in general doctors are allowed to practice medicine on their own family.

Although I'm not sure about your question. I'm a medical student, soon to be a doctor. Did you mean non-doctors?

Ok go prescribe yourself an antibiotic or perform a surgery. And yes non doctors

I am of the opinion that the restriction of medicine to doctor's prescription pad is a terrible infringement on the right to life (which includes a right to health care by implicit extension). I believe you should be allowed to seek out whatever medical treatment you desire and treat yourself if you wish.

Obviously you're a fool if you do without the assistance of a doctor, but you should be allowed to be a fool.

When your argument for your life choices is "I should be allowed to be a fool", then i think it highlights to problem our country is having

Liberty is like that.

Fucking well said, patriot. (Wow, I never thought I would say something almost akin to cultural brainwashing like that but it applies because we are defending the right to defend against tyranny and malevolence. It's good.)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty norSafety." - Benjamin Franklin

Thanks. We need to stop apologizing for the cost of liberty. Or at least, I do.

It says you can bare arms, it doesn't specify firearms. A sword or bow and arrows are arms too. It could be argued that only allowing you to own a little 10/22 and nothing else still qualifies as baring arms, in fact, the "well regulated" part of the amendment would suggest allowing restrictions.

🤣 sure. Doesn’t matter anyway. I’ve already bought enough stripped lowers so that it doesn’t matter if you guys ban them....and you’d still have to come get them either way. Also, CCW is a thing so anti-gun guys are surrounded by firearms anyway lol

It says you can bare arms, it doesn't specify firearms

It means whatever "arms" are needed to ensure the security of the "free State." Furthermore, these arms are allowed to whatever "We The People" folks are described everywhere else in the Constitution. So if "We The People" means you or me, guess what, we are explicitly allowed whatever "arms" are necessary to ensure security of a "free State."

"well regulated" part of the amendment would suggest allowing restrictions.

False. "Well regulated" means "working well." Like a "regulator" on a steam engine or other kind of motor.

Looks like you don't have a gun but have a car. Are you planning to use it to mow down people.

I have several guns

Water causes 100% of drownings.

BAN SWIMMING POOLS!

Arent you being missed on Facebook?

Aren't you being missed by your wife's boyfriend?

Nah we are all hanging out together today

how do you feel about the stat that over 50% of the murders are committed by 13% of the population?

You are 1000% more likely to hurt yourself with your car.

Thats why they are very well regulated

lol

One quick question: Are felons banned from owning cars?

Yes there are felonies that ban said person from operating a vehicle

In general, very nearly all felons are allowed to own and drive a car.

Is there any state that does not recognize a drivers' license from another state?

In general yes. But those felonies that involved cars no.

That 'stat' is phony, because they include suicides.

You are 100% likely to get raped by a rapist if you don't have a gun, but could have had time to shoot him. Why do you want single women living alone to be defenseless against bigger, stronger men?

So people who like to have a means of protection are insecure?

I guess relying on government for your safety is the epitome of secure then, correct?

No thats not what i said or think. Thats why we arent advocating for a gun ban, but better guns regulations.

Can you define the word "infringement" for me please

Infringement= an outdated phrase from an outdated document, often used by 2a'rs as a catch all in an attempt to derail any common sense gun reform

There is nothing "common sense" about gun laws that cannot be rationally expected to have the desired effect, nor have any evidence to support them.

Nothing could be less "common sense."

What is "common sense" about thinking any amount of firearms owned by civilians would be an adequate defense against the united states military?

There is no evidence to support that

Ever heard of Afghanistan or Vietnam?

You mean countries that arent America and have nowhere near the military strength? Yes i have

Countries that successfully held off the American military. At terrible cost, but successfully.

Those countries did not successfully hold off the American military 😂

America never wanted to "do away" with those country's or their government. That is the single reason they still exist

And America will not want to "do away" with America either.

Strawman. I wasn't talking about fighting the American military.

But to answer the question, there are two answers. The first answer is that it's a fuckload better than nothing. An AR15 is not a good match for pretty much anything in the military, but it is better than rocks!

The second answer is that the US armed forces swear first to defend the Constitution and many take that oath very seriously. A gun confiscation would never be performed with the full support of the US military. Gun confiscation would use domestic local and Federal police, and AR15s are more than enough to stop that.

We arent talking about "better or worse odds", we are talking about is it even a reality? No its not

It is, however, your only fighting chance. I, for one, think it is very stupid to give up your last fighting chance, especially willingly.

Sure, it's impossible. Who cares. It's a chance, and frankly your comment sounds to me like an argument for having access to better weapons than the AR-15.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are implying any amount of firearm ownership would give you any minuscule defense against your life being taken by the the government

My life is already lost as far as I'm concerned. What I care about is that the principles of liberty continue and that some of our children's children can still enjoy them.

So you would rather your childrens children have a "sense of liberty" than to not get murdered in a classroom?

None of the rules being proposed will touch the frequency or lethality of classroom killers.

Personally, faced with this situation in American schools, I'd do whatever it takes to just homeschool.

Yes they would. The banning of semi auto weapons would increase reload time which in itself would lower fatality rates

A bolt action rifle with a box magazine does not have an appreciable reload time.

Thats why large magazines need to be banned

Largest school shooting in US history did not use large magazines. Restricting magazine sizes does very little.

By the way, semiautos were invented in the late 1800s. Banning semiautos means banning guns more than 100 years old. Are you serious about that?

Now we are back to semis.

And yes to your second question

You do know that Cody Wilson is selling CNC machines to produce metal semiauto firearms receivers, right?

You can't ban something that people can just fabricate on their own. Metal printing and CNC machines have come to the point where this is realistic. Gun control is dead.

Sure you can, just like we ban alot of other things that people can make in a shack in their backyard. Those people will risk imprisonment

Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of previously law-abiding gun owners in New York who were turned into felons overnight when the SAFE Act banned assault weapons.

Less than 10 percent of gun owners turned in their assault weapons.

The rest are felons risking imprisonment. Based on this, it is quite clear that most gun owners are more than willing to risk imprisonment when it comes to gun ownership.

Thats fine imo

OK, so, gun control is dead.

If gun reform was truly "common sense " or "reasonable", you and people like you wouldn't need to deem it as such at every opportunity. You're playing word games to conceal further erosion of protected rights.

Since you believe the Constitution is outdated, surely you have no use for any of the protections afforded to you by the bill of rights, correct?

Do you know how many things that are now legal, that were in the past illegal that people had to fight for as common sense for years?

Women voting rights for example, the people who wanted things to stay the same didnt think that was common sense either. Your argument doesnt hold a thimble of water

God you’re an insightful twat, aren’t you? 🤦🏻‍♂️

You guys sure resort to name calling fairly quickly

This is an excellent example of the shill mentioned by OP

Thats the easy cop op, to think that people that disagree with you are shills. In reality my account is 5 years old, I posted on numerous politically unrelated subs and topics on a daily basis. Im an average american, we exist

Decidedly below average. But the beautiful thing is we don't even have to fight you. Either you will fail in your attempts to curtail freedom or you'll succeed and find out first hand how wrong you are.

Do you understand how to boil a frog? Put him in a pot of lukewarm water, and slowly turn up the heat.

This isn’t true unless you remove part of the frogs brain first.

I only harvest the pineal glands.

You act like there's a difference. Explain how any type of gun control has worked?

Totalitarian tiptoe.

you can't possibly believe that.

why is there no focus on the fbi or the sheriff for all of their fuckups in the parkland shooting?

"we need more laws!" with a total blind spot to the laws we already have but which weren't enforced, for one reason or another.

There is so little emphasis on enforcing the laws, or resolving the defects in our current law enforcement system that adding laws means we are expecting the same law enforcement agencies that cannot adequately enforce our current laws to enforce... wsit for it...more laws! I don't see why we have to make illegal activities more illegal. We need to fix this before we can think about what additional laws are really needed.

why is there no focus on the fbi or the sheriff for all of their fuckups in the parkland shooting?

After 9/11, nobody was fired for their failure to protect the American people.

There were, however, lots of promotions and pay raises.

You are right that these marches are not about gun elimination. However they are absolutely about removing guns from law abiding citizens en masse.

The movement is not inherently “anti-gun”. Neither leftist celebrities nor the children being posterized in the media are actually “anti-gun”.

Celebrities and politicians will have armed security. Those wealthy enough to pay for it will have armed security. Government buildings, luxury car dealerships, and jewelers will have armed security.

The movement that these people are supporting, is providing the foundation for an outcome they would presumably despise. An oligarchy, an aristocracy, deeper than that already functioning. A ruling class. The radical opponent to the brand of equality for which they claim to fight.

Cognitive dissonance at its absolute finest.

This is absolutely false information.

Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. No comprise.

Really?

https://i.redditmedia.com/9l5ffMhqErvkKOpsP3TYjXYnPr807l6pDdjVqb2XqkY.jpg?w=604&s=ba32d1c7146f6125d4645a19f42a2108

You do realize these marches are pushing for gun control and not total gun elimination right? I don’t know why people seem to not understand that

Baby steps...

Oh they know it, they understand it very well. They're purposely distorting what the movement is about to attack it.

Here is what you don't get that I also didn't get until today - but even knowing this, I honestly still stand beside more gun control and banning specific guns - but the reason it's so bad for them to ban guns like assault rifles is because THOSE are defense guns.

How are you gonna defend yourself against any military, terrorist, etc with a handgun? A handgun will for sure defend against a robber in most cases... but I think a lot of Americans are worried about something beyond just a robber.

What would you ban?

I personally don't see the need for guns like the ones used in the Parkland shooting to be legal, but at the same time I came to the realization today why people are against banning it and other guns from that category - it really is the ultimate defense weapon in the case of a major emergency of some sort. Not that there's more than a .001% chance of an emergency like that happening, but it is an American right to be able to have that comfort of knowing you can own that if you wanted to.

How are you going to stop a military drone or a tank with an assault rifle. I’m not for banning guns but the idea that we need them to defend ourselves from the military is essentially fanfic

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Oh yeah, one of the speakers at the march ACTUALLY SAID THEY WOULD.

They are pushing for an assault weapons ban, however they are all too young to realiz we had that federally with the Clinton AWB, after 10 years it was allowed to expire because it had to desired effect. The CDC and other organizations studied it and all agreed it had no effect or the opposite effect.

These kids have been raised in a controlled environment of fear, and those in charge of the indoctrination are trying to capitalize on it before the next election cycle.

They are dumb pawns in a game of control.

This new bill is a gun ban, look at it. Lever action rifles? It a gun ban disguised as an AR ban. Its horrifying if you go through it, I am working on that now and from what I see basically if the weapon wasn't originally designed in 1815 your out of luck.

Can you provide link please?

I want to read it. This is scary shit. But good luck to them trying to pry guns from the public.

Having trouble linking but its HR 5087 2018. Just google AR 15 ban 2018 its the first search.

Thanks. That is enough for me to find it. I should have just asked what HR it was.

The way I read it under the Grandfather clause, it is still illegal if someone else is in the home who has access to the gun doesn't own one. In other words if your wife only owns a pistol and you have an AR you're a felon still.

I don't understand this. I'll have to read the bill.

Grandfather means if you already have an AR15 before the bill you can keep it, but actually it says if anyone not grandfathered in the household ( wife or child who doesn't own an AR15) and they have access to the gun you are still violating the law.

That makes no fucking sense. So take AR15 away from family man, but not from lone crazy killer guy.

They want to take all guns because of a few crazy people. This is a defacto gun ban posing as an AR ban. Any modification on any gun is covered too. Barrel shrouds....barrel shrouds. WTF.

Thats not a gun ban, there are plenty of good guns that are not lever action for home defense

It's a gun ban. We are left with some guns, but I'm quite sure that these remaining guns will also be banned once the proposed ban doesn't work to stop mass shootings.

And you are basing that "quite sure" on what exactly?

No gun ban is ever "enough." I live in a very liberal state with extremely restrictive gun laws. It isn't enough, they are always pushing more gun control.

Here, we can demonstrate it right now: what gun ownership rules would you absolutely support, even if a mass shooter used it to kill a bunch of people?

I support the ownership of non semi auto guns and own many myself. They actually serve a purpose other than death

All of which must be removed from the population if we are to cut down on the rate of gun violence and school shootings.

What must be removed?

Your non-semi-auto firearms.

I dont agree and I think you are just saying that for the sake of your argument. If you know anything about non semi auto guns, you know there is a finite amount of people you would be able to kill with them at one time

Mass shootings have been successfully accomplished with a bolt action rifle. I know plenty about both semi-auto and non-semi-auto being a frequent user of both.

Yes it has happened, but very very few times and the number of deaths was significantly lower

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

If you check the data, semi auto weapons are the weapon of choice and when used the deaths are higher

Would you defend and protect the ownership of non-semi-auto weapons even when multiple school shooters use them?

Through legislation. If the majority of the country voter otherwise then I wouldnt be an idiot, I would abide by the law

Ah, see, that is the difference. You believe the law is supreme.

I believe human rights come before the law.

Let me ask you: If a law were passed banning Islam, would you abide by that law?

I mean I dont have any way to personally ban islam so i dont think it would require any actions on my behalf. But I would vote for people who would attempt to overturn that law. Even if my own religion was banned I wouldnt take up arms

Well, I suppose I'm not surprised. When you get right down to it, most people do willingly walk into the cattle cars when it comes to that.

Im just not going to die on every hill

What hill would you die on?

An attempt to end democracy, voting, representation, etc

And what tools will you use to assist you in protest if voting is suspended?

I dont know, im not a protest organizer. Not everyone is MLK, some of us have to be in he group standing beside him

Protip: Chairman Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." He knew a thing or two about resisting political oppression.

If you expect to be taken seriously in a country that suspends voting or representative governance, you'll need access to firearms.

I would never use a firearm in that way, its against my religion personally

Well, don't ask or expect anyone else to follow your religion nor your tenets of non violence.

The second amendment wasn't designed for home defense.

America isnt your home Commie?! Jk

Everything including lever action. Look at the damn list, it encompasses 90 % of the long guns sold on the market save pump action shotguns and bolt action. Plus the second amendment isn't about hone defense, this throws the actual concept of the second amendment right out the window. Try actually reading the bill, including making you a felon if someone else in the home isn't grandfathered in. In other words your AR15 is grandfathered but if your wife doesn't own one and has access to the gun....your a felon!!!!

I have read it and agree with everything in it including the things you pointed out

So you don't believe in the second amendment cool.

Nope, its outdated. Needs to be rewritten badly

How is resisting an authoritarian government out dated?

You will have to read the rest of the thread, i have argued this point down already

And lost badly.

Afraid not my man, have a good evening. Time for Stormy Daniels interview

You think I'm Republican? As with everything else you're laughably wrong. Trump is a prime example of why we need a second amendment.

No i made no such assumption

So what was the Stormy Daniels comment, a programming notification? At least have the balls to backup your bullshit.

I was letting you know i wasnt going to be debating anymore so i can watch it. Thats honestly all it was

So instead of , I need to go can't talk any more, you bring up Stormy Daniels, your eyes must be brown you're so full of shit.

Ha, what are you talking about? They just passed a new omnibus spending bill that gives an extra 70 billion to the already loaded military machine, and they passed a new law that allows police to get your data from tech companies much more easily.

All of these marches are just business as usual because the International bankers who control America's government and media know this is a decisive issue among Americans.

I just want to say to anyone out there who is dumb enough to think the government is going to take away guns: They are not.

This issue, like abortion, like immigration, like climate change, like racism , is just another red vs blue argument used to divide people into groups so that nobody holds anyone accountable in government. Americans now view government like a sports game, and support their team even at their own expense.

What they do not want us talking about is how we are in about 7 wars right now. Did you know that? Did you also know that the recently passed omnibus spending bill continues to erroneously support our path toward an impending Student loan crisis. What about the fact that we recently gave permanent tax cuts to the 1%, while getting rid of zero of the loopholes they exploit to siphon away wealth from our nations economy?

We have so many problems that need to be addressed before the shit hits the fan. But as long as our Military rules the world we are content to just kick the can down the road.

The number one thing that we are not supposed to talk about is economics. And when we do, we need to be contained within the multimillion-dollar-a-year online think-tank agenda by CATO and other Koch funded sites.

I guess the Petro-Dollar and our unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia would be a close second then.

It amuses the fuck out of me that someone can make statements like "our Military rules the world" and "bill that gives an extra 70 billion to the already loaded military machine, and they passed a new law that allows police to get your data from tech companies much more easily" and then say this:

"I just want to say to anyone out there who is dumb enough to think the government is going to take away guns: They are not."

Are you for real? Why the fuck do you think the military is getting beefed up? Why the fuck do you think the police are getting access to NSA-level electronic surveillance and profiling information? HELLO!!!

The United States isn't a fucking jungle man, come off your cowboy fantasy.

All a gun will do in a war with the Government is assure you'll be the first to die.

Last fighting chance. You want to give it up? Fine. Not me.

Lol I’m sure you’ll do great with your gun fighting against laser guided missiles, drones, jets, etc.

You’re so delusional it’s actually kind of sad. For 8 years people like you cried about Obama “taking mahhh guns” and here we are and you still have access to your guns.

You do realize they can’t rule over a pile of rubble? They wouldn’t use those kinds of tactics in mass.

Another angle everyone is missing is that most of the military are just regular people like you and me. I highly doubt that many would follow the orders by the higher ups to kill civilians.

So if you don’t think the military would follow orders then why are you even concerned about the military beefing up anyway? Nice contradiction.

I never said I was worried about the military beefing up. Just pointing out some obvious facts.

Yes you did, it’s literally your first sentence.

Could you please highlight which part you think is me saying that? Maybe I can clarify it and what I mean.

The best fighting instrument in the world remains the rifleman. Once something comes along that makes the infantry obsolete, only then will the 2nd Amendment be obsolete as well.

LOL you seriously believe that? Ok.

people won't rebel against the US for the same reason that ISIS will never gain a foothold. Terrorism (domestic and foreign) is rightfully criticized but will also be used to undermine any rebellion.... and no one wants to be labeled a terrorist.

Enough idiots are calling the NRA a terrorist organization that gun owners are going to get used to the label and stop caring.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hoooooooo.

You don't use the internet much do you? This is called an ad hominid attack. It's a quick way to discredit an argument by attacking the person making it. No one is seriously thinking that the NRA is a terrorist organization. If they were then no one would claim to be a part of them.

Been using the internet for more than 20 years. Shit, almost 25.

You call it an ad hominem attack. That's fine, but not so much when it is elected officials saying it on TV.

OF COURSE IT IS! Have you seen the rhetoric of our country recently? Topics change from week to week because of this common place bickering. One week we are literally warning about nuclear war and the next we are concerned about a prostitutes relationship with the president.

The only argument that hasn't been dropped by the curb during this school shooting debacle is that congress should talk about gun reform. Hell, even repealing Dickey Amendment would be enough to calm some people down, but they refuse. If you want to worry about "the government doing something wrong", look not at your own fears, but their actions.

You know, I live in a state that has extremely restrictive gun laws, far more than nearly every other state in the country.

It's hard for me to think the assholes in Congress are making a toothless ad hominem attack when I live in a state that already exemplifies their current goals for nationwide gun control.

The problem is that unless it is nationwide, states like yours are getting the shaft. We don't have strict border control between states, therefore it's easy to drive a few hours, get a gun, and bring it back home. Without making gun control the same across the board, local control is meaningless.

This has been debunked for years. There are many reasons for this but the biggest is that criminals don't get their guns from gun stores in the first place place.

Sigh... I care less about "criminals" and more about dumbasses.

I could counter that by your logic there is no reason they aren't carrying around rocket launchers... but I won't, because that claim is as asinine and off topic as your own.

I could counter that by your logic there is no reason they aren't carrying around rocket launchers... but I won't, because that claim is as asinine and off topic as your own.

Cheer up, if Congress passes a strong gun control act, folks will start buying guns from cartels instead of Cabela's, and they'll be carrying around rocket launchers.

Are you for real? Why the fuck do you think the military is getting beefed up?

The military gets beefed up every time a Republican is in office. To assume "to kill and enslave the local populace" is a ridiculous leap in logic.

To assume "to kill and enslave the local populace" is a ridiculous leap in logic.

Maybe, but to quell domestic unrest resulting from a generalized gun ban and subsequent confiscation? That's not a ridiculous leap.

That's going to have to start with the repeal of the 2nd, which really just is not going to happen. It requires a 3/4 vote in Congress or a 3/4 vote by the states.

Now way, no how.

There are plenty of laws across the country that blatantly contradict not only the 2nd Amendment, but also recent SCOTUS 2A rulings. These assholes are happy to break whatever laws and precedents they can get away with.

For example?

The Massachusetts EOPS handgun roster for one.

Our over-bloated military being exploited by war profiteers does not correlate to them beefing up our military to declare martial law.

You are creating a fictional straw man argument in order to support your position, which I am really not sure of.

All of the things I spoke about are actually happening, while you are telling me that I should be scared of something that "could" happen.

It really amuses the fuck out of me that rather than address any of the things that I said, you decide to double down on this boogyman bullshit. Do you really not see that someone has tricked you into thinking this way in order to sell you something? If I told you that tomorrow the government is going to ban hoarding water would you not run to the store and start loading up on H2O?

It is a sales trick bud. They got you where they want you. So paranoid of some imaginary idea that you cannot see the actual shit that is going down.

I told you all the bad shit going on in America, but your gun fetish prevents you from being even able to care.

I remember when they used military tanks to gas and then burn down a church after holding them at siege with no water, food, electricity, or sewage for almost 2 months.

Do you remember?

Nobody needs to trick me into believing anything. What amazes me is that you can see a bunch of the same shit going down, and then totally write off the need to potentially defend yourself against it.

That is not what I am saying. You totally have the right to defend yourself. And if Martial Law is ever declared you can bet I am going to have a weapon.

But what I am trying to tell you is that the possibility of that happening is slim. Meanwhile, as I type, all of the things I described in the OP are occurring. We are bombing people today. And kids in college are being given $50,000 loans in order to obtain a piece of paper that may or may not help them in life.

My point still remains. Gun Control is another Red vs Blue issue that is being used to distract Americans from actual shit that is happening.

MSNBC and CNN cover this 24/7 because it riles up democrats who buy into it. Meanwhile, FOX covers it from the republican side, and riles up republicans who are hardcore 2nd amendment supporters.

The conspiracy here is that the powers that be, want our politics to be simplified down like this. They want people to only care about one or two issues, as long as those one or two issues aren't US foreign policy, or economic inequality.

That is not what I am saying. You totally have the right to defend yourself. And if Martial Law is ever declared you can bet I am going to have a weapon.

Not if the current wave of graboids have any voice in it. Certainly not a gun effective enough to realistically protect yourself.

I think more people are aware of this everyday, but surely this is exactly what is going on. If this idea could be realized by another 10% of the population, we might be in position to actually challenge the status quo.

Yeah but even if you had a gun not much you can do against a tank or drone.

The Taliban seemed to do okay.. for like an embarrassingly long time.

What are you stupid the government let's them live. If the full force of the USA took on the Taliban they wouldn't last 1 week

Asymmetric warfare.

You don't fight tanks if you can't fight tanks.

Vietnamese farmers couldn't deal with napalm bombs, so they just feigned innocence and farmed during the day while they hid in holes with rifles and bayonets all night.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

In the long run America would of won but they the lost support.

I heard Soros had been paying for chimpanzee research managed by Seth Rich, which could effectively create a chimpanzee security force. Team building and gun operation were part of the research project until it went underground, Seth Rich made threats to expose it...and we all know the rest. My theory is that they plan on disarming the populous, so the military can feign an attempt to stop the chimpanzee attack, and the government can take away constitutional protections while the nation is “continually under immediate threat”. Lincoln’s suspension of Habeus corpus during the civil war and Japanese internment would serve as the precedent. It’s a scary prospect.

Not it really doesnt

To be fair, every other shooting seems to get framed here as a pretense to come and take away your guns, still hasn't happened yet though.

That said, as a Canadian without the luxury of having been raised into a culture in which your 2nd Amendmenet is so popular/essential/etc makes it hard for me to be convinced that this would necessarily be a bad thing.

I mean, sure, you guys are armed to prevent a corrupt government from doing bad things blah blah, but...

a) if there ever was a time in which you guys shuld be out there fighting the power, this is probably it

b) with your guns or not, they'd absolutely steamroll you. gg no re

(I personally think quite a few troops actually would obey the order to "supress" the populace, Kent State and whatnot, the few who didn't obey would be promptly shot/imprisoned/etc.nowhere near enough to cause a critical mass.)

CMV?

I keep hearing the "Military will waste you anyway, with drones and shit" argument. Without weighing in on the second amendment thing, I just want to point out that US military has been trying to "Waste" insurgencies in nine different countries with drones and shit for as long as some people have been alive. It hasn't been going well. How well do you think it would go here, where there is a risk of accidentally droning a rich white person? I doubt we'd even need our guns.

I doubt we'd even need our guns.

Only because we already have our guns.

Commonwealth countries exist because of American protection. Without the USA, how long would it take China to steamroll Australia? If Australian turned into a genocidal tyranny who would step in and save the Australian people?

Who keeps the US military in check? When Obama wanted to invade Syria who ultimately stopped him? For all of the shady proxy wars and war profiteering our government has done, the American people still don’t believe in empire and they don’t believe people should live in tyranny.

If The US government decided to annex Canada it wouldn’t be the Canadian citizens or the UN it would answer to, it would be American citizens. Our guns and our second amendment keep the largest military in the world in check. Because you can bomb the shit out of an armed population, you can starve an armed population, but you can’t control an armed population.

omg as if China would just immediately attack if America wasnt there..lol

You know they're not idiots, eh? they make more cash now than an invasion could ever justify.

wake up man, holy shit lol for someone on a consiracy board, that is some of the most mindless, in-need-of-shearing bullshit I have ever heard

jesus christ man

holy shit

lol

You asked to change your view. Your loss.

Heroin and cocaine are readily available, with the highest purity levels since it was legal 100 years ago. Passing laws does not stop people with cash from getting it. Same with guns. Ask any dope dealer for a gun, he will hook you up.

Ask any dope dealer for a gun, he will hook you up

what a ridiculous statement.

Hold the fuck up, not everyone selling you pot is going to know where you can get your hands on a firearm. Calm the fuck down.

Dope can mean heroin.

Pot? Why are you weed-heads so damn sensitive? Any child would know I'm talking about crack or smack dealers. Oh, and weed dealers.

I haven’t smoked weed since college. I’m angry that you generalize a bunch of people and throw them into one group with criminals of all types.

'Angry'...about a rando comment on the interwebs? Get out more, son..and put down the bong for good.

Whew, well you’re about as articulate as Cheech and Chong so I’m gonna go ahead and not continue this conversation.

Are you out of ideas? I'm not.

My theory...is Russians. I think since the cold war, maybe sooner, the KGB and CIA have been at war through technology and propaganda. What I think is the Russians are creating discourse in our country to divide us and conquer us in the endgame.

That's possible. But imo they just realized a lot of people were waking up to this so they blamed Russia to take the heat off themselves. And it's all gonna start with a war with Russia (and other world powers). They'll declare Marshall Law and we will be forced into he FEMA camps and from there they'll do whatever they're gonna do.

Thank God the American government is such a good and caring one there protect your rights from the baddie Russians

never said they were. don't be so black and white, it's gross.

https://thenarrowgateweb.com Willing to open your mind? I'm not saying it isn't the Russians, I'm just saying it might be a larger issue than Russia.

of course! I'm on this sub. My mind is always open for more information.

I like that attitude.

Have you seen this video? I think the conspiracy is grander than Russia but the infiltration if nations through the useful idiots is quite enlightening and makes it worth educating one self with this ex KGB interview https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4

you got your talking point wrong. It's "sewing discord," not "creating discourse" - which is quite opposite of the former.

IMO, both are occurring. Planned and orchestrated opposition is being spotlighted to create parameters for socially acceptable opinions. Meanwhile, events are being organized to solidify a specific political doctrine that is strongly branded as the “moral” or “humanitarian” choice.

Anyone who holds a different opinion can then easily be branded a heartless, racist, _____ist, without question or examination of facts surrounding an issue, personally held beliefs, or rationally established arguments.

We have already fallen terrifyingly deep into this rabbit hole.

Yeah now that I think about it, they are "creating discourse" as well! Good point.

You mean sowing as in sowing grains and not sewing as in sewing with a needle.

hahahahahahaha

just a theory...calm down...I get it...CNN says "Russian collusion" a million times so when I say something about it I'm just a CNN guy who falls for propaganda. The thing you fail to notice is that there's truth in a lot of media reports even CNN.

If the goal of the Russians is to create divisive discourse, then it's a reasonable hypothesis that CNN and Fox are RT subsidiaries at this point.

100% agreed. Makes me so uncomfortable at the fact that this is ALL that’s talked about now. I always said the days the government takes our guns is the day I would leave this country.

Just to look at this comment, what sorts of gun control has the government pushed? There has been some action by Florida, but you do see who's pushing it, right? Were the thousands of students marching on March 24th organized by the government? Total gun removal, that's some bullshit. But what's more bullshit is legal purchase of these firearms by people who are pretty distinctly mentally unstable.

They were organized by the DNC and paid for by Soros

What I want to know is who the fuck is paying for the free bus tickets? There are a shitload of people coming in for the protests taking free bus rides, who the fuck is paying for this?

I’ve kept my mouth shut on all threads of seen on gun control so maybe this is where I’ll talk lol, honestly I don’t know what any of this is going to do. Gun control, no control, sure- they want to ban AR, fine. But that isn’t going to stop mass shooting and high school shootings? People seem to think one gun is causing the problem. Anyone can shoot up a high school with a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle, Hell even a bow and arrow.

It comes down to the impossible matter of weeding out the sick before something happens. Of course people will go on to say well Australia has no shootings and England has no shootings, that’s fine. Maybe not. But America has one of the greatest populations in the world. It’s going to be a higher probability of this happening, also, we are just different here in America compared to everywhere else. Our music, our media, our schools, our people, our culture, mannerisms. I mean shit- we see it all the time here on Reddit Americans and Australians or whoever else going back and forth about countries and what’s wrong with them and what not.

When it comes down to it nothings going to change. AR where actually banned for a while in the states, shit still happened, shootings STILL happened. Kids in high school getting shot that are from middle class neighborhoods concerned about AR calling for a ban? How about all the poor kids in bad neighborhoods across America who are more prone to getting shot by a handgun or something while on the streets. Take all of the kids who have died on drive by shootings caused by handguns and compare it to the kids who have died in every high school shooting in America... the kids that are dying by handguns in the street will blow it out of the water tenfold.

The whole marches and the call for regulations and the everything is just a mess and confusing as hell right now, the funny thing is I don’t even know if the people marching know what they want. I’ve seen so many different signs people made saying different shit.

Columbine took place during the Assault Weapon Ban

My point exactly. This whole thing is beyond the scope of mental illness and bans, it’s just who you are as a single person and what kind of path you’ve been down and environment you’ve been exposed to.

David Hogg and his friends are far more likely to die from popping pills (that most of them have already tried) than they are from a bullet.

Unless, of course, they actually succeed in banning guns, in which case all of us will probably die from bullets, but that's beside the point.

Let’s start with enforcing the laws on the books. Such as in Chicago. Try and do a gun grab there and see what happens.

I am pretty much neutral on guns, I appreciate the idea of the 2nd amendment, but It wouldn't affect me directly because I don't own any guns.

That said, you know what bothers me about the whole "March for our lives thing", is that if people really wanted to save lives they would be marching for health care or education or something that would do a lot more to save lives and the safety of the population.

How many people die from Heart Disease and Cancer and Diabetes every day? It's got to be in the thousands in the U.S. alone. It sounds heartless but mass shootings are a small drop in the bucket in comparison.

If it was really about "saving our lives" then those are the things that need to be addressed to save the most lives. Why aren't people marching in the streets for healthcare and education reform? But something tells me it isn't really about saving lives.

There's always some type of ulterior motive behind propaganda campaigns like this.

This. David Hogg and his classmates are far, far more likely to die from popping grandma's pain pills than from a bullet.

I mean, I think some of his classmates already died from a bullet...

10 people die a week in Broward County from opiod addiction.

Holy fuck that's a lot of people.

It’s the opiate epicenter of the USA.

Yup its a huge issue and it is killing off very capable people that could be contributing to society. When a teenager in highschool gets addicted to opiates their brain is still developing and develops around the constant addition of Endorphin mimicing opiates which in turn shuts down the natural production of endorphins which is wjy it is so hard for them to get off and stay clean.

Absolutely. A very hard path at a very young age.

And some have already died from opiates.

You can't just supplant one cause for another as an argument. That's like saying "why would you waste your time in a soup kitchen in America when you could fight REAL poverty in Africa?"

Because there are different circumstances. Right now guns are a big issue and kids don't like being shot in school. So they're protesting that. There are plenty of times in the past year or two where healthcare has been the focus.

I get the whole "government is disarming us" thing, but not every protest against guns is big brother trying to neuter you. Some people genuinely don't like being shot in school.

Very few people are being shot in school, look at the statistics.

Kids have higher probability of dying from a bicycle accident than from a gun.

Saying "they are tired of getting shot in school" is no different than saying "I'm tired of constantly worrying about drunk drivers crashing into me and killing me" - Alcohol kills 90,000, firearms kill 60,000 40,000 of which are suicides.

Nobody is protesting to restrict alcohol.

Over 600,000 from heart disease, nobody is protesting about healthy eating and exercise.

These kids are pawns in a political game. 99% of them know nothing about guns, gun laws, or the 2nd amendment other than the propaganda they are being force fed.

If this many people truly care about saving lives, it seems odd to go after a cause of death that kills only a fraction of what the leading causes of death do.

The difference is that shootings are a malicious, intentional act. You could say drink driving can be classed as the same thing but the end goal isn't usually to kill people.

There exists a tool, very easily aquirable by unworthy and dangerous members of the population that lets them take lives as they please. Why shouldn't more checks and loopholes be closed to prevent that?

What's marching against heart disease going to do? Heart disease isn't a weapon that can kill kids in schools.

"Very easily" is debatable. Not saying that you fit into this category, but there's a noticeable lack of knowledge about current laws among people arguing for more control. Many current gun laws (outside age/background checks/ felony restrictions) defy common sense.

The only people who are impacted by these laws are the good people who are trying to obey them. People who want to get a gun and shoot people are going to find a way.

Heart disease isn't a means of self-defense either. A gun allows a person of smaller size/weight a increased chance of success in self-defense against an opponent who could easily overpower and do them harm.

There's also a big conversation about how cops are trigger happy and targeting certain segments of the population. It seems strange that people are alright with allowing on segment of the population (in uniform) the opportunity to be the only people with guns. Well, cops and the military under Trump.

You care most about what directly affects you. I bet you couldn't give less a shit about most issues, yet you are criticizing people getting involved in issues that directly affected them?

does it affect them? do most students know someone who was shot at school? do you?

I should also point out that school attendance is compulsory for people between 7 and 16 in ALL states with many other states having requirements for more years. It isn't like choosing to drive a motor vehicle or eat a certain diet, people must go to school. Their parents can choose to private or home school however, I would say the majority of American's do not have the means to do so due to work/survival/other obligations. So, public school is a mandatory thing for the majority.

So can we March against that?

You can if you want to but I wouldn't.

When you kill yourself with heart disease or opiates, it is a result of your own fucked choices. When you get shot to death, it is some other asshole's fucked choices.

School shooting are "OMG, the children!" + noise and flashes of light + large groups of people running in terror, + blood + lots of police cars with flashing lights,+ breathless 911 calls + "Why did he do it?" lone wolf outcast bullied kid etc. It is made-for-TV images all the way! Grandpa dying in a hospital bed does not make for good TV.

"Nobody is protesting to restrict alcohol."

Bad argument. There are tons of restrictions on alcohol (age restrictions, heavily taxed, media campaigns, etc.) and a lot of attention paid to preventing people from drunk driving. In my town they occasionally have roadblocks to check each and every car to make sure people aren't driving drunk.

I agree with your point about perspective and statistics, I'm just saying this part of your comment doesn't support your argument. Based on what you said, you probably don't want similar restrictions on guns that they have in place for alcohol.

Over 600,000 die from heart disease.

90,000 from alcohol.

60,000 from firearms - 2/3 of which are suicides.

These numbers are approximate.

18 children die from mass shootings per year on average.

Kids are more likely to die from a bicycle accident than firearms.

30,000 are from firearms*

only 10,000 are actual homicides

Im starting a march to ban bicycles.

Minor difference being that I choose to jump on a bicycle, not a bullet.

Um their school was shot up dude. What is this whataboutism? People have the right to focus on what issues they want that most directly affect them.

And odds of that school ever getting shot up again? Zero

The people whose friends died sure say that to themselves at night.

The irrationality of a child's mind does not reflect the reality of things

Wow so you expect this kids just go to school again like normal? For being on a conspiracy subreddit you certainly drink the government bullshit.

I'm not saying I'm against the marches for gun violence. I'm just saying where are the marches for health care, for drug deaths? Literally thousands of people die everyday in the US from heart disease, diabetes, and drug overdoses. But we don't hear a word about it.

Are you saying that school shooting victims are more important than people who die because they couldn't afford medical treatment? Why is gun violence treated as more important?

Here's a bunch of events, since your asking where the "march" is. Some are Canadian because I'm Canadian.

http://cibcrunforthecure.supportcbcf.com/site/PageServer?pagename=2017_home

http://www.terryfox.org/run/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Giving/ForCompanies/FundraisingEvents/Fundraising-Events_UCM_303638_SubHomePage.jsp

In Canada we have the Terry Fox Run, Run for the Cure, all the Heart events like Jump rope for heart. These are done in schools all over the place. So when you ask for marches, it's disingenuous because so much is being done at the government level for those issues.

It's not necessarily more important or less important. Humans focus on issues that immediately are affecting them. If humans were emotionless automatons then maybe your argument would hold, but it doesn't.

I'm not sure if you're just trying to deflect from the issues or not. Your questions are obviously "traps" in order to get an "aha! I've got you! You don't think they are as important!"

But health issues are something that are effecting everyone. I've had family members die from heart disease and drugs. The "save our lives" march was the largest political march in the US history.

But it's not proportionate to what is effecting people in the country the most. Over a million people die from disease and drugs in the US every year.

So why wouldn't marches for healthcare outnumber the "save our lives" march when the majority of the population has been effected by it by a huge margin?

The "save our lives" campaign is amplified by the news, the same media that is responsible for glorifying mass murderers in the first place and aggravating the problem.

Humans are emotional?? Who knew? Your government isn't doing shit because your country elected republicans who believe in free market healthcare.

Yeah believe me i'm not a fan of republicans. But our shitty healthcare system also ends lives early because people don't get the proper care that they need due to corporate greed. If we had a non-corrupt health care system it would probably save thousands of lives because people could get regular checkups and not neglect going to the doctor until they're literally dying.

We already have that in Canada.

Trudeau is cancer.

That said, you know what bothers me about the whole "March for our lives" thing, is that if people really wanted to save lives they would be marching for health care or education or something that would do a lot more to save lives and the safety of the population.

How many people die from Heart Disease and Cancer and Diabetes every day? It's got to be in the thousands in the U.S. alone. It sounds heartless but mass shootings are a small drop in the bucket in comparison.

It's reactionary human behavior. People are more terrified of painful/scary perceived threats than the mundane but statistical more likely deadly ones. Like you said, millions of people in this country have a great chance of dying as a result of coronary disease, yet there is no united front/ongoing discussions to prevent it. However, if it came out that 20,000 Americans die from shark attacks last year (less than .01 of the US population), there would be outcry, petitions, discussions may be even marches to fix this scary threat.

It's the same with terrorist attacks. Most of us are absolutely terrified of falling victim to a violent terrorist attack and will do whatever it takes to prevent it, never mind you have a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver, malpractice, or a family member.

Correct.

Here in the USA, we look at guys like Saddam Hussein and we see a homicidal maniac. But imagine if you lived in Iraq and your son had been blown up by a bomb because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time? You'd vote for the biggest baddest person you could. And that's why Saddam cultivated a reputation of being a maniac - it's what his constituents were looking for. When you live in a country where people get blown up routinely, you tend to give things like electricity and running water a low priority.

nasty shit like what?

Like mass surveillance of the public? Like the ability of the government to seize assets arbitrarily? Or even kill citizens without trial? Like a for-profit justice system from police precincts to penitentiaries? Like mass attempts from government to undercut and skirt democracy by limiting voting rights, redrawing districts? Like foreign governments interfering in elections? Like military fetishization that justifies perpetual spending, invasions, dead foreigners and american soldiers? Like spreading propaganda that perpetuates mass income inequality and neuters the public from being able to think critically and challenge the government?

Wait a second..... all this is already happening and has been for decades. What good is an armed populace as a buffer against tyranny if tyranny has already flourished despite the armed populace?

There is no tyrannical government revolution coming. There is only a gradual strangling. And that strangling often comes with popular ignorance, or popular approval out of fear, or desperation, or desire for wealth. Guns don't help against slow tyranny. If you want to protect what liberty remains, guns are not the answer.

The end isn't near, it's already here. We're all frogs in a slow boiling pot.

I think there is hope for social change. But that social change won't come from perpetuating stale arguments about guns and empty warnings about being on guard against some vague government conspiracy. Grassroots organization around values that we proclaim to care about (impartial justice, adequate prosperity, relative peace and security, equality of opportunity, self-determination, democracy) is where I see hope. Spill your own pot.

We're all frogs in a slow boiling pot.

a Fukushima radioactive boiling pot indeed.

Absolutely agree. If we, especially the questioning type of folks that hang out here, start accepting that the dystopian society is here, we will be better able to focus on how to respond. Come on, folks. They've poisoned our water, our food, our shots, our medicine. Brave New World is this world.

I wouldn't go as far to say that water, food, shots, and meds have been poisoned. Empirical evidence for this just doesn't pan out, but if these things were to ever occur guns would be our only recourse against a government or group that is committing these mentioned travesties.

Flouride is a poison. Cancer is on the rise. I won't even get into the vaccine issue, there's too much to say and I've run my mouth on the internet a lot today, haha. Oh and I do agree about the guns, I definitely don't agree with the original comment you replied to here. Just the idea that yes, dystopia is happening now.

I'm a skeptic when it comes to most of the first part of your reply. Like I said, there just any evidence to support your claims, other than cancer rates which is a point I will concede because there is ample evidence to support it. However there is little to no proof aside from flawed studies that could be counted on one hand to support problems with vaccines or fluoride. Either way, I'm not likely gonna change anyone's opinion on that, I'm just not that articulate or intelligent, but I do encourage anyone with the time or inclination do plenty of research on such topics, because I feel some of these issues are being used as a way to discredit conspiracy theorists as a whole.

Vaccines are the topic that I myself have done the most research on. I know it's a hot-button topic, and everyone has an opinion. So my favorite thing to share nowadays is this article by Slate. Because mainstream media is so, very very reticent to touch this issue, this investigative report is a rare gem. What seems to have happened is, once Slate got deeper into the rabbit hole, they could no longer ignore what was glaring them in the face. The team behind this article may very well have gone into it trying to prove the safety of Gardasil (that was a rumor I heard, that sounds pretty legit to me). I would encourage you to read this in it's entirety -- it's pretty damning. Since you mentioned flawed studies, you will find if you read this article that the problem is, the actual safety research being done on new vaccines is insanely flawed. Intentionally flawed. Set up so that any negative reactions reported by test subjects during safety trials are just flushed away. At the discretion of researchers with an agenda, serious adverse reactions are filtered out. There is nothing unusual here. The pharmaceutical companies have a strangle hold on these studies. Millions are riding on the results, which must fall in their favor. Anyway, I've TLDR'd it enough; if you read it, you'll know more than most about the modern vaccine industry. https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them 1 Thessalonians 5:3

Going that route, the end has been here for years. Isaiah 17. Damascus has already fallen.

genocide. they're planning genocide.

what?

Consent Coefficients - numerical feedback indicating victory status. Psychological basis: When the government is able to collect tax and seize private property without just compensation, it is an indication that the public is ripe for surrender and is consenting to enslavement and legal encroachment. A good and easily quantified indicator of harvest time is the number of public citizens who pay income tax despite an obvious lack of reciprocal or honest service from the government.

http://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html

You're not totally wrong, but imagine what they can/will do when they don't have to pretend that they aren't doing it anymore.

Things that would make people want to use their guns...

Well I'll be keeping mine all the same.

of course... and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. But don't pretend like its for reasons of government tyranny.

I don't need any reason whatsoever. I am a free individual made in the image of God - a member of the only species that is conscious and capable of critical thought. I can do whatever I want with my body, my time, my money, and my property. And I do not need permission from anyone, ever.

Only conscious species capable of critical thought? Really?

By every possible definition.

remember after the boston bombing when the authorities drove around in military vehicles, pointing guns at citizens in their own neighborhoods - and no one shot back?

reddit server farm remembers...

It's happening at a greater frequency.

Its worse than that. Tyranny is actively supported by the people who want to keep their guns. They don't care if you have guns. Giving up all your other rights to save that one is the big con.

I was thinking this. Who gives a fuck if you’ve got your guns to take on the authoritarians when you lay down for the most blatantly authoritarian politician in the last hundred years?

And Nazi Germany expanded gun ownership prior to cracking down.

By taking guns away from Jews?

Concurrent with.

Nobody seems to grasp this - they not only want armed citizens, they NEED them! A big part of Nazi rule and population dominance (besides the police forces) was the citizens telling on, hating on, and violently rejecting Jews and people deemed un-german, in many ways through armed violence. When Germany was invaded, german citizens resisted.

As long as the armed fellas share the force in power's political views - aren't they just soldiers?

Name ONE thing trump has actually done that is authoritarian. Not mean tweets. Actual policy.

Great post.

The anti-federalists need to come back

It can always get worse

And none of that has been sufficient to cause a violent revolution, and now they are pre-empting a violent revolution. I don't know what is bad enough to trigger a violent revolution, but it's gotta be something pretty frickin' bad.

Nasty shit like what?

I am thinking forced vaccinations. They will release a super flu and force everyone to take the vaccine which will kill more people than the flu itself. This will be forced on the people at gun point and without the 2nd Amendment resistance will be futile. Those the vaccine does not kill outright will be left functionally retarded.

The thing is, they don't need to take guns away to achieve that. All it would take would be to put a media blanket on the vaccine deaths and make vaccination a condition for being employed. Most people would want to maintain their debt maintenance and not lose their house and shiny toys, so they would comply. Those that didn't would no longer be a problem because they would have no money.

In fact, that would be far far easier to do that screwing with the 2nd Amendment because you wouldn't even have to step on the constitution to do it.

wtf?? thats bullshit. it stops them from directly doing anything. get the fuck out of here with that lie and take your politics friends with you

There's a quote I want to paraphrase. It goes something like this: "those who don't challenge their own beliefs will hold beliefs that can't withstand challenges."

If you challenge your own beliefs you will live a richer life, one that is worthy of a person such as yourself.

so smart bud. everyone clap for him

Just trying to be helpful. Make of it what you will.

Every point you made OP was, to me, what the entirety of Obama's Presidency.

I agree liberals want to take as many gun rights away as possible. But!!! , there are 300,000,000 guns in the publics hands right now. Don't panic yet.

Martial Law, people... I’ve been saying it for a while now. In the next decade or so, shit is going down.

My understanding is that Marital Law is part of NWO taking effect, people were claiming years back that their mailboxes were being color coded with a tiny dot sticker identifying what “list” they are on.

"their mailboxes were being color coded with a tiny dot sticker identifying what “list” they are on"

HAHA That comment made me smile. I remember that one.

Governments disarm the public before they become dictatorial.

I believe shootings will continue until there is so much public outcry that guns are banned.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Whether you're a fan of guns or not, you should be very concerned about them putting this much effort into disarming the public. It means they plan to start dong some really nasty shit on U.S. soil really soon.

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

They better not "dong" me.

As appealing as this argument is, I promise you, no matter what the public has, we’re at a point in history where the military can always triumph us no matter what. So having guns isn’t gonna help much if there was a government invasion. Gun control is just a response to crazy people and politics and media... just like anything else from the 20s-90s :P

It doesn’t take a very deep look into US history to see three excellent examples of poorly armed armies taking on the largest militaries and winning.

1. Our own war of independence

2. The Vietnam War

3. Our current war in Afghanistan.

He lost me when he said staging shootings...

Here is the thing, I personally know people who own lots of guns. There are as many guns as people in this country. They will never disarm everyone and its silly to think so.

I don't think they even can, legally. The worst gun ban there was was the one Clinton signed in 1992 or whenever it was, and even that one grandfathered in existing weapons and was mostly gotten around by making small cosmetic changes like taking away the pistol grip and putting a hole in the stock of your AK-47.

That's what makes me think there is no hope for America, that we're just pitted against each other to argue these useless points and nobody is capable of critically thinking about what they are saying.

With us it's either "Muh guns!!!!11!!!11one!!" OR "OMG HIGH-POWERED ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!11!!!11one!!" and that's about it. Nobody is even trying to reach a compromise.

They are weaponizing their false-flags. We knew this was their goal but it is very disturbing. Going off comments I’ve seen on places like dailymail people aren’t buying it. Dailymail runs more conservative but it’s nice seeing thousands of upvotes on comments preaching common sense there.

Fuck off

Based on what? Has this happened to any other country that has cracked down on arms? Australia, Japan, UK, Norway?

If global warming is the "thing" that's coming, then there is no precedent for that

Or maybe it’s aliens? Who knows! Could be anything! That’s not a convincing argument.

Didnt Von Braun warn that the next great false flag/enemy of the populace would come from space?

Because no ones ever dug up millions of tons of carbon and poured it into the air before.

I'm talking about chemtrails, not the "establishment" global warming BS.

Am norway, we will ban more guns types within the next 3 years, yet to meet a person who cares, everything is still the same after ever weapon ban over here

Exactly

This post is just fear mongering

Strangely enough the us has the most well armed populace, and the most sold out government totally owned by corporations. Seems like no one wants to do anything

It's sheeps with guns to those in power - a non-threat. They don't care about arming or disarming, they know we'll never use those weapons for overthrowing them anyway.

So because something hasn't happened somewhere means it cant happen somewhere else? That is not sound logic.

It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, it means there’s no logical reason to believe it will happen

Yup. Billionares who rigged the game are scared to death of an armed population who could reset the system. This is the billionarea big push for disarmament so only their security guards have guns.

We know who the billionares are dont we, j00s

Dude really...?

Downvote me shills take away my epic internet points. Lets have a war

What did i miss its removed?

You didnt miss anything, the removed post was just childishly hateful

Lol what

Billionaires don't give a fuck about red necks having an AR15.

you clearly don't understand how asymmetric warfare works.

a homegrown insurgency that looks and talks like them. Fallujah was only 'barely handled' because Iraqis are about as foreign as can be to 18 year old US soldiers. So there could be a bit of detachment when rounding up military age males and putting a black bag on their head.

Can you imagine what would happen to morale if during a search and seizure operation everybody was going "Aw c'mon man, don't tase me bro!", or they looked like your uncle Billy?

Has it occurred to you that the USA is the most armed country on earth, and despite that you have a government totally owned by corporations?

None of your politicians work for you, they work for the billionaires, so where is the revolution?

Did it occur to you the country is only 240 years old?

Those in power have learned how to slowly consolidate their power while placating the masses to prevent revolution.

You’re failing to consider the power of the “Two Party System” that has evolved here in the US. There’s no law creating a two party system, there have been and are many other parties, but with only two legitimate choices the people are kept down in their partisan trenches, fed a narrative of black and white, pre selected “wedge” issues, by a media that is run by the same Elites that own the politicians. This leaves voters spending their political energy defending their positions on things like Abortion, Immigration, Gun Control, etc...these are the issues that also happen to fall right along party lines, and have been consistently used to keep the voters locked into their "superior position” on one or more of those wedge issues.

Any actual opposition is either jointly and roundly condemned or completely ignored by any major media outlet. Even a rather tame example of opposition in Bernie Sanders was virtually ignored by the US media, The media acted in lock step with Clinton’s agenda, and helped keep Bernie and his movement bottled up.

Anyway...TLDR...the two party system and a corporate/state media keep Americans locked in partisan bickering while the rug is slowly pull rout from under them.

Shit has already gotten real. This country internally has fought two wars for freedom and civil rights roughly 100 years apart from each other at this point we are way over due for another one. We’ve been set up to fail as a country, it’s only a matter of time.

What effort towards disarming the public?

Whether you believe Sandy Hook etc. was a hoax or a false flag or legit, there has not been and clearly will never be effort to disarm the public.

Definitely wary on things. This crap makes me nervous, and sheep just eat it right up and go along with it.

I can't quote who said this, but a top Russian politician said that no one would ever invade or go to war on USA soil as they would be blown to pieces by residents with guns. That in itself speaks a million words to me.

Sorry to tell you, but there already is some nasty shit on U.S. soil. It's called school shootings. Do you really think it could get much worse than this?

Also, even if the rest of the world has been getting "dished on" (which they aren't), there is a large body of water separating us and our customs are beyond extensive.

This implies the US Government is scared about the general populace owning guns, because they fear that said populace would be a threat to the US Military. I find it very difficult to believe it is true.

Because ordering military to detain a defenseless American citizen is very different from ordering them to do so to an armed citizen - meaning the military would have to start slaughtering American citizens - which the vast majority wouldn't do.

Go away.

Dont know here in Canada, I dont any people personally owning a gun for self defense and its quite peaceful.

Almost every disarment in history was followed by the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives.

What disarmaments?

Never forget the Australian governments massacre of millions of its own defenseless Citizens.

Really we should at least stop giving people in school or just out of school guns. Its a seriously stressful environment, with no outlets like drugs or being able to quit, like work.

Leave it until 21 when most kids are out of highschool/mostly done university.

Soldiers can carry at 18. So we can send them off to die in another country and carry a gun , but not here?

We could raise military age to 21. It would prevent predatory recruiting practices

Too old to easily manipulate by then. They want them younger if possible.

doubleplusgood then, we can prevent school shootings and mentally broken soldiers

That’s because everyone who supposedly gives a damn is waiting for MI (?) to save the world from people who FUCKING RAPED ME A FILMED IT WHEN I WAS A CHILD = to do it for them ! ? Now it’s evasion of privacy issues ? Before it may have been sept 11? Before that is was the NWO ? Before that it may have been the Foundations When are you people going to act like they do in South America and blankety blank the +++turds ? ?

The “they” you’re talking about that is so nefarious is a grass root movement of shooting victims and citizens fed up of living in constant fear of gun violence

Do you live in constant fear of gun violence? Because I don’t.

I’ve been an American my entire life and literally the ONLY time I’ve ever been worried about gun violence is when I’m in a bad area with lots of criminal activity.

I’ve never known a single person who has been shot or attacked with a gun.

I think you’re reaching and I think you just wanna take my rights away and tell me how to live my life because you didn’t have a strong father in your life.

If you've been shocked at the abuses of the last 40 years, just wait until they disarm the population...

People need to read the stories about what happened in Russia after that population was disarmed. Over 50 million were sent to the gulag and half of them died.

This was right until the police thing. Every group trying to disarm citizens wants police disarmed as well. Just look at "great" Britain

I’m always confused about this. If the government was all focused on disarming the public wouldn’t they have done it by now...? People have been begging for it for ages and are now literally marching the streets screaming for it and they’re still like “umm. Maybe.” And we all know they’re not going to fully disarm the public. Even the people who are advocating are looking for a properly vetted system rather than full eradication of guns. I’m from Canada and up here lots of people have guns there’s just a really trustworthy vetting system. And our gun violence rates? Well, MUCH MUCH lower than the states, to put it simply. I fully believe the government is up to some weird shit and all that but I really don’t think the gun thing is the way they’re doing it? I don’t know why it’s so hard to see it’s about regulation. And you’re all the same people that preach to look beyond all the mainstream distractions, yet this mainstream distraction is the only thing people seem to be able to see? So is it really about distractions and the government and secrets and the elite or is it more about trying to find the craziest possible ways to support your own political views? Just my two cents.

I work on a bodyguard team. We are hired by the 'elite' who expect us to use GUNS, if necessary, to protect them. They want guns taken from everyone. Does that mean we will have no guns to protect the elite? Cool.

As a European that sort of post seems just weird. You need fewer guns because assholes keep killing kids in school shootings and other assholes keep killing adults in other shootings. No other country on earth has such a perverse love for guns and even if they bring restrictions there will still be enough guns in the country to start a civil war. Serious. Guns debates make Americans look like retarded maniacs. Stop it.

I suppose if you lived here , and saw how many innocent people shot by cops we have , you may change your mind.

Yes that’s the other mental thing but I can’t see how having more guns will prevent you from getting shot by cops who shoot you because they think you have a gun.

Maybe it’s time I move to Europe.

Another crazy theorist trying to say without a gun the government will enslave you. trump is capable of doing some crazy things to our country. Hopefully the voters will put a stop to him in the mid terms and then in 2020.

I’ve never owned a gun all my life, my family has never owned a gun.

My family has purchased a gun and now I’m a motivated buyer for one or more firearms.

If you look at history, gun grabbing always seems to proceed some massive human rights violations and the deterioration of freedoms. I can’t allow that to happen to me or my family now, 10 years from now, or ever.

I think it's because they know geo-engineering can only give us another few years before climate change turns the country into a bloodbath.

Nah.

ody is disarming anyone. At best they are trying to increase background and mental health checks on new purchases, along with raising the age fro buying rifles and shotguns to 21. That does nothing in regards to the 300,000,000 guns already in circulation.

Your post is pure hyperbole.

You do realize your post contradicts itself... They literally are disarming 18-20 year olds. If you own a gun in some states and are under 21 you have been forced to sell/give it to someone above 21 or are in violation of the law.

Source: https://www.sott.net/article/379580-Illinois-House-passes-bill-to-confiscate-currently-legal-firearms-from-gun-owners-under-21-moves-to-state-Senate

5

The best argument is to ask people that want to give up the 2nd amendment what other of the bill of rights are they willing to give up? Each one is a level below the one above it. Most have already been skirted by the government, read through and you will notice the majority are about due process and almost anyone can think of an instance where they have been violated. The first amendment is the last threshold of freedom and the second protects it.

By your own logic the second doesn’t protect it if it hasn’t protected any of the others. Political action protects it. We have gun nuts pretending they’re the last bastion against the tyrannical government all while laying down for an anti-first amendment, pro-torture jackass.

Authoritarians aren’t coming for your guns they’re coming for your mind and that’s appeared to be a much easier score

I mean the second protects the first, the third protects the second and so forth... not every instance is entirely so clear, but the Bill of Rights is in descending order of the most basic and essential freedoms. The First Amendment is the most powerful of all, but also the last resort! The Second Amendment is the second to last resort to defend freedom from tyranny.

It is a false argument to claim, as so often happens, “it’s not like people can overthrow the government.” One it isn’t entirely about overthrowing the government, it is about fighting to defend oneself and their freedom, that is the intent, as in “Gove me liberty or give me death.”. The idea is to go down fighting rather than surrender.

It is important to not that most of the Bill of Rights deals with due process. And every one of those has been violated!

The tenth has been violated (sometimes seemingly for good reasons, others not particularly executive orders), the ninth has been, the eight absolutely is regularly violated, the seventh mostly has but it is the most archaic, the sixth is constantly violated in Louisiana there is a lawsuit about it and then there is Guantanamo... the fifth can be argued to be violated in terms of people imprisoned for refusing passwords, the fourth all the time ask BLM or any number of instances of property being seized just for “suspicion of illegal activity” and lost or not returned, the third still stands so far!

So... we are down to three levels of basic freedom intended by our nation’s founders... and there are people who *wish to willingly give up the second amendment!? The only reason the third and first still hold is by the threat of the second! If the right to bear arms is taken away, the rest of your rights will vanish before your eyes.

I suspect they're attempting to boost gun sales and incense division and get us all in a frenzy so when the shitbag hits the shitfan everything goes totally shitballs.

America is a powderkeg.

Glad to live in a part of this country where this shit ain’t gonna happen without a goddamned fight. Come and try it...local police/ex military/hunters/any other man or woman that knows how to navigate woodland, survive on the land, and fire at an actual target will meet the enemy and will win or make the folks that come pay very very fucking dearly

Giving you a round of applause from a place in America where we feel the same.

I hope so. I'm rooting for America's downfall, by inside job would be even better.

Like they've done in Japan or Australia? Your gun is useless against a government.

Stfu Smgdh

when it helps to get less people killed by guns than its worth

If I'm not mistaken, it isn't about taking people's guns. It's about sunshine gun control, background checks, maybe after limits, maybe banning assault weapons but no one is going to come to your house and take your guns.

I you genuinely believe this, I encourage you to see a psychiatrist.

When was the last time a group of US civilians defended themsleves with guns from any entity of goverment?

US goverment and economic structure of free market capitalism turned corporatism, is failing. As in one bubble almost took down world economy, now US isnt the only major global market player. Moreover the 20 trillion debt isnt going down, there are risks of more bubbles popping (derivates market is volotile as fuck), huge income inequalities, more war spending, cuts to almost all social serives, no health and shit education. Rising economic powers of brics nations is another huge threat to USs world leadership.

So yeah, they are trying to disarm the populace before the system collapses and we have seen this, there is no such thing as too big to fail. Before inflation kicks in overdrive, before recession and depression happens, before the millions of americans lose their jobs to automation and lack of any social security. Basically, a few more issues and there will be movements if not full on civil disobedience. Even US with their police state, cant stop millions of poor (90%) of the population from waking up and realising how the rich have robbed then. (through tax loopholes, market collusion, greedy vile corruption, huge wealth devide and automation).

Unless the current elite swallow their greed and hunger for power and change the american way, the current state of everything is boiling over.

Disarming the public? It seems like the biggest request is to end gun show loophole and private sales. Theres still thousands of stores to go buy a gun at.

This whole fear mongering from the NRA about a slippery slope is about as stupid as anti gay marriage people talking about marrying dogs

It is the anti gun activists that are fear mongering. All I heard during the speeches at the "March for our Lives" was how scared kids are of getting shot, making it seem like a common occurence. There are tens of thousands of schools that never have gun violence. They are using anecdotal events (horrible tragedies that should be prevented) to monger fear in the population that this could happen to them when in fact people are safer then any other time in history.

But it could happen to them, that's the point they're making. Without regulations and new restrictions, literally anyone can walk to any school and kill 10-30+ people if they so desire. The activism wants to prevent this, unlikely as it may be. Kinda like putting wheelchair ramps everywhere even though more than likely very few people will ever use them.

But lets say you did a full ban on guns right now. No more guns can be sold. There are still literally hundreds of millions of guns out there legal and illegal. How do you get rid of those?

I'll start by giving you the non-useful answer that the US has sticked itself neck-deep in shit exactly because of that. There's simply too many weapons still for any "easy" plan to be effective, so from the get-go a (full or partial) ban on guns would need to be accompanied by several side measures to actually prove significant.

I'd suggest setting incentives of some kind for those that turn weapons in, major education campaigns on the dangers of firearms, police actually enforcing the ban by arresting people who own guns and taking them away (yes, this isn't nice for obvious reasons but at some point or another will necessary happen. There's quite a sector who wouldn't give up their guns on their bloody coffin).

So naturally a ban on selling guns would also need to be a ban on having guns (again, doesn't have to be a ban on every gun/weapon) coupled with other not-so-nice measures - I'm absolutely no expert and this is what I came up with in 5 mins, I'm sure others can do better.

Gun show loophole: What fucking loophole? You still have to go through an FFL.

Private sales: You still have to go through an FFL

If you DON'T go through a licensed gun dealer what you're doing is already ILLEGAL. I guess we just need a law that says it's illegal to do things that are illegal and make everything double plus illegal.

Here, educate yourself.

http://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

Great username OP. These fucks get a free pass to solicit at high schools and colleges nationwide, it's sick.

The scary thing is, they don’t even need to take our guns away this next generation will do it for us. There’s three groups of people in the population pro-gun the anti-gun and the indifferent. It’s the in different people that are dangerous because the pro-gun people will teach their kids responsibilities with guns in proper handling etc. etc. the anti-gun people will do the converse of that and probably instill fear in their kids. It’s the people who are in different Who pose the greatest threat. Their children will have no influence from their parents about it and all they will see is these marches and shit and peer pressure or wanting to be socially accepted will lean them anti gun. They will be the ones voting replacing the people who are aging now and are used to the days of guns in trucks at highschool and gun culture being the norm.

Wtf is it with americans and their guns?

Seems Civil War 2 could happen if each side keeps on being pushed.

I doubt people will give guns up fully and peaceful like some other countries.

I fear this will be worse than the 1st civil war.

All I can say, is prepare.

The entire "they're taking our guns away to impose martial law" is so utterly ridiculous. It's simplistic and silly.

What would the giant corporations and billionaires that run this country have to gain by imposing martial law? Because if you think the government is in control of itself, you are wrong.

They already own you. They lobby and create the tax laws. They buy and merge media companies and force simple narratives to brainwash you. They advertise to you so you buy worthless shit. Politics is their reality show and we enjoy the hell out of it.

They have absolutely nothing to gain from taking your guns away and using brute force. They already make enough money through proxy wars, they don't need a domestic one. That would hurt the bottom line.

"They already own you."

This, right here.

I like to think of it this way: If you are employed, you are about as free as how many vacation and sick days you have. If you are not employed, you are about as free as how many days you can afford to be away from your house.

If you are independently wealthy, congratulations, you are part of the oppressor class.

I agree. While I do not believe any of the students are paid actors, they are definitely being manipulated by the MSM and used for their purposes.

Point blank...I do not trust the MSM, as they have lied to us many times and have proven to me that they are not trustworthy. So, it is very hard for me to accept their messaging without questioning the “why”.

The Q will stop the deepstate dong. My grandson investigates pedopiles, he has autism!

They know severe economic turmoil is coming and are trying to protect themselves. They would put infants in woodchippers if they thought it would lead to disarmament of the public.

No one is disarming anyone. It is hilarious because it is literally a self fullfiling prophecy. Most of these kids from parkland and pretty much everyone is no anti-2nd amendment, they are just anti-NRA, which everyone should be at this point. The great thing that came out of all these protests is that now organizations can study gun violence because before NRA was blocking all studies so they can keep on making profit.

well said https://youtu.be/xQtAJH0F_lo?t=16

Australia yes. But on the other hand, you have Switzerland.

Where violent crime plummeted?

Gun violence plummeted, not general violent crime.

Ironically, the US has increased it's manufacture of guns in the same time period, but gun violence is actually down.

Mass shooting gets lots of attention, for a reason.

I also find it funny that users such as yourself completely ignore any assertion that this might be a false flag. There reason for this is once you understand an event to be a false flag, you realize that gun ban is part of a larger program, one that not only lies to Americans in order to attempt to disarm them, but murders them as well.

Dead kids are the topic, so whatever is killing them is relevant.

Australia is a totally different place. Do they have huge amounts of gangs and drug violence? No. Even if they take people’s guns away the bad people who want them will still be able to get them. Hell a couple years ago you could straight up buy any illegal drug off of Reddit.

...We can’t buy assault weapons, not easily.

I love this argument. Do me a favor and compare the population of Australia to a population of states that equal it. You will find that based on population gun violence in Australia and those states are almost the same. You CANNOT compare 300+ million people to 24 million and expect it to be the same.

See above

You have three responses in this thread, but you provide no links and no verifiable facts. All you have done is express doubts and concerns about the content of those posting in good faith.

I see you.

If you think drone strikes are going to be used against Americans on our own soil, you're (a) delusional and (b) have no understanding of military loyalty (and to whom the American military is loyal).

If you're going to talk about the gun control debate you should probably know about guns. Your use of "assault rifle" exposes your limited knowledge on the topic.

An armed populace cannot be loaded into boxcars.

Banning guns does not move towards totalitarianism. Rather, the principle effect is to remove a barrier to totalitarianism.

Now it is possible to subjugate an armed population. The Russians did it in the Ukraine with the Holodomir. Whenever they found an angry armed farmer, they'd just surround the house, post a watch, wait till he ran out of food, and throw a grenade in the window. Bang. Done.

With that said, firearms remain the only known insurance against totalitarianism that humankind has ever come up with. Yes, we have democracy and free speech and all of these things, but at the end of the day, a change to totalitarianism suspends all of these.

A widely-armed working class maintains their ability to conduct political violence regardless of how totalitarian their government becomes.

A disarmed working class is helpless.

Police aren't going to be using Hellfires and Predators. Ain't happening.

You are correct that police are becoming a domestic military. They will become the "standing army" that will serve as the implement of totalitarianism over the next few years.

Given that, why would you want to give up your best fighting chance? AR-15s are literally the best possible weapon we have, and it isn't anywhere near good enough! But at least it is something. Why would you give it up?

It is, however, your only fighting chance. I, for one, think it is very stupid to give up your last fighting chance, especially willingly.

Sure, it's impossible. Who cares. It's a chance, and frankly your comment sounds to me like an argument for having access to better weapons than the AR-15.

Maybe not strictly drones, but police in Dallas used a robot to deliver a bomb and kill the police-shooting suspect. And Christopher Dorner was killed by dropping a bomb on the cabin he was hiding in.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas

www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dorner-coroner-report-suicide-confirmed-20141003-story.html

No but the National Guard would.

Lol go prep your basement for doomsday buddy 🙄

Are you insinuating I’m paranoid for expecting what has happened dozens of times throughout human history to happen again? Ok lol

You mean 1880s, right?

Actually not bad advice tbh...

Nah we are all hanging out together today

Drone has gotta land. Drone needs fuel. Drone needs weapons. Drone needs communication infrastructure. Semi-automatic weapons provide the means to target infrastructure, ground crews, logistics. In a stand up fight versus an army with drones vs one without, the drones win. In a fight against an insurgency that lives on your home soil, it's less clear.

Your definition if won is really skewed. Smaller and less armed nations have not "won" any wars against the US. The wars where the US did not accomplish its goal were due solely to the fact that the US abandoned its mission due to political or financial burdens. In no situation could the US have not overthrown the whole country if they chose to

Largest school shooting in US history did not use large magazines. Restricting magazine sizes does very little.

By the way, semiautos were invented in the late 1800s. Banning semiautos means banning guns more than 100 years old. Are you serious about that?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hoooooooo.

You don't use the internet much do you? This is called an ad hominid attack. It's a quick way to discredit an argument by attacking the person making it. No one is seriously thinking that the NRA is a terrorist organization. If they were then no one would claim to be a part of them.

Been using the internet for more than 20 years. Shit, almost 25.

You call it an ad hominem attack. That's fine, but not so much when it is elected officials saying it on TV.

The UK 1% Banksters used the US to defeat the USSR, and intervene in the ME. As a result, the US has been bankrupt. We are enslaved by our debt. We will not be able to continue to spend on our military in the future, because our economy will not be able to support it. I do not know how much more time we have before things go awry, but it does not really matter whether it is 50 years or 100 years. We are becoming just another banana republic it seems.

This isn’t true unless you remove part of the frogs brain first.

I'm glad drones allowed us to wipe up Iraq and Afghanistan much faster than Vietnam and Korea /s

I guess the Petro-Dollar and our unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia would be a close second then.

The Taliban still controls most of Afghanistan.

I was thinking this. Who gives a fuck if you’ve got your guns to take on the authoritarians when you lay down for the most blatantly authoritarian politician in the last hundred years?

It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, it means there’s no logical reason to believe it will happen

Unless they promise to help the under-supplied rebels. Then they'd be seen as a savior to some and an enemy to others.