781–790 of 957 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
still better than having been shot multiple times at close range, no?
Oh man I'm sure glad that poor youth showed restraint and chose bear mace instead of the glock! Sounds like you just made a great reason for concealed carry.
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
Ensuring all citizens got a great education would do so much more than guns to prevent tyranny. Especially since most forms of power and dominance are subtle and maintained through law, propaganda, systems of communication, and with economic power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…
Hence Dave Chappelle's 'joke' that African-Americans should start registering for firearm licences en masse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of specific guns, namely rifles designed for military use. Shotguns, pistols, and low-capacity rifles are still fine.
Yes you don't need AR-15 for basic protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the problem with your comment was that it is based upon a faulty assumption regarding the presence of armed and trained personnel being abundant on a military base. The comment in response to your point was correcting you on that incorrect assumption: an overwhelming majority of base personnel were not armed , because they weren't MPs.
You chose to ignore both the fact that the rest of the arguments are perfectly valid and that the clarification I made right below still stands. The aggressive tone you chose to use is both unnecessary and unwelcome.
Here's a list of coups. Many were successful. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that coups don't work. The Arab Spring is a recent example of this very thing, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27état_and_cou...
>Very few (if any) shootings were ever really prevented by a citizen and their gun even when the shootings happened (repeatedly) inside military bases where the shooter was literally surrounded by trained and armed military personnel.
The first part of your second assertion that "very few shootings were ever prevented by a citizen," is also easily invalidated by a google search.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/in-missouri-a-good-gu...
https://www.conservapedia.com/Mass_shootings_prevented_by_ar...
Where did you get that information from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm usually not a huge fan of the US rolling in and stomping out governments (and installing their own, of course), but this is one faux-dictatorship where it sorely needs to happen. Some actual democracy would be amazing for these people. With the recent "trade war" and whatnot the stage has been set pretty well for a US intervention.
You can't force democracy upon people that don't want it and aren't ready for it - it ends disastrously. The US tried to do that in the middle east and failed miserably. The only success story seems to be South Korea, but I would argue they wanted democracy and fought alongside the US for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a gun in your house and are responsible with it, nobody will be at risk.
That argument is pretty much a "no true Scotsman" type argument. You can't discard datapoints you don't like because they're not "responsible" firearm holders.
You can’t say that the Americans who want guns for self defense are better off without them because statistically, across the population, they increase danger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of specific guns, namely rifles designed for military use. Shotguns, pistols, and low-capacity rifles are still fine.
I don't think the military uses too many small caliber semi-auto rifles. Any modern military rifle I can think of was banned for new sale in 1986.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.
"If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military." There are several things wrong with the above statement ... First, in many (most) states of the United States, you can indeed purchase a fully automatic weapon / suppressor / grenade launcher /…
This is being dishonest. Since the registry was closed in '86 there have been no additional automatic weapons added to circulation (for civilian owners) so prices start around $10k. They are basically unobtainable for people who don't have $10k to drop on a hobby and don't want to commit a felony with a coat hanger.
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…