The Anti-Gun Nuts and what they really want..

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2283#

"handguns have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands"

--Bitch

Watch out folks, your 2nd amendment rights are under fire.

>>80
;)

>>79
You know what? Even if those camps exist, thanks to our gun rights and those who defend them, we'll be able to fight back. 

No thanks to you dumb anti-gun liberals.

>>82
Which, of course, was the real intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment...

>>79
Stupid point to make if you are anti-gun.

>>82
Uh, no, you can't just go around and shoot government officials.  If you do, you'll be labeled a terrorist and shot on sight.  Shot, by guys with better guns than you, and armor that protects against consumer-level weaponary.

>>85
Enjoy your delusions. Even if they had secret power armor and weapons like no-one has seen before it's not like revolution with enough people wouldn't be possible. Remember that it happens to be also people in that army.

>>86
You aren't going to rally more than 2 million for an armed uprising.

People in the army... possible, but I'd guess most of the people there are as delusional as the average American, if not moreso.  And then there's the people that just like weapons and stuff.  I think it'd be pretty hard to desert from the army too.  Who would want to risk their life to fight on the losing side.

Considering equipment, it doesn't really matter anyway, as the soldier will shoot first, and hit.  Then there's teamwork, something you can't just learn in a week.

>>87
(Hm, if the army actually attacked the people, I think there's a chance that people fight back, no matter what they think.)

>>87
2 million people is so much that US goverment couldn't handle it all. Not even with nukes that would just destroy everything and it would times of wild west again. Hell, I'd think even revolution of 100000 people would be very hard to put down. Fighting revolution on your own soil is very different from fighting war. You can't effective deploy army against their own people and logistics are nightmare due to chaos. Also note that even most delusional redneck will eventually release should America start to really turn into police state dictatorship. Hell, they're already realising that Bush and patriot act is shit.

you do realize...you're on 4chan...complaining about racism on the internet?

so I'm seeing two things.  one, I don't know if these people are joking, but some people are saying that guns can stop tyrants.

the other thing I'm seeing is "people don't get murdered in America... sure 25,000 a year do, but there are 300 million, so your odds of not getting shot are good"

to that, I say.  try being black.  iirc one of the larger causes of death for black people is murder or something.

as for the "gun nuts will depose el presidente if he reaches too far" 

in recent times, where has this worked?  civil wars have been going on all over africa for decades, how about the middle east.  countless other places too.  gun nuts going up against the government would be dumber then iraqis defeating the US military, or the Arabs succeeding in wiping israel off the map.

people keep trying to depose dictators with guns.  can you point me to the success stories?

>>91
You should replace word black with criminal/ultra poor. Cause those blacks who get shot are ones who live in slums.

>>85
"Uh, no, you can't just go around and shoot government officials.  If you do, you'll be labeled a terrorist and shot on sight.  Shot, by guys with better guns than you, and armor that protects against consumer-level weaponary."

Better armor than us? Better weapons than us? That's why it's not possible? Well guess what? Maybe you dumb liberals should stop asking for MORE gun control?

>>91
Reagan got shot.  Abe Lincoln got shot.  Kennedy got shot.  If the entire population is armed and pissed off, it's very hard to be safe, if you aren't one of them.

Sure, you might not view them as tyrants, but that's beside the point.  It CAN happen.

>>91
Exactly.  Your choice to live in a shitty neighborhood, and possibly get shot, is just that - your choice. 

Being poor is a lifestyle.  You can almost always find a decent job somewhere if you look hard enough. 

Yeah, you can dramatically reduce your chances of being shot by simply living in a good neighborhood.  It's mostly people's choice. 

>>95 Once again there seems to be no such thing as environmental determinism here. I thought America believed thoroughly in empirical, behavioristic psychology, so why can't people understand that being born poor is like having your hamstrings kicked before a marathon? Poverty is like bleeding very slowly to death, and it isn't gonna make you the striving, self-made road warrior that earns you a role in the upcoming "Atlas Shrugged" movie, but it does entitle you to some of the money of those born in a luckier situation.

>>97
How can you be "entitled" to the money of others, if they are not willing to give it voluntarilly, in any situation? 

What happened to justice? The right to property is not the right to take other people's property.  The right to property is the right to go out and earn or produce your own, yourself.

"Poverty is like bleeding very slowly to death, and it isn't gonna make you the striving, self-made road warrior that earns you a role in the upcoming "Atlas Shrugged" movie"

There are plenty of examples where people have climbed up and out of poverty in the United States.  There is no income redistribution needed. 

My very own history teacher used to be poor.  She worked her way through college, became a teacher, and pulled herself out of poverty. 

Not to mention all the famous ones... such as Andrew Carnegie. 

>>98 America is less of a meritocracy than some European countries. Soc. sec. is thus still justified. And all of the income isn't due solely to your own efforts anyhow. If I get an opportunity to make money that a person of equal potential doesn't get because of his immediate natal situation, not giving some money is theft.

>>99
No it's not. 

"Noun    1.    theft - the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"

>>100 That money is indirectly taken, if unconsciously, and unless libertarians are ready to offer a very detailed and secure plan to empower individuals born in poverty, create new jobs WHILE they are removing soc. sec., I'll vote to make them pay through the nose.

>>101

http//www.theadvocates.org/...

They don't represent ALL libertarians. 

"I'll vote to make them pay through the nose."

Go ahead and vote for the liberals.  Once the country has economically collapsed under a socialist police state, and you have no guns to answer the bayonets of the soldiers in your back for speaking out against the country's current leader, just keep all this in mind.

"That money is indirectly taken"

Explain how, if born to rich parents, I have somehow stolen something you are entitled to?  (assuming you were poor, and assuming I was born into a rich family)

Never did I march into your house, and demand something of yours, or take something by force. 

>>102 While libertarianism sounds better and better, it lacks a response to a) the poosibility of corporate control via non-political means, b) the fact of envronmental determinism or at the very least a diminishing of it as a social factor and c); a detailed, incremental plan that will create a stable consumer to market relationship. The alternative must be strictly non-ideological for me to hop on, but be aware that I hate socialism (just slightly less than conservatists) and that I wish dearly for an alternative.

>>103
Keep in mind that not all libertarians are radical free-market economists.  I'd think that even in a society with a government completely dominated by the libertarian party, the less-radical libertarians would keep the others from instituting a COMPLETE separation of state and economics. 

>>103
You have points, but forget enviromentalists and their propaganda. They're not better than gun grabbers. They too are misguided propagandists. Personally on this issue I have taken stance that what it matters if our pollution shall eventually destroy ourselves? Let's have fun and good life. It's not like that will happen on our lifetime.

>>105 If you honestly mean that, then you have taken the selfish ideal one step too far. The problem with individualism may be that a person regarding herself as a her own central investment forget to consider her place in the human struggle for a utilitarian, safe and prosperous domination of the universe.

>>105

...are you serious? or just trolling? (or just stupid?)

>>107
I'm totally serious. What it matters if human race is destroyed?

>>108
Fossil fuels will get very expensive in our life times.

>>109
Though truth is that they have already many working alternatives. Reason why they ain't used is that you want to make money through oil as long as you can.

>>108


It matters alot....to the human race.
Unless, you're, like, not human?

The point that you're missing is that dying by our own hand is easily preventable. That way we can go on living on as a species to do such things as explore the stars and unravel the mysteries of history and earth.

If you're not "down" with that, then you should probably end yourself, seeing as how progress is man's aim, if not his sole aim. This is true given the fact that you're able to drive around in an SUV and further aid our suicide.

The thing is- people like *you* with defeatist "death wish" ideologies should be forced to do whatever the rest of self-preservers want. You're just as bad as any criminal and your very mindset is a crime against humanity.

Just because you wanna die, doesn't mean you get to take everyone else with you. 

>>111
I don't want to die. Infact I want to be immortal and I also want to mankind to achieve those things mentioned. Point is that just enviromentalists tend to take it too extreme, so that it actually harms that progress you mention. If we just keep going like now we might be destroyed, but we might also develop technologies to survive. It's 50/50 situation and I take that rather than limit progress in order to increase our change of survival.

>>112
We'll all be killed by the law of accelerating returns.  Hopefully not in my lifetime, but the law itself makes it very likely... especially if the law extends my life by a couple hundred years >_<

Fossil fuels will run out, or we'll change to a new energy source long before it becomes an issue.  The nature of Capitalism and greed factors will encourage the development of new energy resources as we use fossil fuels.  I wouldn't worry about the environment.

>>114
They're already developed and they work well too. When oil prices get too high there will be many people offering alternatives. Might consider that even myself could probably make some very nice nucks if I succeeded.

I prefer rampant environmentalism over none at all. But that is quite an unlikely diametrical opposition.
The point is, if all environmentalists are accused of being anti-human or some other contemptuous term while corps like Nike and McUbiquitious do whatever they want, it's no surprise they are raising holy hell over Alaska. They have to fight the easy but unimportant battles because they are facing -quite possible- the stupidest and most gullible consumer block in the world. If consumers got their stuff on the lockdown then environmentalism is redundant. But the minute some lazy cunt feeds her baby a McNugget an environmentalist is rightly born; it's fucking karma, dyuuuude.

>>116 Fuckery, wasn't this thread about guns initiately? Oh, here's my 1 rusty cent; considering the insane murder quota is caused by some hellish pockets of violence where you can get lead poisining just for "dissin'" (oh I hate people who end their words with apostrophes HATE HATE HATE) or "wearin the huh-rong muthafuckin' kulurs" (I mentioned the hate irght?), isn't it more sensible to heal those areas with some fucking decent policies instead of collectively punishing the entire populace?        Also, considering that too strict legislation is a declaration of immaturity of a population, isn't it smarter to see if any previous limitations on guns have worked, and repeat them? Lastly, the left should stop attacking those "tough-on-crime" jackasses for picking leaves instead of going to the roots of the problem, when they are incapable of sorting out the ghettos by limiting segregation and instead go after the guns?!?! Then again, I doubt that the crime rate is solely an expression of ghetto mentalities when it is so high, so I guess that poverty levels or something needs to be ameliorated. Start with the minimum wage, or something... Shit, I need to read far more.

>>117
"isn't it smarter to see if any previous limitations on guns have worked, and repeat them?"

No.  Guns are not the reason there is violence.  Even if they were, it's in our constitution.  As soon as we depart from the constitution, well... that's our last safeguard here against despotism.  We violated it in going to war with Iraq.  This isn't something to be taken lightly. 

We have a constitutional right to bear arms, period.  The only acceptable regulation, is state/local/city government regulation.  The constitution exists to limmit federal power.

This makes better sense anyways.  Why should rural america have the same gun laws as inner city New York?

>>117
Also, I would blame it in part at least, that police rarely actually are out hunting down murderers, rapists, thugs, robbers, etc.  Oftentimes, they pursue victimless criminals, if you know what I mean.  There are so many victimless laws that have been accumulating.  (Crimes in which nobody is hurt.. in which there are no victims.)

I think the murder rate would fall if police hunted down the murderers instead of screwing around trying to catch some hippie pot smokers.

Guns aren't the issue. The stupid fuckers who can't handle them, and thus have a terrible murder rate (Americans), are the problem.