Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Americans Use Firearms to Restore Law!

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 21:11

To all those who say that firearms rights will not protect citizens from an abusive government, I should cite the story of Athens, Tennessee. 

In a few small American counties in 1946...

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

The folks at Athens would have made the Framers proud. 

Don't forget it!

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 21:20

>>1
Good story! I remember that from that said issue of Guns & Ammo.  They were true Americans of a dying breed. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 21:55

>>2
Yeah, sadly true Americans are dying. Only Libertarians seem to respect constitution and american way. Democrats want to create banland social democracy and republicans want to create banland police state. Dark times for America.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 15:10

Libertarians ftw.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 15:23

>>4
gb2 canada

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 16:19

>>5
WTF? Canada is not libertarian at all.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 17:25

>>6
Exactly..

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 17:27

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea.

Yes they do ;)

(lol)

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 23:11

>>7
So why go back there?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 23:25

>>8
Ones you're thinking about aren't true Americans. There are few true Americans these days. Redneck christian republicans and whiny liberals are not true Americans. True Americans are freedomloving people. Classical liberals. Sadly they are dying breed and America has been ruled for decades by people who shit on American ideals.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 0:03

>>8
That is conservatism, not a dictatorship. Conservatives believe in a stable government above all else, Liberals believe in the preservation of rights above all else.

>>10
Who the fuck are you to decide what a "true" American is? As far as I'm concerned, if you're a citizen of the United States, you're an American. It doesn't matter how drunken, sober, religious, evil, good, liberal, conservative, educated, foreign, nationalistic or whatever you are. Sure they may be shitting on what you consider "American" ideals, even shitting on the ideals of our forefathers, but that doesn't matter. It may suck horribly, but just let it go and enjoy the ride towards our inevitable destruction.

Name: Xel 2006-07-05 2:35

>>11 It's all up to you now. Because you have impregnated the world with $ we'll be holding you alive through seven more crusades on drugs and even an invasion of Iran... You are an empire, where the relationship between all the sectors of society are harmful, restrictive or vitriolic. And you can't change due to the two-party system... The rest of the world can only do damage control, close their eyes and hope for the best, cuz if you lose our economies are going to go bugfuck inside a week.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 15:34

>>11
It wouldn't be freedom of speech if we didn't allow people to say we shouldn't have the freedom of speech.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 16:16

>>11
Those are "American" ideals, and in that sense, the Classical Liberals were very "American."

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 16:54

>>1  Yet another reason we can't let the 2nd Amendment rot in the hands of the liberals. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 17:02

>>11
I agree, if you consider someone unamerican, just follow the example in >>1 and brutally execute him/her and his/her family with stolen weaponary.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 18:16

>>16
So if the government decides to murder a couple million people, the other people in the United States should not take up arms and stop it?

The law and government were obviously corrupt.  They took up arms and reinstated honest government.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 20:34

>>17
So if the government decides to murder a couple million people, the other people in the United States should not take up arms and stop it?

Who would they go after?

They took up arms and reinstated honest government.

They didn't take care about the ones that let this go on, they are still around.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 20:38

>>18
They reinstated honest government. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 1:45

>>18
Move to China asap

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 5:30

You foolish naive liberals are missing the point. Guns are there to prevent the government from becomming genocidal and tyrannic in the first place. THe only thing stopping KKK riders from dominating Athens was the fact that staunch libertarians were ready to fight for other people's rights, partly because of their own moral conscience, but also due to hobbe's law which states that if the government can tread on the rights of 1 man then it can tread on yours too, thus preserving someone elses liberty is your responsiblity aswell.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 6:47

>>21
lol. iraqis had guns. but did they rise up against saddam? no. you fail.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 7:08

>>22
Holy fuck you're stupid. My point was that the public should have guns to prevent tyranny from happenning in the first place, to preserve democracy. To prevent tyranny.

Iraq was a military dictatorship from 1958 to 2003 and a monarchy/colony before that. Saddam came to power in 1979. Iraq was never a democracy to begin with, unless you think a vote like this

Tick 1 box to vote lol
[] I vote for Saddam, he is awesome.
[] I want to be viciously and horrifically tortured to death and for my family to be executed.

is democracy.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 9:33

>>23

lol hilarious

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 13:32

>>22
You sure that Iraqis had guns? I mean they seemed to think Americans as liberators and after that they started fighting against them and themselves in order to create independent Iraq. Sounds like they didn't have guns before or how do you explain why they didn't fight against Saddam? It's not like Saddam was any better than Americans.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 16:00

>>22  Wow, that's one example.  Lets just forget about all the other examples the world over (such as America) that show us how full of shit you really are. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 16:19

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5151002.stm

Yay for government oppression and gun control!

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 17:09

>>25
I mean they seemed to think Americans as liberators

They only said so because they didn't want to be tortured or killed by their new dictator.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 17:15

>>28
That wasn't my point read the whole post. If they rose up against Americans and even fight against themselves then why they did't fight against Saddam? Saddam's goverment wasn't their utopia by any means nor did most like it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 18:49

http://bin.4chan.org/k/src/1152225810876.gif

http://bin.4chan.org/k/src/1152225810876.gif

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 20:23

http://bin.4chan.org/k/src/1152226000225.gif

http://bin.4chan.org/k/src/1152226347359.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 20:41

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5151002.stm

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 17:38

>>31
LOL@first link.  Hhaahahahaha. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 19:58

>>29
Maybe because the only people that were ready to protect their country by using arms liked Saddam?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 20:12

>>31  All the more reason the democrats suck.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 21:15

>>34
Maybe you are incredibly stupid and will never understand my point so you should just kill yourself? You have one more chance, get your 50 sleeping pills and a glass of water. Here it is again.

Iraq was a tyranny before Saddam came to power, it has essentially been a tyranny since civilisation first began in that region.
Therefore you cannot cite Saddam's rise to power in Iraq as an example to suggest that arming civilians does not prevent democracies from turning into tyrannies.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-08 18:38

>>38
and that's why gun control sux

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-09 23:19

>>38
That was only one instance.  And, yeah, that's probly true, whoever has more/better guns has a higher likelyhood of winning in the end -  the government, or the people.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 2:15

the only really effective form of topplng a dictatorship is with people power. Thats the end of the discussion. Look at the last modern revolution....the fall of the soviet bloc. It was people WITHOUT guns, facing a huge army, that brought about the end. GUNS didnt prevent the rise of the bolsheviks in 1917, even though at the time it was a largely unpopular coup! And most of the civilian populace at the time was armed. Thus guns are not a key factor in toppling dictators, or installing them. It all has to come down to propaganda and what people are willing to believe.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 2:53

>>41
No it doesn't. 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 5:13

>>40
Ironically it's civilians who have better guns. Military rifles are shit made by cheapest bidder. Compared to just about any quality civilian rifle they lose. Military has significant advance in training and heavy weaponry though, although those heavy weapons have not much use in almost entirely infantry based war that revulution would be.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 6:31

>>43

M4's aren`t available to civvies.  Those things will quiet any dissenting populous, especially when equipped with a M203.  Err.... wait, this ain`t /k/...

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 8:59

>>44
Only advantage of M4 over AR15 is full auto fire. Grenade launchers(new ones) are available for civvies willing to go through NFA paperwork. Also 37mm launchers are classed as non-firearms.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 11:03

Funny how socialists are always on about the revolution, how they are fighting the system and hence are not part of the government, yet they want to disarm the civilian population. More double standards and hypocrasy for you.

Name: Xel 2006-07-10 11:30

>>46 The right wants people to be safe from the government, and to stake a claim on their own and not be prosecuted for owning guns. OK, fine by me. If you happen to smoke pot or get into people of the same sex, now THAT'S a different ball game sonny jim! Anti-Gay crime is now on the rise again, which is the second reason I vote left in the US; the primary reason is that they're better for the economy, and the second is that I value  the safety of my gay fellow citizens more than I value religion, cheap wares and/or amusingly expensive boomsticks.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 14:51

>>47
Dude, I'm gay and I say please vote Libertarian. I'm not probably only one who thinks like that either. Both democraps and republicans aren't worth of voting. Besides there's Pink Pistols and many gays have been very succesfully using guns to defend themselves. You want to take that right away? Gun bans make gay crimes only worse.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 16:30

>>45

Auto fire, and that unless you've been properly cleaning that AR15, you're risking a slamfire.  Mostly, what you'd have to worry about there are civilians who most likely already had a military backing anyway.  At least with the M4, all you really have to worry about is burning the fuck out of your hands in burst or auto mode.

Name: Xel 2006-07-10 17:58

>>48 A point. This factor will now be taken into consideration in the future, I promise you that.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 19:47

>>45
Yup.  And, not only that, full-auto weapons are availible currently as well.  These people who think civs can't equip themselves for battle with LEGAL arms are just stupid.  Anyone with a couple hundred bux to spare can get the necessary paperwork done. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 20:28

>>51
Full-auto was restricted quite badly by 1986 ban. Civilians can't get full autos made after 1986 which has lead to extreme prices. Ironically you can buy new 20mm vulcan, since destructive device overrides full auto classification...

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-10 20:30

>>49
With M4 you have to worry about range as barrel is ridiculously short. Good for indoors, but bad when you wan to hit something that's not near.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 0:06

>>52
What the fuck? I thought you could get full auto if you just got the permit, the write off from your sherriff, etc?

And organizations are still making full autos that (I thought at least) were civvy legal, so why can't we buy them?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 0:09

>>54
Yes you can get, but it has to be pre 86 made. That's why they're so damn expensive.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 2:02

>>53

I`m not in the military, but don`t those things come with scopes?  What would be the point of scopes if they were so inaccurate?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 4:38

>>55
Those piece of shit politicians, god dammit. 

http://www.ak-103.com/rifles.html

What about that website, then? Can't buy from him? It LOOKS like he's selling... what's the deal?  ... are you 100% sure?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 5:31

Hurr hurr, the government is protecting itself against its people by restricting their firepower.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 5:34

>>58
Wow it's another smartass liberal. 

You love big-government? Love gun bans & gun control? >>>China asap.  Enjoy your Socialism.

Name: Xel 2006-07-11 5:57

>>59 Is the entire universe black/white or blue/red to you? You're so fucking... hetero.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 9:56

>>60
I'm gay and I 100% agree with him. I understood you had nothing against guns and you actually hated big goverment?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-11 9:58

>>57
Those are semi-auto. Rifles on NFA page are full-auto, but they sell them only to law enforcement.

Name: Xel 2006-07-11 11:01

>>61 I wasn't saying that it was a heterosexual standpoint, I just think the silly, diametrical tone of his post would have warrantedit to be called 'gay' by some, and I try to put the balance back by saying a thing is hetero where others would call it gay. As in: Overpriced shoes are totally hetero.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-12 0:05

Some of the rifles there are automatic.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-12 23:43

>>62
So I should go around committing hate crimes on white people to make up for all the hate crimes committed on black people?

Name: Xel 2006-07-13 1:18

>>64 Um, noo...

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 1:19

>>64
Maybe you should commit hate crimes against those who commited a hate crime.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 6:49

>>65
So why should you make bigotted remarks about heterosexuals? Saying something is "hetero" in a negative way is just as bad as saying something is "gay" in a negative way. 

Saying either just stirs up conflict, and is not good. 

Many black people tend to hate white people now because of a few racist white people.  If you start saying something is "hetero" I don't think it will lead anywhere good. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 7:37

>>66
Can't fight fire with fire.
>>67
Exactly.

Name: Xel 2006-07-13 10:08

>>67 >>68 Well, I wanted to show how silly and detrimental it is to call a bad thing "gay". If enough people say it, people will go "whoa" and start to think. I just try to prevent "gay" in a detrimental sense to become second nature for some.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 11:53

>>69
gays don't do what their supposed to (fuck women have children) and the word is thus appropriate as per usage as a derogatary term.

Name: Xel 2006-07-13 12:36

>>70 If you mean that then fail for hopeless stupidity. If you don't then fail for being a poor troll.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 20:33

>>69 That's not a good way to do it. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 21:54

>>69
It's this kind of attitude that turns me off from the equality movement. 

What I'm referring to, is basically reverse discrimination.  It manifests it's ugly head in the form of reparations as well. 

I'm for equal rights under the law for all, period.  I'm not for reverse discrimination. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-13 23:26

>>73
True, I'm gay and I agree with you. I'm all for gay rights ofcourse, but I find sad that some resort to ways of bigots in order to "promote" them. There is no positive discrimination.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-16 22:26

>>73
Exactly, and, in the case of reparations, you have to keep in mind that immigrants who move here (and there are LOTS of them) who earn money and will get taxed will have to pay these reparations that they all too likely had NOTHING whatever to do with, by ancestry or direct connection. 

Anyways, punishing people for something their ancestors did is stupid. 
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -