MAD at the civilian level...

If communities are safer if everyone has a concealed weapon because no criminal would dare rob a store where everyone else is armed, then why not take it to the next level and introduce Mutually Assured Destruction to that principalas well? I mean, it works on a global scale. only reason we dont fuck with north korea even though they HAVE the ability to produce nukes, yet we concentrate on non-nuclear countries like iraq and iran, is because N.K. has that nice protective bubble a nuke provides a country.

>>1
Exactly. No one robs banks anymore, they rob wickerware shops and fishing suppliers, they need guns aswell.

this is a horribly bad idea. with a bit of reason you will see that it leads to the creation of mafia-like groups, blood feuds, and a general sense of being able to kill/be killed, none of them situations or states of mind which advocate prosperity and safety.

actually it leads to general feuds and stalemates.  Think cold war.  If everyone has that kind of power people start dividing into groups.  At first it will be easy ones like geographic area and race.  However over time those may start allying themselves with outside groups into more political like alighnments.

Not likely to happen though.

America has been armed to the teeth for the first hundred years and most of the following hundred years of it's existance and we only had 1 civil war durring all that time.  Hell, when america was a new nation there were actually laws REQUIRING poeple to have a weapon and an amount of amunition in their househole.  People were still relatively safe, and the safety they lacked they weren't willing to trade for the freedom they enjoyed.

If you want everyone to be armed and free it's pretty simple.  Disband the National Guard and reserve Armed forces and bring back local militia requiring all able bodied join.  This means everyone has a weapon and is trained in it's use.  There is nothing more dangerous than someone with a gun that doesn't know shit about how to use it.  The nation ran a long time like this with unrivaled national security and freedom.

So that's the state of the nation? Everybody needs a gun to exist peacefully? Sure doesn't sound good on a tourist guide

considering gun control, i think more effort needs to be put on solving the causes of the majority of these gun crimes, the erision of our middle class.

mr. blue collar with a strady income doesn't go robbing banks. not most of the time at least.

>>6
Mr blue collar instead shoots the lover, his wife, and then himself. Otherwise, he could try to stab them with a knife, but they could grapple with him.

>>5
Unfortunately at least 1 person is not going to live in peace and love like a hippy. So all 350 million must be armed.

I will leave America if they restart the draft of begin mandatory service, which is essentially what you're saying, it'd just be under the guise of a national "militia", which would eventually be deployed overseas for wars, much like the National Guard is today.
No thanks, keep you gun enthusiasm in your own backyard.

>>9

sorry, your days of driving to canada when they institute a draft are over. it's illegal and they stop you at the border.

No one is saying a militia would be forced on the people as something SOMEONE needs to fill the position for. It's like a naborhood watch sort of deal, organized by states, cities or communities for the safety of said populus. These militias would have no obligation to serve on a federal level like the army, just like we dont send local policemen into combat just because they know how to fire a weapon.

Of course, this never works -- see Wild West -- somebody is going to have a quicker trigger finger.

Nuclear warfare and Gun Duels are two different types of warfare. Nukes take hours to reach targets, so shooting 15 minutes after the other guys shoots makes no difference, where shooting 15 minutes after your shot with a revolver makes one helluva difference.

>>11
there is such a thing as a suitcase nuke.

>>12
there is such a thing as a 600 kg suitcase nuke.*

fix'd

>>10 Still slavery.

>>14
Thank fuck there aren't too many people like you.

>>15 I keep on forgetting most libertarians sacrifice their principles as long as there is a possibility they get to roleplay as the rag-tag, communitarian "liberty or death" übermensch-crowd they mysticize about. "TAXATION IS SLAVERY!", they say but if there is an idea about enforcing people joining a militia, they get stuck at the word "militia" and whip out the flying colors and grand schemes for the laissez-faire utopia. Sad crowd most of them

>>16
I don't mind pacifists who become logistics labourers or medics during a time of war, I hate pacifists who think we shouldn't fight wars at all and prefer to stay behind the lines whining about the democracy being evil whilst Nazism spreads across europe and the people they went to school with bleed to death trying to save strangers from tyranny.

>>17 A society should be honorable and credible enough to have a philantropic effect on the populace. I am not a pacifist (I dislike them, though I hate militarists) but I believe a draft illegitimizes the war effort and the country's culture. My history teacher of two years past was a deserter from Vietnam, and he didn't hate America or tried to indoctrinate us. In fact, he was one of the type of people you would pay money to sit down and have a chat with. Now he's in Bombay making money at some high-end school.

>>18
Why would I want to pay to talk to someone arrogant enough to think people would pay to talk to him?

>>19 He does not believe that, and he wouldn't charge even if people were ready to pay. It was a figure of speech.

>>20

Yeah, >>19, you fucking dummy. >>19, When are you going to start using a name so we can ignore your shitty posts? I can feel the fecal heat resonanting off of these steaming "contributions" and would like to, in the future, ignore every stupid thing that you utter.

If "people" say war is evil and to not fight war unless absolutely needed (and agreed upon), then a "people's government" just does it anyway, then guess what, dunderfuck?

The DEMOCRACY IN QUESTION *IS* EVIL. (Or at the very least, facist/totalitarian)

Stop resorting to that Nazi bullshit. Don't see you picking up a rifle and heading to Darfur, do I? That's because for every finger you point, there's 3 pointing back at you.

Yiff in hell, fagoid.

>>21
I'm a little too young to join the army yet.

Oh and call me when you are being lowerred into a plastic grinder for speaking your mind, then you will have proof to back up your point about the US being an evil democracy.

If "people" say war is evil and to not fight war unless absolutely needed (and agreed upon), then a "people's government" just does it anyway, then guess what, dunderfuck? >>21


most democracies don't have in their constitution "we won't fight wars unless it's absolutely needed and agreed upon", and if the current US government decides to go to war, then it IS the "peoples government" that goes to war, people can vote for something else next election. This doesn't necessarily make the government evil or whatever, but maybe pretty ignorant and dumb.

>>22 Oh yes, because as long as you have freedom of speech America is hunky-dory.

>>24
Truth. If you act retarded and come up with crazy shit all the time no one will take you seriously. You need to use your free speech in a mature adult manner and back up your statements with proof.

>>23
Except people have no fucking power over their representatives, hell, the ones stupid enough to vote for a war still leave us in a war that our congressmen don't fight in, nor do any of their children, its the other Americans, who may or may not have wanted to go to the war in the first place.  Isn't that a little quaint? The Legislature can start a war that the majority of the people may not agree with, but we have to fight it anyway, and all we can do is hope our friends and family don't die until all our congressmen's terms are up, which could take 2-6 years.

Now do you see the problem?

>>25
government doesn't do it, why should u

I'm arguing that simply not relecting someone is fucking small potatoes compared to the repercussions they cause.  Say the draft is started up again.  Congressman A is very vocal about the need for troops and strongly supports the war, my brother gets drafted into a war he doesn't agree with, congress barrs consciencious objection, he goes over there and gets killed.  Now, I'm short one brother, but war fervor is still raging, my other brother gets drafted and killed.  Repeat this process until a few more of my extended family are killed.

Now, I feel Congressman A is personally responsible for the deaths of my family members, as they and I did not agree with the motives behind the war, and I try to vote for candidates that will end the war.  But that's all I can do, I cannot legally exact revenge or confront Congressman A, and I can't bring my family back to life, I guess I'm just fucked, right?

If this country wants to demand my life, it had better be by motherfucking popular will and not the whims of 535 pretentious jackasses of whom hardly any have any family in the military fighting the wars they champion.

If some intellectual pissant wants to make forced conscription into militias or whatever you want to call them, I will gladly support the institution of martial law so I may find your ass and put a bullet in it with the weapon you so convieniently provided, then throw the gun back in the truck and go home.

Nothing is more evil than forcing someone to do something they have every moral and individual priveledge not to do.  That's slavery chump.

>>25

Seriously, idiots like you take for granted the notion that you might just be a bit starry-eyed and childish. Everything the government does is right and everything that is anti-everything you think you believe in- is wrong. It's more than "quaint". It's an atrocity.

>>28
Scratch that, I'll keep the gun.

I'm the "gun fucks" poster.  You are probably right.  there are people who are afraid of guns.  I am not.  I have fired guns.  I have been to the range.  can you explain to me what is wrong with mace, or a self defense class?  a shotgun with rock salt, or something else for home defense?  150,000 people have died in the US as a result of guns since 9/11.  statistics suggest that 655,000 have died in the robust insurgency in Iraq in the past 3 or so years.

handguns kill.  it's not .50BMG 10 round semiautomatic rifles.  it's not sks' or AR-15's.  it's not kevlar bullets or extended clip magazines.  it's not tommy guns, ma duces, or streetsweeper automatic shotguns.

it's revolvers.  it's pistols.

gun people trumpet the crimes stopped, the rapes, the rapes, the rapes, and...  oh yea, the women getting raped.  at gunpoint.

what's wrong with self defense?  I suppose choice is good, but what's wrong with a baton, or self defense keychain, or mace?

but guns are like tools.  screwdrivers kill millions of people, band saws...  you've never seen a finger come off so quick as with a band saw... and losing a finger's just like the guy that shot ronald reagan, or lee harvy oswald.  school shootings are merely industrial accidents.  I can't go 5 days without reading a story in the newspaper about someone carrying a band saw to school.  the mutilations are always the best part.

and oh, what's that?  guns raise the suicide rate.

you think there's a differance between someone going to a school with a gun, and with a chainsaw?

give some chainsaws to some cops at a protest ralley.  see how ready they are to use them on other people.

>>31


LMAO.

Please fucking end yourself. Guns aren't about self-defense from fellow citizens. That's a part of it: Yes. But the true purpose is to protect from tyranny. It's a protection from an American Genocide. You would have to be a total fucking moron to trust our government so much that you'd let them take your own *more-effective* means of self defense away.

>>32
true purpose is to protect from tyranny by having an armed popular militia

Fix'd. Where is your militia now?

>>I mean, it works on a global scale. only reason we dont fuck with north korea even though they HAVE the ability to produce nukes,

The only reason we dont fuck with north korea isn't because they have/can make nukes. It's because they have artilery constantly pointed at the south korean capital, and they can level every other major south korean city at any given time.
NK has SK and Japan as hostages (through conventional weaponary), iran just has oil.

>>29
What?

>>32
Small arms are not going to protect you from tyranny, dipshit.  Not even an AK is going to do you much good if the military ever decided to take control of the US.  Our government already has complete and utter authority over the citizens.  Some rednecks in Montana with rifles eating tree bark aren't exactly what's keeping the feds from taking over.

>>36
The whole "military won't attack the people" schtick doesn't work either, one word, Tiennamen.
If the "local militia" won't kill the protestors/citizens, they can get a militia from another state that won't give a rats ass about killing them.  It worked for the Chinese in Beijing, just call up a neighboring division that doesn't have empathy for College Students in the Square.

>>36
>>37

This is all irrelevant. We already have the right to personally bear arms and the only reason we've been reduced to mostly pistols is because of anti-cun legislature. Coincidentally enough; the reason Tiennamen (and the Holocaust and Italian facism, etc) even happened was because of completely revocation of personal arms. It doesn't matter if "it won't do any good"- that doesn't mean the right should be taken away. I look at the guns issue just the abortion one: You don't like it---- DON'T FUCKING DO IT.

>>37 Is the Beijing garrison comparable to the American National Guard or the army?
>>36 Point, but most gun control impositions are either; a slippery slope, a pyrrhic success, an unethical obstruction or directly destructive. Watching paranoid sourpusses complain about the gubmint is fun, but if it can happen to one citizen it can happen to you.

anti-cun