Jump to content

Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?


Donald Trump
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well? Where the !@#$ is my golden throne and you kneeling with your butt in the air? I just gave you the ultimate plan to save everyone. 

 

If I had to guess, I'd say you'll find all that in the same place you left your wits and reason, wherever that might be. You'll have to search far and wide from the look of it.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, I'd say you'll find all that in the same place you left your wits and reason, wherever that might be. You'll have to search far and wide from the look of it.

 

You are just proving my point about being a second rate troll, haha! 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  It isn't.

 

No.  It isn't.  Dealing with pissed of voters probably is - that is why it doesn't suddenly change.

Yes, Nevada is in the US. 

 

rcLNBjt.gif

 

Who in the world can predict what will come to pass? We can barely predict the political winds of tomorrow. How are we supposed to predict the future, say, one hundred years hence? Simply put, we can't. Gun ownership serves as a means of hedging our bets in case things go to hell. After all, no sensible German could have imagined in 1840 that in just 100 years, the government would round up millions of people and attempt to exterminate an entire race. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing and laughing isn't quite the same as trolling. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

Go back and read my posts. If it still flies over your head, maybe I'm too good. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam show that one should not so easily discount the difficulties of winning a protracted, asymmetric ground war fought by zealous insurgents who blend in with the Allow me to give you a few examples that will quickly show you the reality of the situation, which is that the U.S. military stands no chance what-so-ever against even a moderate proportion of the civilian uprising.

Iraq and Afghanistan: In over 10 years resistance has never been stamped out, in countries with much smaller populations than ours (both <1/10th), despite our massive technological advantages. This is with significant infighting in both countries.

Vietnam: A country of less than 1/10th our population was subjected to more bombing than was used in all of WWII and began the conflict less well armed than the US public is now. Despite this, in the end the North Vietnamese ultimately prevailed.

There are countless more examples from all across the globe (From Russia to Nicaragua, From Columbia to Kurdistan, etc.) that unequivocally show armed populations can crush organized militaries, or at the very least resist them effectively for extended periods of time.

 

Completely wrong as usual. The question is, could the US flatten Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam if its survival depended on it? The answer is absolutely yes. But it wasn't a matter of survival, so the willingness of the nation to spend an inordinate amount of resources to attain goals of questionable value was not sufficiently great to result in crushing victories.

 

On the other hand, an armed uprising in the American soil would be a war for survival of the nation state. All the resources would be employed without a second thought. And against whom, I may ask? A rag-tag band of rednecks whose willingness to fight would be shattered as soon as the body bag count would hit a thousand, if not less. No organization, no coherence, no determination -- compared to the Iraqis, Afghans and Vietnamese who fought for survival, who fought so that their children would not be killed and their women would not be raped. The rednecks would be fighting over their stupid guns. Incomparable.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I think I've had enough laughs for a day.

 

sr,s

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haiti is not the US.

 

Individuals are required for bit do not constitute an armed revolution.

I never mentioned revolution. I only mentioned taking up arms to defend what many consider a right regardless of other's views. It is a protest, not a full blown revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to note, I consider it a bit ignorant to constantly use the term "redneck" for those who hold to owning firearms. The bias here only shows a lack of experience and almost racist assumptions.

I could use the term "asshat" for those who like to force others through the use of strong arm laws and coercion so they can feel safe in their safe places, if you like.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to note, I consider it a bit ignorant to constantly use the term "redneck" for those who hold to owning firearms. The bias here only shows a lack of experience and almost racist assumptions.

I could use the term "asshat" for those who like to force others through the use of strong arm laws and coercion so they can feel safe in their safe places, if you like.

 

With the liberal (xd) use of terms like "cuckold" for liberals on these forums, and given that most of the people whom I argue with are against political correctness, I see no reason to be PC myself.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the liberal (xd) use of terms like "cuckold" for liberals on these forums, and given that most of the people whom I argue with are against political correctness, I see no reason to be PC myself.

If you want to continue sounding like an asshat then, by all means. Non-PC it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely wrong as usual. The question is, could the US flatten Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam if its survival depended on it? The answer is absolutely yes. But it wasn't a matter of survival, so the willingness of the nation to spend an inordinate amount of resources to attain goals of questionable value was not sufficiently great to

 

result in crushing victories.

 

On the other hand, an armed uprising in the American soil would be a war for survival of the nation state. All the resources would be employed without a second thought. And against whom, I may ask? A rag-tag band of rednecks whose willingness to fight would be shattered as soon as the body bag count would hit a thousand, if not less. No organization, no coherence, no determination -- compared to the Iraqis, Afghans and Vietnamese who fought for survival, who fought so that their children would not be killed and their women would not be raped. The rednecks would be fighting over their stupid guns. Incomparable.

Completely wrong as usual. You can't lead a nation of corpses. Nobody would carpet bomb their own country. 

 

Look at the American Revolution. The Americans lost most battles, yet we still won. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Revolutionary_War_battles

It's very possible to win almost every battle in a war and still lose. 

 

Who do you think installs and maintains the tanks, the aircraft, and other weapons of war that the military owns? Civilians. I'd suggest that since a very large number of these are installed and maintained by civilian contractors, oftentimes veterans who did the same job in the military, that say, in a hypothetical situation where the federal government becomes overtly tyrannical and tries to confiscate privately owned firearms (and the almost certain mass arrests and imprisonment of political/ideological opponents), it's not too great a stretch of the imagination to think that many of these weapons systems (and their communications and logistics) would be actively sabotaged. Yes, an AC-130 gunship can devastate a neighborhood from 30,000 ft, but not if it's grounded because the hydraulics and avionics are busted, and all the spares are bad. 

 

I can. 

Alright, give me the list of all of the candidates who will win Russia's elections. 

 

 

There will not be nor would there be an armed revolution because of some restrictions on firearms in the US.

What about a total ban? Kemal said that's what he wanted. A great number of armed forces members would not shoot on their own people, their families, their friends. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not blindly follow orders.

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, give me the list of all of the candidates who will win Russia's elections.

 

 

What about a total ban? Kemal said that's what he wanted. A great number of armed forces members would not shoot on their own people, their families, their friends. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not blindly follow orders.

Putin will continue to run Russia. His successor will come frome the FSR community when and if Russia's decline requires a coup to keep the people happy or properly supressed. I am unsure what that has to do with anything though.

 

Even a total ban would not result in an armed revolutiin.

 

LP, I was not replying to you. I am sure small groups of crazies will continue to be crazy with or without guns. Their impact outside the 24hr news dramabox will be negligible.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin will continue to run Russia. His successor will come frome the FSR community when and if Russia's decline requires a coup to keep the people happy or properly supressed.

 

I am unsure what that has to do with anything though.

 

Even a total ban would not result in an armed revolutiin.

Alright, give me the list of all of the candidates who will win Russia's elections. 

They have spots up for grabs in the Duma. 

 

No sensible German could have imagined in 1840 that in just 100 years, the government would round up millions of people and attempt to exterminate an entire race. What's stopping us from electing a second Hitler? Our two candidates are polling below the 50% mark in trustworthiness, depending on the poll. 

 

So, there are 100 million gun owners in the U.S. If even 1 percent “plays Rambo,†as some like to say, that's a million people. Only 1%. Do you know how many law enforcement people there are in the entire country? 

Actually, it’s been estimated that 3% will actually fight and die for the cause. The 3 Percenters:

http://threepercentersclub.org/index.php/pages/about-us

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am uninterested if they have sheep for sale in the market or spots open in the duma. I told you what was going to happen. Putin will continue to run Russia until he is overthrown by someone in the FSR.

 

Neat you have moved to a Hitler argument. So we are calling this game over for your argument then.

 

If 3% of America tried to violently rebel they would get anahilated. They wouldnt actually try although they may make some stupid website . . . Oh look at that.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am uninterested if they have sheep for sale in the market or spots open in the duma. I told you what was going to happen. Putin will continue to run Russia until he is overthrown by someone in the FSR.

 

Neat you have moved to a Hitler argument. So we are calling this game over for your argument then.

 

If 3% of America tried to violently rebel they would get anahilated. They wouldnt actually try although they may make some stupid website . . . Oh look at that.

So you can't predict the political future? 

 

The Second Amendment and 100 million U.S. civilians with 300 million guns ensures that U.S. federal and local governments will not be ones that slaughters civilians by the hundreds, thousands, or millions.

“...democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century...†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

"Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932-2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder." Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century... His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle..." None of those countries had a Second Amendment and an armed populace. 

 

You need to familiarize yourself with The Battle of Athens. This is a pretty good historical example of the value of the 2nd Amendment in fighting tyrannical authority. This was a rebellion led by armed citizens in McMinn County, Tennessee. against local government in 1946, against what was essentially political corruption and voter intimidation. As one of the rebels said at the time, “The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.†There was also the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely wrong as usual. You can't lead a nation of corpses. Nobody would carpet bomb their own country. 

 

Look at the American Revolution. The Americans lost most battles, yet we still won. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Revolutionary_War_battles

It's very possible to win almost every battle in a war and still lose. 

 

Who do you think installs and maintains the tanks, the aircraft, and other weapons of war that the military owns? Civilians. I'd suggest that since a very large number of these are installed and maintained by civilian contractors, oftentimes veterans who did the same job in the military, that say, in a hypothetical situation where the federal government becomes overtly tyrannical and tries to confiscate privately owned firearms (and the almost certain mass arrests and imprisonment of political/ideological opponents), it's not too great a stretch of the imagination to think that many of these weapons systems (and their communications and logistics) would be actively sabotaged. Yes, an AC-130 gunship can devastate a neighborhood from 30,000 ft, but not if it's grounded because the hydraulics and avionics are busted, and all the spares are bad. 

 

Hohoho. Do you think dictators bomb the whole country to suppress them? You kill tens or hundreds, injure thousands, and imprison tens of thousands and it's usually done. Nowhere does it reach an economically significant number. Crushing the will of a disorganized decentralized mob is very easy.

 

The American Revolution is completely tangential. If you are going to bring us examples, refer to armed rebellions against the government in their homeland, not colonies which were an ocean across while Brits had their hands full with European superpowers.

 

Oohh, yes, the patriots would totally sabotage the logistics of the army to the point it's crippled. Or here is the more likely scenario mate:

 

19495528-mmmain.jpg

Edited by Kemal Ergenekon
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can't predict the political future?

 

I can.  I did.  I will be correct on this one too.  Nice try!

 

 

The Second Amendment and 100 million U.S. civilians with 300 million guns ensures that U.S. federal and local governments will not be ones that slaughters civilians by the hundreds, thousands, or millions.

“...democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century...†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

"Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932-2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder." Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century... His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle..." None of those countries had a Second Amendment and an armed populace.

 

Fascinating but not topical (to our discussion anyway).

 

 

 Battle of Athens...

 

We are not talking about a couple of good old boys in some backwater town 1946.  You are thinking there could be a rebellion of 3 million people organized to overthrow the US government if Kemal's plan went into action.  And that is simply not going to happen.  Sorry mate.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hohoho. Do you think dictators bomb the whole country to suppress them? You kill tens or hundreds, injure thousands, and imprison tens of thousands and it's usually done. Nowhere does it reach an economically significant number. Crushing the will of a disorganized decentralized mob is very easy.

 

The American Revolution is completely tangential. If you are going to bring us examples, refer to armed rebellions against the government in their homeland, not colonies which were an ocean across while Brits had their hands full with European superpowers.

 

Oohh, yes, the patriots would totally sabotage the logistics of the army to the point it's crippled. Or here is the more likely scenario mate:

 

-snip-

But the thing is, it won't be a mob. It will be more lone wolf attacks. You’re talking mass insurrection. There are a lot of occasions where the fight might just be local.

 

Off the top of my head: 

Arab Spring

Tuareg Rebellion

The Glorious Revolution

 

Probably not to the point where it's crippled, but I'm sure it would cause a headache. 

 

I actually laughed at the flag. 

 

I can.  I did.  I will be correct on this one too.  Nice try!

 

We are not talking about a couple of good old boys in some backwater town 1946.  You are thinking there could be a rebellion of 3 million people organized to overthrow the US government if Kemal's plan went into action.  And that is simply not going to happen.  Sorry mate.

I'm still waiting for the full list of Duma members. 

 

Organized? Hell no. I'm imagining lone wolf attacks like the OKC bombing. We have had tons of terrorist attacks by ISIS, and the government isn't doing a very good job at stopping them. There are way more gun owners in America than Muslims. If only a small part are radical, gun owners could easily cause more lone wolf attacks than ISIS ever dreamed of. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I want an assortment of weapons.

Edited by fistofdoom

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.