Right to Bear Arms

  • Thread starter 𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼
  • Start date
Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
There are almost 60 comments in this thread and aside from yourself I have not seen anyone trying to justify "psychos bearing arms".
Those who bear arms and attack schools and commit massacres are what? Maybe spiritual priests, like the spiritual priest of mukhtara, who commits massacres and steal church bells, that our friend cheers for.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    Ben Shapiro of Jewish descent said, "The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they’re now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist revisionist history where there’s never any fear of democracy going usurpacious or tyrannical, is just that. It’s fictitious.”

    If you had asked the Jews before the Nazis came to existence about their fears, they would have not had any fears of gas ovens. I tell you that.
    Ben Shapiro talks [email protected] every time.

    He doesn't even know his history. antisemitism was rife even before the Nazis.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The armed Kurds in northern Syria are more or less a bargaining chip to counter Turkey, in case you aren't aware.
    At least they're a bargaining chip now of value. Before they were not even considered.


    I haven't seen any instances in western countries - where people are permitted to carry guns - people rising up in arms to "defend" themselves. All we have seen are massacres in malls and schools.
    You don't seem to be familiar with Western history then. Didn't your friends in the IRA (which are pro-hezbollah) carry arms to defend themselves and their people as they say?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Not counting enemies nobody else is being killed by guns in this country:

    1.jpg 5.jpg
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    At least they're a bargaining chip now of value. Before they were not even considered.
    They have always been safe in northern Syria unlike in Iraq, where their weapons didn't save them from a gas attack. If carrying guns was such a deterrent, Halabja massacre wont have taken place.

    You don't seem to be familiar with Western history then. Didn't your friends in the IRA (which are pro-hezbollah) carry arms to defend themselves and their people as they say?
    In times of war. In times of war, you wont even need a permit to defend yourself. The reason allowing civilians in times of peace is nonsense.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It's not at all nonsense.

    The government is limited in what it can USE against its people. Using tanks and drones against your population is a risk most nations won't take. They're not all Bashar Al Assad. They will employ armed forces to dwindle protests and search homes, etc. An armed population will make it more challenging for them to establish any control like that without thinking twice and making amends.

    The UK took the guns away. And now you require mandatory "TV licenses" and can be arrested for an offensive Tweet and the pettiest of things. it's slowly turning into an Orwellian police state.

    Meanwhile, US having more than 100 million armed citizen ensures a governmental tyranny / police state cannot arise over those. As those would be impossible to ever directly control and would have to be appeased.
    If we're talking about establishing control, governments that want to manufacture consent among their own population can do so without ever picking up a single weapon or taking a single one away. And already have. Guns don't prevent an Orweillian state. Using our brains is the only thing that prevents that. There are a million more insidious ways to manufacture consent and create a compliant population than gun control. Consent has already been manufactured in most countries, not just the UK. And I'd argue that this is the case wayyyy more in heavily armed populations than in the UK.

    What we're talking about here is the argument that some (presumably) non-consenting portion of a population is going to take up an armed rebellion against government forces. In this instance, the governments would and could readily crush it, drones or no drones. Take a look at the tanks that rolled into Ferguson, Missouri when a bunch of teens dared rise up. Ditto Keystone XL pipeline protestors, etc. And those folks were unarmed. Wait and see what happens if some rebels try to do the same while open carrying. There are no meaningful limits (legal or otherwise) on government tyranny except public opinion. And a population whose consent has already been manufactured will see the righteousness of the government's enforcement of law and order against any armed rebels.

    There is nothing about the US's heavily armed population that ensures against tyranny. Those folks are on the same side as the government (all the governments, this has nothing to do with Trump before you go there). It's the fact that their consent has already been obtained (i.e., manufactured) that keeps the US government from doing a hostile takeover of their guns caches. It has exactly zero to do with the fact that they have guns. Those could be wiped out in an instant if they dared used them at cross purposes of the government or oligarchy.

    All said, I'd stick to the hunting rationale. Unless you're part of an organized ideologically coherent militia that has ties to heavy arms-exporting foreign states, you probably aren't going to fight against any government with any measure of success.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Those who bear arms and attack schools and commit massacres are what? Maybe spiritual priests, like the spiritual priest of mukhtara, who commits massacres and steal church bells, that our friend cheers for.
    "Those who bear arms and attack schools and commit massacres are what?" - they are sick people, no argument here.

    However, this is not what you were saying before you tried deflection above.
    You were accusing people of justifying "attack schools and commit massacres".

    PS. I wonder sometime if you are actually playing with full deck of cards - you are constantly confusing obviously different subjects.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If we're talking about establishing control, governments that want to manufacture consent among their own population can do so without ever picking up a single weapon or taking a single one away. And already have. Guns don't prevent an Orweillian state. Using our brains is the only thing that prevents that. There are a million more insidious ways to manufacture consent and create a compliant population than gun control. Consent has already been manufactured in most countries, not just the UK. And I'd argue that this is the case wayyyy more in heavily armed populations than in the UK.

    What we're talking about here is the argument that some (presumably) non-consenting portion of a population is going to take up an armed rebellion against government forces. In this instance, the governments would and could readily crush it, drones or no drones. Take a look at the tanks that rolled into Ferguson, Missouri when a bunch of teens dared rise up. Ditto Keystone XL pipeline protestors, etc. And those folks were unarmed. Wait and see what happens if some rebels try to do the same while open carrying. There are no meaningful limits (legal or otherwise) on government tyranny except public opinion. And a population whose consent has already been manufactured will see the righteousness of the government's enforcement of law and order against any armed rebels.

    There is nothing about the US's heavily armed population that ensures against tyranny. Those folks are on the same side as the government (all the governments, this has nothing to do with Trump before you go there). It's the fact that their consent has already been obtained (i.e., manufactured) that keeps the US government from doing a hostile takeover of their guns caches. It has exactly zero to do with the fact that they have guns. Those could be wiped out in an instant if they dared used them at cross purposes of the government or oligarchy.

    All said, I'd stick to the hunting rationale. Unless you're part of an organized ideologically coherent militia that has ties to heavy arms-exporting foreign states, you probably aren't going to fight against any government with any measure of success.
    It is true that forms of governmental control have evolved from the basic Orweillian state and now control us through our search for pleasure and mindless consumption. But it is undeniable than the direct forces of tyranny are at play at many parts of the world. And that exerting political control and domination is still a mixture of both pain and pleasure.

    Realistically, no government dares to "wipe up" its people. They exert power to a limited extent. Hence, armed civilians are an undeniable withhold on tyranny and a swing back in the pendulum. You say it has never reached success anywhere in the world. But I see that it have, whenever I compare countries in Europe that allow guns and countries that don't, I see that the latter are more of a police state with more submissive and subjugated populations. I'll use Switzerland vs UK as an example.

    Moreover, guns owners in the US are generally against big goverment. They're generally Libertarians and "don't tread on me" types. And NOT mainstream Republicans or War Hawks who would side with a tyranny. Those who uphold the right to bear arms also uphold free speech and democracy and defend the constitution. And are generally against interventionism and government programs and argue instead for little government and the right to be left alone doing their own thing.
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    Not counting enemies nobody else is being killed by guns in this country:

    View attachment 19375View attachment 19377

    Because Israel is a civilized society who cherishes life. They only use guns to protect themselves from terrorists and keep their country safe. A concept that is very difficult for Iranian-terrorist supporters to understand. But what can you expect from a country that teaches small children to call other countries 'Great and little Satan' and dedicates an entire national holiday only to hate on those 2 same countries?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Shapiro is a blabbering idiot. end of
    I do not think Shapiro is blabbering idiot.
    However, I suspect that his manner of speech is too fast for you to comprehend and because of that you got confused about who is an idiot.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is true that forms of governmental control have evolved from the basic Orweillian state and now control us through our search for pleasure and mindless consumption. But it is undeniable than the direct forces of tyranny are at play at many parts of the world. And that exerting political control and domination is still a mixture of both pain and pleasure.
    No argument from me, but I do think it's beyond encouraging mere mindless consumption. It's the actual process of changing minds in addition to getting us to mindlessly ignore power dynamics.

    Realistically, no government dares to "wipe up" its people. They exert power to a limited extent. Hence, armed civilians are an undeniable withhold on tyranny and a swing back in the pendulum. You say it has never reached success anywhere in the world. But I see that it have, whenever I compare countries in Europe that allow guns and countries that don't, I see that the latter are more of a police state with more submissive and subjugated populations. I'll use Switzerland vs UK as an example.
    Not sure I agree with "no government" Many examples of those who will wipe up their own people, or at least those we might consider their own people, but others don't. We don't even need to go to the extremes of Rwanda, Sudan, or Indonesia, but they're there. Not to mention Syria. But I think this could be replicated anywhere.

    On the Switzerland v. UK example, I'm not sure I would describe UK as any more submissive than Switzerland. But to the extent that you do, there could be a host of reasons for that having nothing to do with gun ownership. A fractured national identity being one of the first things that comes to mind.

    Moreover, guns owners in the US are generally against big goverment. They're generally Libertarians and "don't tread on me" types. And NOT mainstream Republicans or War Hawks who would side with a tyranny. Those who uphold the right to bear arms also uphold free speech and democracy and defend the constitution. And are generally against interventionism and government programs and argue instead for little government and the right to be left alone doing their own thing.
    I think this is a complete misconception that is worthy of its own thread. So I'll just say this: "Don't tread on me libertarians" and their snake flags are anything but civil libertarians. They are the first to line up behind the government's oppression of dissent and I'm also not talking about mainstream Republicans or war hawks. I'd love to see the don't tread on me types' dissent on the PATRIOT Act, on FISA reauthorization, on NSEERS, I could go on. It doesn't exist (there are a few principled libertarians against these things, these are not them). Their version of don't tread on me ends at their guns and maybe their weed stash (oh and of course not giving black people welfare because that's their definition of big government), not on any principle of defending actual civil liberties. Their hypocrisy is well-documented, particularly given that they almost uniformly vote for the party of big government intervention. Again, this is what I meant that there will never be a fight between them and the government. They are on its side.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Not to mention Syria. But I think this could be replicated anywhere.
    Armed populations in Syria, e.g Druze and Kurds, were able to secure themselves from the government with some negotiation tactics. If they didn't have arms, they would have nothing to stand on. And would have been conscripted in the army or killed. Like other Alewites.


    On the Switzerland v. UK example, I'm not sure I would describe UK as any more submissive than Switzerland. But to the extent that you do, there could be a host of reasons for that having nothing to do with gun ownership. A fractured national identity being one of the first things that comes to mind.
    Both have a fractured national identity. The people of the United Kingdom are not one population. And yet we see lot of police state behaviors. Even banning people from the nation for having conservative views or imprisoning someone for a Youtube joke. On the other hand, Switzerland ensures its young men are trained in the army and have at least one weapon. And I haven't heard of any governmental practices that seem authoritarian or of that sort.

    I think this is a complete misconception that is worthy of its own thread. So I'll just say this: "Don't tread on me libertarians" and their snake flags are anything but civil libertarians. They are the first to line up behind the government's oppression of dissent and I'm also not talking about mainstream Republicans or war hawks. I'd love to see the don't tread on me types' dissent on the PATRIOT Act, on FISA reauthorization, on NSEERS, I could go on. It doesn't exist (there are a few principled libertarians against these things, these are not them). Their version of don't tread on me ends at their guns and maybe their weed stash (oh and of course not giving black people welfare because that's their definition of big government), not on any principle of defending actual civil liberties. Their hypocrisy is well-documented, particularly given that they almost uniformly vote for the party of big government intervention. Again, this is what I meant that there will never be a fight between them and the government. They are on its side.
    Their stance from immigration has some justification. A nation is open to immigrants at its beginning, but then shuts down its doors for its own good. Who they vote for is not a good metric as it's usually the worst of the two evils. They never had a Libertarian candidate with a snake flag to make it to the presidency.
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    Number of guns is irrelevant, genius, each of us can be killed with single bullet.
    Of course it is, what the hell does accessibility to highly lethal means have to do with mass murder? Nothing!!! In fact, even with 0 guns around there will always be gun violence!!!
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Of course it is, what the hell does accessibility to highly lethal means have to do with mass murder? Nothing!!! In fact, even with 0 guns around there will always be gun violence!!!
    I see you are overflowing with emotion.

    BTW, I agree, with 0 guns there will be no gun violence.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Myso mad Trudeau banned his plastic guns...
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Myso mad Trudeau banned his plastic guns...
    Yes, my polymer superior Ar-15 is plastic. Like any beautiful modern gun.
    Not going under 4000 in the buy-back program.
    Ψ±Ψ²Ω‚ΩŠ و Ψ­Ψ± ΩΩŠΩ‡.
    :)
     
    Top