Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Barkingturtle]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

Congrats, you can read what everyone else was able to read. Don't you feel special that you were able to determine that it said death by firearms and concluded that it was tallying the suicides with homicides. Suicides and Homicides mean someone died too, oh man you're on a roll.

Now tell me more about how people didn't commit suicide without guns.

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The statistics are citing deaths by firearms, you stupid fucking brats.

Suicide, homicide; it's all death.

Also, who the fuck is even advocating gun control in this thread? I don't see anyone saying we need to rewrite the Constitution, although I'll admit I don't read even half the posts that get barfed out around here.

To me, it looks like some people are arguing that more guns make the populace safer from gun violence while others are pointing out how ridiculous that sentiment is.

The gun crowd just loves to climb up on its cross, though.

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

Godwin's law invoked, thread complete.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

Read my last post, dipshit.

I for one don't advocate disarmament, because it is entirely infeasible. There are already too many guns in circulation to effectively remove them.

You dudes are pretty clearly in that 17-25 age bracket that dies a lot by gun. Hopefully you manage to age out of it and gain some perspective. At your age, everything is black or white, and framed only in that reference which you can understand. This is the same reason you can never manage to satisfy a woman sexually; your youthful myopia.

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime. What I find most hilarious is that you listed Rwanda among your examples, yet you fail to mention how the RPF utterly curbstomped the genocidaires because they had superior equipment and training. The RPF forces numbered about twenty thousand, compared to hundreds of thousands of genocidaires.

Also it would have been pretty much impossible for tutsi civilians to form some kind of organized force when they were singled out and killed at roadblocks, and ambushed in their own homes. One family barricaded in their own house and armed with pistols isn't going to stop hundreds of people with machetes and AK47's. You fail to realize that a lot of people didn't know what was even going on, acting as if they could band together and defeat a more well-armed force that's ten times their size is absurd beyond question.

By the way, none of the conflicts you brought up occurred in democracies, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned them. This thread is about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in nazi germany. I'm much less afraid of the former committing genocide against its own people.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime. What I find most hilarious is that you listed Rwanda among your examples, yet you fail to mention how the RPF utterly curbstomped the genocidaires because they had superior equipment and training. The RPF forces numbered about twenty thousand, compared to hundreds of thousands of genocidaires.

Also it would have been pretty much impossible for tutsi civilians to form some kind of organized force when they were singled out and killed at roadblocks, and ambushed in their own homes. One family barricaded in their own house and armed with pistols isn't going to stop hundreds of people with machetes and AK47's. You fail to realize that a lot of people didn't know what was even going on, acting as if they could band together and defeat a more well-armed force that's ten times their size is absurd beyond question.

By the way, none of the conflicts you brought up occurred in democracies, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned them. This thread is about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in nazi germany. I'm much less afraid of the former committing genocide against its own people.

This thread isn't about gun control at all, go back to the OP. Also, there are already replies to what you've mentioned above earlier in this thread (regarding the civilians vs government military).

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This idea that the populace needs to have guns in case the government wages war against them is completely ludicrous. A group of people with significant military training are going to utterly annihilate an even larger group of people without such training, even if they all carry pistols. You act as if playing Gears of War qualifies you to defend against a tyrannical regime.

Ok do you even know history? The british were the biggest baddest out there never been defeated and 4% - 6% rose up in 1776 a bunch of farmers an hicks not Gears of war faggots like you stood up an whooped there fucking ass . Your logic is all wrong a skilled group with military training cannot beat guerrilla warfare, plenty of examples of this one being Vietnam and countless others that you can research for yourself. Like i told the last guy go ahead an turn in your guns, your so positive this government wont turn into another hitler,an history does not repeat itself ohh no neverrr, trade your liberty for so called security <--- is the real ludicrous.

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok do you even know history? The british were the biggest baddest out there never been defeated and 4% - 6% rose up in 1776 a bunch of farmers an hicks not Gears of war faggots like you stood up an whooped there fucking ass . Your logic is all wrong a skilled group with military training cannot beat guerrilla warfare, plenty of examples of this one being Vietnam and countless others that you can research for yourself. Like i told the last guy go ahead an turn in your guns, your so positive this government wont turn into another hitler,an history does not repeat itself ohh no neverrr, trade your liberty for so called security <--- is the real ludicrous.

Jesus Christ, who let the inbreed Down's Syndrome kid have a computer.

First of all, dumbass, the height of weapons technology was the single shot musket and cannon. Try to think about that. I know it's hard. Our military now has cruise missiles, drones, nerve and bio agents, nukes, tanks, jets, and a million other things the writers of the 2nd Amendment never dreamed of. The American citizenry has absolutely no chance against a properly trained and supplied army, especially our own. The best we could hope for would be a pissant guerrilla war after we'd been steamrolled in a month.

Secondly, Vietnam was supplied by Russia and China. Who do you think will supply us? Canada and Mexico? No fucking way.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus Christ, who let the inbreed Down's Syndrome kid have a computer.

First of all, dumbass, the height of weapons technology was the single shot musket and cannon. Try to think about that. I know it's hard. Our military now has cruise missiles, drones, nerve and bio agents, nukes, tanks, jets, and a million other things the writers of the 2nd Amendment never dreamed of. The American citizenry has absolutely no chance against a properly trained and supplied army, especially our own. The best we could hope for would be a pissant guerrilla war after we'd been steamrolled in a month.

Secondly, Vietnam was supplied by Russia and China. Who do you think will supply us? Canada and Mexico? No fucking way.

Confirmed fucking stupid.

I bet you're horrible at thinking past your morning piss.