You clearly have absolutely no idea why America was founded on the rights for citizens to bear arms. I don’t give a **** if weapons had evolved or not; you’re not taking my weapons. Get that ignorant, sheep rhetoric out of here.
And I couldn't care less what happens to the U.S, they are the reason the abondance of poverity is around the world with their stupidity of an "American Dream" that only 5% can enjoy while the other are a bunch of sheep that fill their pockets afterwards.
I’ll be sure to tell the grandmother whose grandchild died holding a cellphone while standing in her backyard. When all of the sudden, police officers come because they got a report, he matched description, and shot him thinking he was the guy, over 20 times.
Really? Thanks for the heads up. I’m glad you spared the time to help me pick which news outlet to use to get accurate and respectable news from. Oh wait... you didn’t leave an alternative. May I ask, why?
So let’s all acknowledge that you haven’t answered my questions yet, I’ll wait for that answer.
@Red: Lmfao do you even know the definition of a militia? It’s literally an organized group of armed civilians that are eligible for military service. So commoners such as you and I are at liberty to bear arms, assuming we are able-bodied. The fact that we have the right to bear arms throughout American history proves you’re wrong.
You have to be part of a militia group to be considered militia.....what are you talking about? That's objectively wrong
Again, the Constitution is a living document, meaning it's allowed to be interpreted and ratified which it has throughout history.
"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right". -Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's very own words proves your argument wrong. There is no one interpretation of the Constitution and claiming that there is and enforcing it so "is an act of force and not a right."
@Blue: Sounds like that’s a misinterpretation on your part, because that’s exactly what it is. Your trying to make this about nuclear arms while the world is talking about Assault rifles. Your desperate ass-pulls are dragging this out longer than it has to be. Like I said earlier, American civilians should be armed with assault rifles to combat military troops, if need be, at the very least.
@Bold: Lmfao according to you, the the right to “bear arms” also isn’t extended to nuclear weapons, right? And to make your scenario even more ridiculous, you completely ignored what I’d stated in that portion of the quote entirely. I said that since Tear gas and pepper spray are classified as chemical weapons, then they should be legal. Not to mention that you’re acting as if the government is handing out assault weapons to, as you stated, every individual.
You have to part of a militia group to be considered militia.....what are you talking about? That's objectively wrong
Again, the Constitution is a living document, meaning it's allowed to be interpreted and ratified which it has throughout history.
"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right". -Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's very own words proves your argument wrong. There is no one interpretation of the Constitution and claiming that there is and enforcing it so "is an act of force and not a right."
Hey dumb dumb, "arms" is a broad term which includes nuclear and chemical weaponry.
I used it as an example to demonstrate your hypocrisy, selfishness, and a lack of understanding.
@Bold: That's an utterly stupid reason, and so far it has done more harm than good. Let's look back at the Civil War shall we?
That's what bear arms means...
Arms is short for armaments.
You must be registered for see images
Your entire philosophy boils down to "I want military grade equipment to fight the military"
I can’t help but acknowledge that you keep skipping over a wide range of the text and you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Either answer them or get the **** on, I’ll break down this quote after/if you do that. Until then I’ll await your response.
I can’t help but acknowledge that you keep skipping over a wide range of the text and you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Either answer them or get the **** on, I’ll break down this quote after/if you do that. Until then I’ll await your response.
People have their rights to purchase weapons if they so choose but let’s not forget that your initial comment insinuated that you believe that no one should be able to purchase weapons at all. How do you advocate that given the ban on guns throughout history in European and Asian countries where genocide ensued after the populace were stripped of their weapons? After all, you responded to my response to this comment:
Back on topic, the fact that it's legal to possess a weapon is wrong, I mean, if it's for protection than clearly something in the current society is wrong since Americans need protection from a weapon.
People have their rights to purchase weapons if they so choose but let’s not forget that your initial comment insinuated that you believe that no one should be able to purchase weapons at all. How do you advocate that given the ban on guns throughout history in European and Asian countries where genocide ensued after the populace were stripped of their weapons? After all, you responded to my response to this comment:
@Bold: I didn't insinuate that. That's just your assumption. All I did was demonstrate that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways which oppose your own beliefs while still being constitutional.
So are you claiming then that genocides don't happen when the populace is armed? Because they sure have.
Again, that's a really dumb hypothetical scenario as nothing would suggest that the U.S. is gearing toward the point where there will be a mass genocide of individuals because of some reason.
We shouldn't make policy on what if scenarios that will most likely never happen.
And if having guns is the end means to protecting the population, which is what you're arguing, well it's certainly not doing that.
@Bold: I didn't insinuate that. That's just your assumption. All I did was demonstrate that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways which oppose your own beliefs while still being constitutional.
So are you claiming then that genocides don't happen when the populace is armed? Because they sure have.
Again, that's a really dumb hypothetical scenario as nothing would suggest that the U.S. is gearing toward the point where there will be a mass genocide of individuals because of some reason.
We shouldn't make policy on what if scenarios that will most likely never happen.
And if having guns is the end means to protecting the population, which is what you're arguing, well it's certainly not doing that.
@Red: I’m saying that they deter from oppression. In recent history, gun-restrictions were enforced during Mussolini’s reign; more than 300,000 people perished. Millions died with Hitler and the same with Stalin when they seized civilian weapons. During WWII, the US literally had internment camps set up for the Japanese. At that moment, they were targeted but what if the filter was set to the entire civilian population? Is something like that really unfathomable in society today? In Yemen, Liberia, Syria, etc. there are factions controlling the distribution of weapons and oppressing the unarmed populace.
@Bold: No, for the second time, your asinine scenario of citizens being able to hold Nuclear weapons is literally fucking retarded. You ignoring the fact that I’d said the following, is also fucking retarded:
In regards to that asinine question about a nuclear weapon and chemical weapons, no average civilian should have access to nuclear weapons. That question was especially foolish because I highly doubt our government would bomb itself with NUCLEAR WEAPONS because they’ll more than likely send out troops and drones. Which is why CIVILIANS should be armed with automatic rifles at the VERY LEAST. Hell, tear gas is a chemical weapon so yes, civilians should be able to have those too.
You’re trying to make this about nuclear arms while the world is talking about Assault rifles. Your desperate ass-pulls are dragging this out longer than it has to be. Like I said earlier, American civilians should be armed with assault rifles to combat military troops, if need be, at the very least.
@BoldUnderlined: I agree, which of us made the fiercely unrealistic scenario involving the government arming EVERY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN with nuclear weapons?
@Underlined: Elaborate on how it isn’t doing that. Matter of fact, I’ll take it one step further; prove to me that a gun-free/poorly-armed civilian populace wouldn’t entice police to act more egregiously.
What do you not understand about the Constitution being a living document? Whatever the reason was for the second amendment 250 years ago is moot. Things change and so does the Constitution. That is how it was meant to be.
@Red: I’m saying that they deter from oppression. In recent history, gun-restrictions were enforced during Mussolini’s reign; more than 300,000 people perished. Millions died with Hitler and the same with Stalin when they seized civilian weapons. During WWII, the US literally had internment camps set up for the Japanese. At that moment, they were targeted but what if the filter was set to the entire civilian population? Is something like that really unfathomable in society today? In Yemen, Liberia, Syria, etc. there are factions controlling the distribution of weapons and oppressing the unarmed populace.
@Bold: No, for the second time, your asinine scenario of citizens being able to hold Nuclear weapons is literally fucking retarded. You ignoring the fact that I’d said the following, is also fucking retarded:
So the fear of genocide trumps everything else, even though we have mass killings from your proposed solution? Got it.
Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.
An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. In 1938 a was passed law that actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.
Lastly, Mussolini never banned guns in Italy.
Your entire scenario is full of holes.
Before citing historical examples, you'd ought actually learn the history.
@BoldUnderlined: I agree, which of us made the fiercely unrealistic scenario involving the government arming EVERY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN with nuclear weapons?
@Underlined: Elaborate on how it isn’t doing that. Matter of fact, I’ll take it one step further; prove to me that a gun-free/poorly-armed civilian populace wouldn’t entice police to act more egregiously.
I'm outlying your double standards. If you're argument was that we shouldn't restrict weapons, then nuclear weapons would figure into that which is why I made the analogy. If you're ok with people possessing nuclear weapons, even if only it were a minority of the population, then it only shows how fanatical your beliefs are. If not, then you have no platform to say we're not allowed to restrict weapons.
What do you not understand about the Constitution being a living document? Whatever the reason was for the second amendment 250 years ago is moot. Things change and so does the Constitution. That is how it was meant to be.
How the **** was that the answer to my question when that was the statement that made me ask MY question in the first place? Rofl, you’re literally retarded. So again, if YOU believe that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t made to combat tyranny, then what is the purpose of it?
So the fear of genocide trumps everything else, even though we have mass killings from your proposed solution? Got it.
No, it’s about learning from history, you moron. Governments have and will always eventually turn on their populace, given the right opportunity. They’ve used rhetoric and propaganda to influence beliefs and shift morals in order to turn the tides in their favor. It’s about preservation of our constantly eroding Rights from scum like you. Guns stop those mass murders too, so the basis of your argument is sheer stupidity. Disarm the general populace while government and law enforcement only bear arms. That’s literally the dumbest thing I’ve heard any propose, refer to the spoiler below.
Hit-and-run victims still exist, so we should ban cars right? Suicide rates caused by online bullying have been on the increase so we should completely do away with freedom of speech, right? Verbal bullying allegedly caused some of the school shooters to carry out their assaults so again, more restrictions on freedom of speech?
Which of us made the fiercely unrealistic scenario involving the government arming EVERY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN with nuclear weapons?
Elaborate on how it isn’t doing that. Matter of fact, I’ll take it one step further; prove to me that a gun-free/poorly-armed civilian populace wouldn’t entice police to act more egregiously.
Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.
Clearly that’s happened in the past as well but you’re too stupid to acknowledge that history has a “history” of repeating itself, does it not? There have been factions throughout history, some engaging in civil wars; others just being tyrants, that control weapon distribution and resources while simultaneously oppressing the powerless. The fact that I have to state that is disappointing.
@BoldUnderlined: You ignoramus, use common sense. In the context of modern America, American civilians don’t have enough power to overthrow their government if they do decide to start oppressing the populace but we don’t have to make it easy for them to oppress us. Is that really lost on you? Rofl so according to you we should roll over for our would-be dictators without a fight and deal with whatever they decide to dish out to us? And then what, wait for the Russians to liberate us? Totally, dude.
Sheer stupidity.
An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. The best gun control opponents can do is use a quote allegedly from Hitler in 1935 (which is almost certainly fake) or mention the 1938 law. However, the 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.
@Bold: Literally irrelevant, the Nazis started with propaganda against Jews which made them the enemy. Little-to-no-one defended the Jews from their growing persecution, including when their homes were being raided and having their weapons seized. And let’s not act like it was just the Jews being persecuted either. Weapon restrictions expanded to the countries that the Nazi’s seized control over, onto their prisoners. That’s literally common knowledge.
Sounds like a lot of covering your ass before hand going on there with the “almost certainly fake,” bit.
Lastly, Mussolini never banned guns in Italy.
Your entire scenario is full of holes which makes it even dumber than it already is.
You’re right, there was already a gun control law in effect when he seized power. He was the one that took advantage of that to control the populace. Certainly didn’t allow those who were starving to death to wield weapons, now did he?
@Underlined: Saying things like that while not dismantling anything in that spoiler is truly comedic. But by all means, do what you do best.
Bro, you're an idiot. I'm outlying your double standards. If you're argument was that we shouldn't restrict weapons, then nuclear weapons would figure into that which is why I made the analogy. If you're ok with people possessing nuclear weapons, even if only it were a minority of the population, then it only shows how fanatical your beliefs are. If not, then you have no platform to say we're not allowed to restrict weapons.
@Bold: Rofl, the irony. Since you ignored where I pointed out the staggering amount of stupidity in your scenario when I’d placed them in the spoilers in my last reply, I’ll use one of your quotes instead.
Lightbringer said:
Your entire scenario is full of holes which makes it even dumber than it already is.
@UnderlinedBold: Again, you’re a desperate idiot, that much was clear far earlier on. Just try to imagine a scenario where you proposed arming EVERY INDIVIDUAL CIVILIAN with a doomsday weapon. Now, imagine me exposing the idiocy of that logic flawlessly but you keep ignoring it. That’s literally how this entire discussion has gone.
