TheGM
The voice of reason
Not a big fan a reason, eh. pretty self evident after reading your posts.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You have an annoying, hysterical monomania where you conflate what goes on in backwoods red states with a very big, diverse country as a whole. Open your mind to the multifaceted nature of things bruh.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
TheGM
The voice of reason
Because making it hard to get firearm to stop people from killing themselves has worked so well for Japan, right.
Why do you have anti-drug laws then?
TheGM
The voice of reason
So you buy Pharma Proved Prescription medications.
Warning reading this post can cause severe headache, mild confusion, lumbago, diminished smugness and inflammation of the rectum. Should not be read by women who are pregnant and overly sensitive Europeans. keep out of the reach of small children and the mentally deficient.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Japan's a lot safer than US bro.
It was like Omaha beach over there. Not really graphic but still.
"That's not a real gun". Omg the truthers were already there from the start.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
TheGM
The voice of reason
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Well ...
Carib FMJ
Nuka-Cola Chaser
If law enforcement and government are too weak to protect their citizens they are not fit to decide if I should be armed. I do not want them taking away my means of defense from them, should they decide to get bright ideas.
Cartels in Mexico would not be as strong if Jose and Maria were able to shoot back. Of course its a choice. Every culture is different and to each their own. I came from a gun culture and it's not even US based.
Cartels in Mexico would not be as strong if Jose and Maria were able to shoot back. Of course its a choice. Every culture is different and to each their own. I came from a gun culture and it's not even US based.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
I don't know about you, but even with a gun I don't think I'd want to fuck with any cartels.
Alphons
National Beholder
When you read Kings "Under the Dome", but stop when that kid gets idea to shoot at the Dome with hunting rifle.Well ...
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
What if Jose and Maria want to start a Cartel gig with the guns they already have? Fight fire with fire, after all!
Hey it works for Detroit and Chicago! The gangs are armed, and you don't see people fucking with them.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
There are few places in the country who have firearms restrictions as tough as Chicago. Although New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are three others.
-
Again, Crni, you seem like a nice enough guy, but page after page of your posts have been pretty much nothing but stereotyping and blanket assumptions about a country you don't seem to like very much, and yet talk about quite a bit.
-
I don't normally make self-defense arguments for two reasons. One is that while self-defense is a legitimate and significant reason to own a firearm, it is not the only argument. The other is my experience that what convinces me of my position will not convince you to change yours, and vice versa. But I will give it a try in terms that are different from my own.
Let's say I stipulate that Chicago is a city with profound income inequality, and one in which systemic racism has concentrated a large minority population into an economically impoverished area with collapsing infrastructure, few avenues of ownership in which to build inter-generational wealth, and a minimal tax base in which to provide basic city services and quality educational opportunities for it's residents. We then shift the majority of social services and mental health care responsibilities onto a police force consisting predominantly of people outside the community, who often view the populace as a threat. When this pressure cooker reaches maximum and crime starts running rampant, do we address the challenging and complex issues that drive the environment, or do we restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms in an area where the police either will not show, or our fellow citizens are conditioned from experience not to call them at all, less they make the situation worse?
Put another way, do citizens of a lower social or economic class have any less right to defend their personal liberty or safety then the privileged upper-classes for whom the government has always served? Is it somehow more acceptable that they should not have the same means to protect themselves as I do, even though they are at greater risk? Or do we expect them to take the greater risk to life and safety as some sort of down-payment in blood against the faith that some day we will right the inequities that gave rise to the situation in the first place?
Or should every person have both the right to live freely without fear of violence from their fellow man, and the right to effectively defend themselves from those who cannot abide in a free society, until such time as our reality catches up with our ideals?
-
Again, Crni, you seem like a nice enough guy, but page after page of your posts have been pretty much nothing but stereotyping and blanket assumptions about a country you don't seem to like very much, and yet talk about quite a bit.
-
I don't normally make self-defense arguments for two reasons. One is that while self-defense is a legitimate and significant reason to own a firearm, it is not the only argument. The other is my experience that what convinces me of my position will not convince you to change yours, and vice versa. But I will give it a try in terms that are different from my own.
Let's say I stipulate that Chicago is a city with profound income inequality, and one in which systemic racism has concentrated a large minority population into an economically impoverished area with collapsing infrastructure, few avenues of ownership in which to build inter-generational wealth, and a minimal tax base in which to provide basic city services and quality educational opportunities for it's residents. We then shift the majority of social services and mental health care responsibilities onto a police force consisting predominantly of people outside the community, who often view the populace as a threat. When this pressure cooker reaches maximum and crime starts running rampant, do we address the challenging and complex issues that drive the environment, or do we restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms in an area where the police either will not show, or our fellow citizens are conditioned from experience not to call them at all, less they make the situation worse?
Put another way, do citizens of a lower social or economic class have any less right to defend their personal liberty or safety then the privileged upper-classes for whom the government has always served? Is it somehow more acceptable that they should not have the same means to protect themselves as I do, even though they are at greater risk? Or do we expect them to take the greater risk to life and safety as some sort of down-payment in blood against the faith that some day we will right the inequities that gave rise to the situation in the first place?
Or should every person have both the right to live freely without fear of violence from their fellow man, and the right to effectively defend themselves from those who cannot abide in a free society, until such time as our reality catches up with our ideals?
When even Cracked tells you the cops aren't forced to protect you even if they watch you getting your ass stabbed...
(true story btw, you can look it up)