Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Masark]

They also forget the highest school mass shooting , the shooter used two semi-auto handguns, one was a .22 cal., to kill over 30 students at Virginia Tech. The next thing they will go after is semi-auto handguns, until someone with two revolvers kill a lot of people in a mass shooting.

We're already there and have been for a long time. All handguns are automatically Restricted weapons up here. It's been like that since Mulroney.

[Ghostpanther]

We're already there and have been for a long time. All handguns are automatically Restricted weapons up here. It's been like that since Mulroney.

Yeah, easier for you guys up there to ban certain firearms.

[the game]

[Noxx79]

Hey, should protestors shoot back against the tyrannical government violating their first amendment rights?

[postman1782]

So, an NRA shill is someone that you look up to? Is he going to have a job after the NRA is shut down?

[Laytnor]

As someone who is not an american and does not have the privilege of the second amendment, and especially someone who lives in a country that used to be occupied by authoritarian regime who's first course of action was the disarmament of civilians, I'll always question the intelligence of every american who supports the idea of getting themselves disarmed. Bloody hell, imagine being born in a country with a privilege others can only dream about, and willing to throw that away because of your hurt feelings about incidents that are statistically rare. What the hell is wrong with you?
Sure, you can sperg out about how even armed civilians wouldn't be able to fight back (false), if military takeover took place, but the matter of fact is, guerilla warfare is an effective weapon of resistance. Hell, my small country, with handful of forest partisans, made it really painful and bloody for soviets to keep their disgusting red hides in my country, imagine how much harder it'd be if we had second amendment and a good chunk of households was armed. In a scenario like this, do you honestly believe that they'd be as eager to move forward knowing that every household might potentially be armed, and they might get fought back in every alley and corner? Do you not realize how much more of a pain in the arse it would be for a complete military takeover with american second amendment? Even if that was in the plans, the it's literally the only thing that would make anyone think twice before attempting this. At least before bleeding heart idiots bans everything that is not a peashooter, mind you, a ban supported by, commonly, the same people who think the Orang Man is literally hitler, and US government is a fascist dictatorship, because screw logic, lets also get ourselves disarmed even though this is what they unironically believe. And if you disregard this point, at least consider some common sense, and remember that guns are already widely spread everywhere in the ecosystem of America, and disarmament would only hurt law abiding citizens, criminals wouldn't have any problems whatsoever getting more guns, while civilians get shafted.

You people can't even comprehend how lucky you are, yet you're fucking eager to throw it away, and for what? Feelings and preventing STATISTICALLY FEW DEATHS? What in the bloody hell is wrong with you? You are privileged. Yet you choose to piss it all away. Corona has statistically killed way more people than guns in the US this year (a chunk of which was suicides, mind you), yet idiots still laugh it off and sperg out about wearing masks, but when a gun is involved, suddenly they need to be gone. Idiocracy.
I don't agree with Marxism, and I think that entire ideology is nothing but unrealistic nonsense, but I'll give credit where credit is due and quote Marx. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary".
Disarmament only hurts the civilians, and benefits potentially oppressive governments.

[Ghostpanther]

Good video. The concept of suing manufacturers over someone illegally using a firearm is asinine. If a firearm has a safety defect, then that is different. Allowing it otherwise, is like allowing car manufacturers to be sued over someone using one of their vehicles to purposely run over someone.

- - - Updated - - -

So, an NRA shill is someone that you look up to? Is he going to have a job after the NRA is shut down?

He doesn't work for the NRA anymore or is a paid spokesperson. He use to and no, the NRA is not going to shut down. They are experiencing financial issues because of mismanagement.

Colin Noir is a excellent commentator on the Second Amendment and anyone who is interested in the subject, I highly recommend them checking his videos out.

He is dead on about Joe Biden's threat to the concept of the Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

As someone who is not an american and does not have the privilege of the second amendment, and especially someone who lives in a country that used to be occupied by authoritarian regime who's first course of action was the disarmament of civilians, I'll always question the intelligence of every american who supports the idea of getting themselves disarmed. Bloody hell, imagine being born in a country with a privilege others can only dream about, and willing to throw that away because of your hurt feelings about incidents that are statistically rare. What the hell is wrong with you?
Sure, you can sperg out about how even armed civilians wouldn't be able to fight back (false), if military takeover took place, but the matter of fact is, guerilla warfare is an effective weapon of resistance. Hell, my small country, with handful of forest partisans, made it really painful and bloody for soviets to keep their disgusting red hides in my country, imagine how much harder it'd be if we had second amendment and a good chunk of households was armed. In a scenario like this, do you honestly believe that they'd be as eager to move forward knowing that every household might potentially be armed, and they might get fought back in every alley and corner? Do you not realize how much more of a pain in the arse it would be for a complete military takeover with american second amendment? Even if that was in the plans, the it's literally the only thing that would make anyone think twice before attempting this. At least before bleeding heart idiots bans everything that is not a peashooter, mind you, a ban supported by, commonly, the same people who think the Orang Man is literally hitler, and US government is a fascist dictatorship, because screw logic, lets also get ourselves disarmed even though this is what they unironically believe. And if you disregard this point, at least consider some common sense, and remember that guns are already widely spread everywhere in the ecosystem of America, and disarmament would only hurt law abiding citizens, criminals wouldn't have any problems whatsoever getting more guns, while civilians get shafted.

You people can't even comprehend how lucky you are, yet you're fucking eager to throw it away, and for what? Feelings and preventing STATISTICALLY FEW DEATHS? What in the bloody hell is wrong with you? You are privileged. Yet you choose to piss it all away. Corona has statistically killed way more people than guns in the US this year (a chunk of which was suicides, mind you), yet idiots still laugh it off and sperg out about wearing masks, but when a gun is involved, suddenly they need to be gone. Idiocracy.
I don't agree with Marxism, and I think that entire ideology is nothing but unrealistic nonsense, but I'll give credit where credit is due and quote Marx. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary".
Disarmament only hurts the civilians, and benefits potentially oppressive governments.

Well said. Thanks for posting this. It is something which needs to be emphasized all the time. Esp. in today's political attacks on the right to keep and carry firearms for self defense.

The threat to disarm or reduce the chances of the peaceful citizen's right to defend themselves is real.

[Felya]

The threat to disarm or reduce the chances of the peaceful citizen's right to defend themselves is real.

Did you catch the part about dreaming to own a gun? I’m also someone who was born in a country with an authoritarian regime and guns isn’t something we dreamed of. Voting... civil rights... representative government... gun? No... never played a role.

Edit: Think about it... there is little Felya, at 8, standing in line with his mom, so we can present our voucher for food rations... do you think any of us were dreaming of owning a gun? As I’m watching tanks rolling down the street, you think we were dreaming of guns?

[Specialka]

As someone who is not an american and does not have the privilege of the second amendment, and especially someone who lives in a country that used to be occupied by authoritarian regime who's first course of action was the disarmament of civilians, I'll always question the intelligence of every american who supports the idea of getting themselves disarmed. Bloody hell, imagine being born in a country with a privilege others can only dream about, and willing to throw that away because of your hurt feelings about incidents that are statistically rare. What the hell is wrong with you?
Sure, you can sperg out about how even armed civilians wouldn't be able to fight back (false), if military takeover took place, but the matter of fact is, guerilla warfare is an effective weapon of resistance. Hell, my small country, with handful of forest partisans, made it really painful and bloody for soviets to keep their disgusting red hides in my country, imagine how much harder it'd be if we had second amendment and a good chunk of households was armed. In a scenario like this, do you honestly believe that they'd be as eager to move forward knowing that every household might potentially be armed, and they might get fought back in every alley and corner? Do you not realize how much more of a pain in the arse it would be for a complete military takeover with american second amendment? Even if that was in the plans, the it's literally the only thing that would make anyone think twice before attempting this. At least before bleeding heart idiots bans everything that is not a peashooter, mind you, a ban supported by, commonly, the same people who think the Orang Man is literally hitler, and US government is a fascist dictatorship, because screw logic, lets also get ourselves disarmed even though this is what they unironically believe. And if you disregard this point, at least consider some common sense, and remember that guns are already widely spread everywhere in the ecosystem of America, and disarmament would only hurt law abiding citizens, criminals wouldn't have any problems whatsoever getting more guns, while civilians get shafted.

You people can't even comprehend how lucky you are, yet you're fucking eager to throw it away, and for what? Feelings and preventing STATISTICALLY FEW DEATHS? What in the bloody hell is wrong with you? You are privileged. Yet you choose to piss it all away. Corona has statistically killed way more people than guns in the US this year (a chunk of which was suicides, mind you), yet idiots still laugh it off and sperg out about wearing masks, but when a gun is involved, suddenly they need to be gone. Idiocracy.
I don't agree with Marxism, and I think that entire ideology is nothing but unrealistic nonsense, but I'll give credit where credit is due and quote Marx. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary".
Disarmament only hurts the civilians, and benefits potentially oppressive governments.

If your population is armed, you just meet them with greater firepower, you know like the army literally gunning down the population and bombing every house that would oppose some kind of resistance.

Is there any exemple of an armed population going toe to toe against a professionnal army and emerging victorious?

[Felya]

Is there any exemple of an armed population going toe to toe against a professionnal army and emerging victorious?

That depends... is a guillotine a gun?

Edit: Yeah, man... as soon as my family landed in US, we were all like... where all the guns at? lol

[Ghostpanther]

If your population is armed, you just meet them with greater firepower, you know like the army literally gunning down the population and bombing every house that would oppose some kind of resistance.

Is there any exemple of an armed population going toe to toe against a professionnal army and emerging victorious?

In history, yes. Your country is one example. lol!

But I agree in general with you, that a armed militia can not go up against a modern army today one on one and be victorious. They can however, cause a lot of issues and be a threat to the leaders of a tyrannical leadership if enough of them are willing to fight. Assassinations do happen even in today's times.

[Felya]

In history, yes. Your country is one example. lol!

George Washington was the general of what Army?

But I agree in general with you, that a armed militia can not go up against a modern army today one on one and be victorious. They can however, cause a lot of issues and be a threat to the leaders of a tyrannical leadership if enough of them are willing to fight. Assassinations do happen even in today's times.

Did you just use assassinating people, as justification to own a gun? What? You think Reagan being shot, was the purpose of second Amendment? Are you sure?

[Specialka]

In history, yes. Your country is one example. lol!

But I agree in general with you, that a armed militia can not go up against a modern army today one on one and be victorious. They can however, cause a lot of issues and be a threat to the leaders of a tyrannical leadership if enough of them are willing to fight. Assassinations do happen even in today's times.

Yes and no. During the Revolution, the whole army was not a part of it, and it was not asked to gun down everyone.

And as you say, an armed militia can become a threat and will be met with greater firepower, unless you want people to have the right to own tanks in their garden.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes and no. During the Revolution, the whole army was not a part of it, and it was not asked to gun down everyone.

And as you say, an armed militia can become a threat and will be met with greater firepower, unless you want people to have the right to own tanks in their garden.

Yeah. Some of the Army itself joined the revolutionaries. The Storming of the Bastille, the garrison did resist being stormed and killed or wounded around 100 revolutionists. However, it fell pretty quickly due to some of the Army helping the revolutionaries. But with enough of the average citizens in the assault, it would have fell anyway. But with a much higher death result.

So, this brings up a interesting thought. A well armed militia, if they could get enough support from the countries own Army, they could over throw the government.

https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-i...f-the-bastille

[Specialka]

Yeah. Some of the Army itself joined the revolutionaries. The Storming of the Bastille, the garrison did resist being stormed and killed or wounded around 100 revolutionists. However, it fell pretty quickly due to some of the Army helping the revolutionaries. But with enough of the average citizens in the assault, it would have fell anyway. But with a much higher death result.

So, this brings up a interesting thought. A well armed militia, if they could get enough support from the countries own Army, they could over throw the government.

https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-i...f-the-bastille

And I am not fond of that because it is just fertile soil for insurrections and turmoil. We are in 2020, not in 1800- anymore. You should fight for civil rights and equal rights rather that the right of owning guns.

[Laytnor]

If your population is armed, you just meet them with greater firepower, you know like the army literally gunning down the population and bombing every house that would oppose some kind of resistance.

Is there any exemple of an armed population going toe to toe against a professionnal army and emerging victorious?

It's not about outright defeating military force, but being a great deterrent. Those kind of conflicts can last decades, billions upon billions of money lost. Sufficiently armed populace is pain in the ass to take over and control, even if it is first world country army vs a bunch of goatfarmers with ak's. See: vietnam war, wars in the middle east. How long have americans been at it by now? How many trillions wasted? Is it really worth it if the end result is nothing but lost fortunes, destroyed infrastructure, and nothing sufficient to gain from it?

[Specialka]

It's not about outright defeating military force, but being a great deterrent. Those kind of conflicts can last decades, billions upon billions of money lost. Sufficiently armed populace is pain in the ass to take over and control, even if it is first world country army vs a bunch of goatfarmers with ak's. See: vietnam war, wars in the middle east. How long have americans been at it by now? How many trillions wasted? Is it really worth it if the end result is nothing but lost fortunes, destroyed infrastructure, and nothing sufficient to gain from it?

Your comparison are far off. Vietnam was USA vs Vietcong which were backed up and trained by URSS, so not really populace against professional army. Middle east is more or less the same. It is not as effective as you think it is.

[Laytnor]

Your comparison are far off. Vietnam was USA vs Vietcong which were backed up and trained by URSS, so not really populace against professional army. Middle east is more or less the same. It is not as effective as you think it is.

It's not really far off, the point still stands. If something is sufficiently too much of a pain in the arse to pull off, chances are that it's far less likely to happen. Don't forget that those wars were also funneled largely by taxpayer money. In the event of a civil war, that's a large source of income straight off cut off, making it all the more difficult.

[Ghostpanther]

And I am not fond of that because it is just fertile soil for insurrections and turmoil. We are in 2020, not in 1800- anymore. You should fight for civil rights and equal rights rather that the right of owning guns.

Those rights are no more important than the right to keep and carry firearms for self defense. If you lose your life due to someone being stronger or armed, then you can not enjoy those you mentioned. Even if I lived in a country where the chances where very low of it happening, such as the rural area I live in, I would still want the right to keep and carry a firearm for self defense.

The US has it's death rate and higher % from criminal use of firearms, based primary in specific areas of the country. We have a lot of places where the rate rivals even the safest countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Your comparison are far off. Vietnam was USA vs Vietcong which were backed up and trained by URSS, so not really populace against professional army. Middle east is more or less the same. It is not as effective as you think it is.

The US armed forces where also handcuffed by the politicians at the time. Same as Korea.

[Citizen T]

If your population is armed, you just meet them with greater firepower, you know like the army literally gunning down the population and bombing every house that would oppose some kind of resistance.

Is there any exemple of an armed population going toe to toe against a professionnal army and emerging victorious?

just off the top of my head...

US Revolutionary War.
Chechnya vs USSR mid 90s
Afghanistan vs USSR and US