Lurker > VioletZer0

_AdjI_ posted...

Really, if you want to push the "the people must be able to defeat the government" angle, it's anti-structure weapons you should be pushing to legalize, not anti-personnel. Especially with the rise of automation making a workforce less and less necessary to maintain function. Anti-personnel stuff isn't good for much in that case

I very much disagree because fighting the police state is core to fighting authoritarianism.

VeeVees posted...

Mead posted...

After certain states start allowing some teachers to be armed in the classroom I wonder what mental gymnastics the NRA is gonna do the first time some overworked and underpaid teacher loses their control in a moment of stress and shoots a student

arm the kids so they can shoot back

Anyone that should be allowed to vote should be allowed to carry a gun for thr exact same reasons.

Mead posted...

It would be unclear that they even did it dude. They arent cartoon villains theyve got some of the smartest people in the world working at freaking DARPA and the CIA and whatever else.

They could easily wipe out an area and make it look like a massive natural gas leak or orchestrate a false flag scenario like the tinfoil hats are always going on about

And now you're fighting a war against the underground journalists.

The people have primitive printing technology, they have primitive cameras and can be anywhere at any time.

GanglyKhan posted...

Absolutely 100% not. I was running off of the flawed logic that some (not all!) firearms supporters use. It hasn't been the first time I've heard allusions to "what if the government attacked civilians?! I need my guns if they do that!" We'd all be fucked in that case, but it's never going to happen so it's a moot point. Same goes for if a police department decided to take over a town, that just won't happen.

The country would be screwed because they'd be locked in civil war.

The government wants to avoid that as much as we do. But make no mistake, the government wants total submission of the people. You must fight against that at every turn.

Mead posted...

Smarkil posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?

Theyve got a plethora of weapons that would eliminate a local population while leaving everything else intact.

They kill us with such weapons, they create more insurgents because now they're not just trying to stay safe. They're fighting just to stay alive.

If you wish for pro-gun rights people to join you the least you could do is take them seriously when they talk about what is important to them.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Mead posted...

You cant be arguing that guns should be allowed at a forum where the Vice President will be speaking, are you?

It's very hypocritical of the NRA though, considering the fact they will tactlessly go to a school shooting location and cry "if only there'd been more guns!"

It makes sense to me because the government fears an armed populace.

If you're one of those people that believes "Hurr the government would win"

The government has fought many wars against civilian populaces from different countries. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria...

When was the last time they actually WON against civilians?

VeeVees posted...

Ya, no. Your core principle is you want your toys and you are willing to lie about everything else to keep them.

I refuse to believe gun nuts can be stupid enough to actually believe the garbage they say.

What's stupid about it?

That we believe in self reliance? That we believe the citizen populace should have power over the government?

I believe in gun ownership because my police is absolute shit. Our military is bombing innocent people as we speak.

You either depend on yourself, friends and family for protection, or submit to corrupt authority.

VeeVees posted...

LMFAO, sure thing.

Typical gun nut garbage argument.

Yeah, it's our core principle. What of it?

VeeVees posted...

Gun nuts don't care about the victims. The victims can go to hell as long as they can keep their toys.

Gun ownership protects people from begin victimized. Both from citizens, and especially the government.

If we're going to disarm people for their own safety, the government must be disarmed first.

Mead posted...

Have you reached out to victims of violent crimes to let them know you feel this way?

With small timers, you can protect yourself with something...some violent instrument designed for war. I forget what the name is.

That's why I am so paranoid about government. The government is an organized crime syndicate.

Hell, in South Korea that is literally the case.

Probably, it is nothing like the old God of War.

Mead posted...

And those are the only criminals that there are

No one has ever used a gun to steal or flat out kill someone, clearly we just havent thrown enough guns out there to make things safe

Honestly, I am not even a little bit worried about small time criminals. They get what's coming to them more often than not.

It's the organized crime that worries me more than anything.

I promise tho, if no government officials were there and it was exclusively between private citizens they wouldn't be disarmed.

Mead posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Tho let's be real here.

It's because they don't want some martyr to shoot Mike Pence.

That's what guns are for, for fighting the government.

And for criminals

Criminals love guns and how easy it is to get them

HAHAHAHA

Are you serious?

Criminal organizations WANT guns to be criminalized. That's an opportunity for business in gun running.

MrXboneCrusher posted...

But all the good guys with guns should be able to stop a bad guy with a gun at the convention so they should be allowed to take there guns inside

Well they would.

However, the target would most likely be Mike Pence because some martyr wants him dead.

Given that this is a government target, government wants the populace disarmed.

Tho let's be real here.

It's because they don't want some martyr to shoot Mike Pence.

That's what guns are for, for fighting the government.

NRA was the one who sold out gun rights the first time.

Understandable. Fuck the NRA.

Whaaat schmen was one of my favorite posters

Why's everyone talking about incels all of the sudden?

papercup posted...

It was really fun, then I got to DBZ, and I'm not liking it all that much. He introduces "power levels" out of the blue, but he never attempts to explain what a power level of 1 is, or how it scales, so when you see ridiculous numbers like 150,000,000, it's a completely arbitrary and meaningless number. And now there's no suspense in any fight cus you know the guy with the higher power level is going to win. I feel like Toriyama realized that DB was so popular that he can make it as stupid and goofy as he wants, and people will still buy it. Not that it wasn't stupid already, but at least it was stupid in a fun way. Now it's just stupid.

I remember at the beginning of DBZ, in the American dub, Raditz analyzed the farmer with a shotgun and said "Power level 10, too bad"

I thought that was a decent baseline.

Yes they can.

Troll_Police_ posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

They're not going to reunite. At least not any time soon. For the simple reason that this is not what South Korea wants.

Of course they do. I thought a united Korea under southern rule was what the world had been fighting for since the 60s.

Imagine this if you will.

Imagine for a moment that the US was considering annexing Mexico and making it a US state.

How would Trump supporters feel about that?

yeah, but youve got to add the caveat of Mexico making nuclear threats toward the US and its allies and causing even more suffering among its citizens than Mexico currently does.

Koreans don't want the financial burden of rebuilding North Korea.

They do not want to mingle with North Koreans.

They do not want to deal with the political turmoil of "What do we do with DPRK's government?"

NOBODY wants the financial burden north korea would put on them

The US wants it, but only because we're power hungry enough to want it.

Troll_Police_ posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

They're not going to reunite. At least not any time soon. For the simple reason that this is not what South Korea wants.

Of course they do. I thought a united Korea under southern rule was what the world had been fighting for since the 60s.

Imagine this if you will.

Imagine for a moment that the US was considering annexing Mexico and making it a US state.

How would Trump supporters feel about that?

yeah, but youve got to add the caveat of Mexico making nuclear threats toward the US and its allies and causing even more suffering among its citizens than Mexico currently does.

Koreans don't want the financial burden of rebuilding North Korea.

They do not want to mingle with North Koreans.

They do not want to deal with the political turmoil of "What do we do with DPRK's government?"

WarGreymon77 posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

They're not going to reunite. At least not any time soon. For the simple reason that this is not what South Korea wants.

Of course they do. I thought a united Korea under southern rule was what the world had been fighting for since the 60s.

Imagine this if you will.

Imagine for a moment that the US was considering annexing Mexico and making it a US state.

How would Trump supporters feel about that?

Troll_Police_ posted...

do not buy this shit. kim is up to something. if their country drops the jingoism bullshit he and his family are out and he knows it.

I agree.

Born Lucky posted...

Andromicus posted...

But if CNN says it how can it be true?

CNN didn't say it
The president* of South Korea did, and so has dozens of other world leaders.
Don't like it?
Too bad

Ask yourself this: What did Obama do for 8 years about North Korea?
Go ahead . . . tell us.

*Foreign minister

They're not going to reunite. At least not any time soon. For the simole reason that this is not what South Korea wants.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html

When it comes to changes happening, I'll believe it when I see it. North Korea has lied and decieved a lot.

But for South Korea to credit Trump of all people...truly we live in the wackiest of times.

Save scumming is free money and infinite lives

Yes, but I don't care. It's just a sign.

Troll_Police_ posted...

the US is the only fucking country in the world that doesnt seem to be allowed to regulate immigration.

We're also the only country that has military bases all over the god damn place.

I am super happy about this turn of events. I always wanted a tablet that was like the Switch.

_AdjI_ posted...

Oh hey, it's time to equivocate necessary utilities to things that serve no purpose except as weapons again!

This makes no difference whatsoever.

By default, something should NOT be banned. Whether it is "needed" or not.

The only reason to ban something is if banning it will have a positive impact on society. It clearly won't because people can get weapons extremely easily, gun or not.

Teeth posted...

just a pause function would fix everything wrong with that game

Pausing would mess with the online.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

papercup posted...

I highly doubt this is going to pass.

Its not going to. Trump said last week hes gonna let the states do their own thing.

Decriminalizing at a federal level is supposed to do just that.

Please, and exonerate everyone in our prisons that were incarcerated for marijuana.

This was one of the ways people used to treat epilepsy.

Telling the government "you don't need that" has never stopped the government from doing anything.

They didn't need the patriot act, but they did it anyway.

helIy posted...

we're literally bombing Syrias bomb making facilities because they bombed their own people.

You seriously believe that reason given to you?

That not only Assad would gas his people for no reason, but that's a good enough reason to go to war?

This is obviously yet more blood for oil. Assad didn't want the US to put a pipeline in their country, and then "radicals" "showed up."

BADoglick posted...

I don't know how liberals can oppose police brutality and war mongering but contend that only the government should have certain firearms.

I don't know how republicans can wave both the Don't Tread on Me and the Thin Blue Line flags at once.

It's almost like both parties are filled with manipulated morons with inconsistent principles.

I completely agree.

I COULD if I needed to but obviously it would be extremely difficult.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Because how a government treats enemy nations is how they'll always treat their own people!

There is no difference. They don't think in terms of "Oh they're a government so we can kill them now."

They will do whatever is necessary to sieze whatever resources and power they want. They will kill anyone they can who stands in their way, citizen or government. They want to destroy wbatever is a threat to their power, and citizenry should be a threat to their power.

jramirez23 posted...

TC is a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracies that happen time and time again throughout history.

China, North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany.

adjl posted...

It's rather alarming that you don't seem to recognize a difference between a government bombing other countries and a government murdering its own citizens. It's also rather alarming that you don't seem to realize that a completely unrestricted arms race between criminals and the police is a very bad thing (if you thought American police were militarized NOW...).

There isn't a difference between bombing other countries and bombing their own citizens. We're both just people.

Also, that will exist regardless. Militarization of the police is the natural inclination because polkce want to maintain control over the populace. It is going to happen whether people are armed or not.

I would much rather be taken for a ride by the NRA to sell guns. Because that gives power and agency to the people.

FatalAccident posted...

VioletZer0 posted...

They're saying that we can't trust citizens with military weapons

i thought your government was all for civilians having assault rifles to "defend themselves"

or have i missed something

-In theory- they're supposed to be in favor it because they're sworn to protect the Constitution.

However it is clear they wish to disarm citizens to make their job easier and to increase their powerbase.