Poll of the Day > I could not be more disappointed in my country right now.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The nation that built itself on self reliance and defiance of authority is demanding more authority en masse.

Donald Trump sits in the oval office. We're still involved in multiple wars for profit overseas. We live in an era with rampant police brutality, and a system that depends on keeping a high prison population.

Yet you all want more of it. You all want to take away your power and give it to the government because we are incapable of solving problems ourselves.

We are all truly slaves to the system. This is the future you chose. As Mao Tse'tung once said: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Which he said shortly before disarming the population and enslaving them.

They're gonna take our guns away
---

You only have as much freedom as the next most free nation.

America will lose their freedoms because other free nations are rapidly throwing away theirs.
---

blorfenburger posted...

They're gonna take our guns away

Terrorist attack happens -> "This wouldn't happen if the killer couldn't get a gun" -> "Common Sense" Gun Reform -> Terrorist attack happens -> "This wouldn't happen if the killer couldn't get a gun" -> "Common Sense" Gun Reform -> Terrorist attack happens-> "This wouldn't happen if the killer couldn't get a gun" -> "Common Sense" Gun Reform -> Terrorist attack happens....

You're not a real person so your disappointment doesn't really mean much lmao
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

You're not a real person so your disappointment doesn't really mean much lmao

What I am saying is far more important than who I am.

Disappointing gun nuts is always a good thing. You should be afraid if the gun nuts are happy.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

Blightzkrieg posted...

You're not a real person so your disappointment doesn't really mean much lmao

What I am saying is far more important than who I am.

Apparently not since nobody is listening
---

VeeVees posted...

Disappointing gun nuts is always a good thing. You should be afraid if the gun nuts are happy.

Why do you think we want to keep our guns?

The fuck outta here with this shit. There's no fucking reason for the average person to have military weapons. Even handguns should be much more regulated with background checks and inspections. This wild west bullshit is killing people and it's fucked up.

VioletZer0 posted...

The nation that built itself on self reliance and defiance of authority is demanding more authority en masse.

Donald Trump sits in the oval office. We're still involved in multiple wars for profit overseas. We live in an era with rampant police brutality, and a system that depends on keeping a high prison population.

Yet you all want more of it. You all want to take away your power and give it to the government because we are incapable of solving problems ourselves.

We are all truly slaves to the system. This is the future you chose. As Mao Tse'tung once said: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Which he said shortly before disarming the population and enslaving them.

Right, that is why countries with little to no guns among the civilian population experience constant political uprisings...

I don't engage in political debates, I just drop tunes. This was 21 years ago and maybe more relevant now than ever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71FveedEmkg" data-time="
---

Well, it has still aged better than Britain and Prussia....
---

What is a "military" weapon?
---

SushiSquid posted...

The fuck outta here with this shit. There's no fucking reason for the average person to have military weapons. Even handguns should be much more regulated with background checks and inspections. This wild west bullshit is killing people and it's fucked up.

Why should military have military weapons then?

They're not more trustworthy than civilians are.

JTekashiro posted...

Right, that is why countries with little to no guns among the civilian population experience constant political uprisings...

Are you incredibly bad at paying attention to current events?

Venezuela.
North Korea.
China
Nazi Germany
USSR
Cuba
Brazil
Egypt
Somalia
Saudi Arabia

All of the above had their government usurp the people, and their people were disarmed

VioletZer0 posted...

Why should military have military weapons then?

They're not more trustworthy than civilians are.

That's extremely disrespectful to our military and shows a complete ignorance of the training they go through.

SushiSquid posted...

That's extremely disrespectful to our military and shows a complete ignorance of the training they go through.

You're disrespecting our nation's people.

The question is not about whether or not they're trained to handle it. The problem is that Military can and will abuse their power over citizens.

VioletZer0 posted...

You're disrespecting our nation's people.

Nah, bro. I've seen the people buying ass tons of guns. Most are not trained and don't respect the weapons. They haven't seen what a bullet can do to a human body. Military know their ass from their heads with guns. I trust them way more.

VioletZer0 posted...

The problem is that Military can and will abuse their power over citizens.

Also super disrespectful of our military.

zebatov posted...

What is a "military" weapon?

I would define a military weapon as a weapon that can't be operated effectively by a single person. Stuff like artillery, snipers with spotters, missiles and other brigade weapons and so on.

This would also include trebuchets and catapults - while they can be operated with one, not very effectively.
---

SushiSquid posted...

Also super disrespectful of our military.

Then I will disrespect the shit out of the military.

Our military is currently waging war in Afghanistan and Syria. They ruined Iraq. The military killed countless people in Vietnam. They deserve the disrespect.

VioletZer0 posted...

JTekashiro posted...

Right, that is why countries with little to no guns among the civilian population experience constant political uprisings...

Are you incredibly bad at paying attention to current events?

Venezuela.
North Korea.
China
Nazi Germany
USSR
Cuba
Brazil
Egypt
Somalia
Saudi Arabia

All of the above had their government usurp the people, and their people were disarmed

Many of those aren't current. Most of them never had armed citizenry, and the ones did only possessed weapons for a revolt but didn't really have them before or after.
---

To the "The government would win" people....

When government wages war on its own people, the objective is to sow fear. Because it is impossible for the government to have a total military victory over its own people.

You're their capital, if they kill every single civilian, the government will implode on itself.

Furthermore, if the populace refuses to be governed, it is impossible for the government to win. Literally, physically impossible.

Lokarin posted...

zebatov posted...

What is a "military" weapon?

I would define a military weapon as a weapon that can't be operated effectively by a single person. Stuff like artillery, snipers with spotters, missiles and other brigade weapons and so on.

This would also include trebuchets and catapults - while they can be operated with one, not very effectively.

Fair. Can those be purchased by the public?
---

zebatov posted...

Lokarin posted...

zebatov posted...

What is a "military" weapon?

I would define a military weapon as a weapon that can't be operated effectively by a single person. Stuff like artillery, snipers with spotters, missiles and other brigade weapons and so on.

This would also include trebuchets and catapults - while they can be operated with one, not very effectively.

Fair. Can those be purchased by the public?

If anything, they're safer in the hands of the public since they're less effective in the hands of one.
---

---

Lokarin posted...

If anything, they're safer in the hands of the public since they're less effective in the hands of one.

You were allowed to own such weapons back in the day.

SushiSquid posted...

Even handguns should be much more regulated with background checks and inspections. This wild west bulls*** is killing people and it's f***ed up.

Every year, there is one to two million defensive gun uses that prevent law-abiding people from being robbed, seriously injured, or killed. Making handguns harder to obtain punishes these people, not potential mass shooters or criminals with nefarious purposes.

VioletZer0 posted...

Our military is currently waging war in Afghanistan and Syria. They ruined Iraq. The military killed countless people in Vietnam. They deserve the disrespect.

No, they don't deserve the disrespect. They realize more painfully than anyone else how screwed up these wars are. That's why they overwhelmingly vote for libertarian candidates.

Blightzkrieg posted...

You're not a real person so your disappointment doesn't really mean much lmao

---

zebatov posted...

What is a "military" weapon?

Maybe something like a mortar tube and shells.
---

Selenara posted...

No, they don't deserve the disrespect. They realize more painfully than anyone else how screwed up these wars are. That's why they overwhelmingly vote for libertarian candidates

If they disagreed with the wars it is their responsibility to disobey their orders to carry it out.

Instead of resisting the orders, they chose to murder people. That is why they deserve no respect.

I care.
---

Selenara posted...

Every year, there is one to two million defensive gun uses that prevent law-abiding people from being robbed, seriously injured, or killed. Making handguns harder to obtain punishes these people, not potential mass shooters or criminals with nefarious purposes.

This is such an obvious lie. First of all, we know that only a few hundred justifiable homicides by firearm from civilian use occur each year (the number hovers around the 275 range each year; the last year statistics are available for was 2015, where we saw 328, which was high). Second, we don't keep statistics on how many crimes are prevented by firearm because that's impossible. You could never know such a thing. Third, we can extrapolate, so let's do that. Let's assume a rather liberal estimate and say that guns prevented a crime but without the criminal being killed in five times as many instances. That would make the rate of crimes prevented by guns around the 1250-1500 range each year. And that's guessing high.

Meanwhile, more than 30k people die each year by firearms. To be fair, two thirds of these deaths are suicides (we'll get to that in a bit). That still means that rate of murder by firearm is about 36 times higher than the rate of civilian justifiable homicide by firearm. Rates of crimes involving firearms are generally over 450k each year, so that means that guns are involved in about 300 crimes for every one crime they prevent, and again that's guessing high on the prevention.

We also see high rates of suicide by firearm. We know from past studies and laws that suicide is almost always a momentary decision. Simply making it harder to kill yourself dramatically lowers your risk of killing yourself. Lowering rates of gun ownership thus actually lowers rates of suicide. People don't just find another method, they don't do it. This is similar to how putting fencing on bridges lowers suicide rates. People don't bother finding another way.

Point of fact: unregulated, widespread gun ownership makes a society far less safe. I'm all for ownership of firearms. I like shooting, personally. But we need universal background checks and registration for all guns.

SushiSquid posted...

The fuck outta here with this shit. There's no fucking reason for the average person to have military weapons. Even handguns should be much more regulated with background checks and inspections. This wild west bullshit is killing people and it's fucked up.

"Military weapons" is just propaganda designed to promote gun control.

SushiSquid posted...

We also see high rates of suicide by firearm. We know from past studies and laws that suicide is almost always a momentary decision. Simply making it harder to kill yourself dramatically lowers your risk of killing yourself. Lowering rates of gun ownership thus actually lowers rates of suicide. People don't just find another method, they don't do it. This is similar to how putting fencing on bridges lowers suicide rates. People don't bother finding another way.

Ban bridges, rope, and cars then?
---

Who the fuck kills themselves with a car.
---

Zeus posted...

Ban bridges, rope, and cars then?

As mentioned, we should put fences on high bridges because that does work. Car and hanging deaths aren't as common as gun deaths because you've really got to be committed. The point is to just add a tiny roadblock. Some people will actually push past and take the time to kill themselves. Most don't, and that saves lives.

A gun death is extremely quick. You can go from bad thought to death in seconds. The proliferation of firearms in this country has made suicide too easy. Many nations require guns to be kept in a safe while at home. A tiny roadblock like this is enough to prevent most firearm suicides, not to mention the numerous accidental deaths by firearm that happen when kids find guns.

VioletZer0 posted...

If they disagreed with the wars it is their responsibility to disobey their orders to carry it out.

Instead of resisting the orders, they chose to murder people. That is why they deserve no respect.

Shouldn't you be disrespectful toward the people who orchestrated these wars instead? It is very easy to judge and imagine one would act differently in their shoes, but virtually no one is an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning when tried. You're asking people to violate the oath they swore when they joined, to obey the orders of the President and their COs, and to face harsh punishment from a military tribunal for an act of defiance that is very unlikely to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. That is no simple thing to ask of people who are putting their lives on the line for very little pay, and likely have families depending on them.

SushiSquid posted...

Every year, there is one to two million defensive gun uses that prevent law-abiding people from being robbed, seriously injured, or killed. Making handguns harder to obtain punishes these people, not potential mass shooters or criminals with nefarious purposes.

This is such an obvious lie.

After Sandy Hook, President Obama commissioned a study from the Institute of Medicine which concluded defensive gun use is more common than criminal gun use, and that defensive gun use saves people. You can read more here:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

SushiSquid posted...

Lowering rates of gun ownership thus actually lowers rates of suicide.

Only slightly. In most cases people simply find alternative means of killing themselves. In Australia for example, suicides by hanging rose by 50% after gun control was enacted.

SushiSquid posted...

But we need universal background checks and registration for all guns.

How do you plan to ensure that criminals and the black market comply with these measures?

VioletZer0 posted...

The nation that built itself on self reliance and defiance of authority is demanding more authority en masse.

Your nation built itself on getting significant help from France and wanting representation in parliament. That's hardly "self reliance" or "defiance of authority".

Regardless, all anyone is really asking for as far as gun regulations are concerned is something like what Switzerland does: Criminal background checks and psychiatric evaluation before you can purchase a gun, mandatory permits for most guns and registration for all guns (preferably at a state level), and no gun show loophole. If you throw in Canada's limits on magazine capacity and/or restrictions on certain firearms preventing them from being used outside a gun range, then, as far as most gun control advocates are concerned, you'd be golden.

Then, to actually solve most gun violence once and for all, you just need to take the relatively simple step of ending poverty and racism.
---

Selenara posted...

Shouldn't you be disrespectful toward the people who orchestrated these wars instead? It is very easy to judge and imagine one would act differently in their shoes, but virtually no one is an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning when tried. You're asking people to violate the oath they swore when they joined, to obey the orders of the President and their COs, and to face harsh punishment from a military tribunal for an act of defiance that is very unlikely to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. That is no simple thing to ask of people who are putting their lives on the line for very little pay, and likely have families depending on them.

It takes two to tango here.

One to choose to give the orders, and the other to choose to follow. Both are at fault here.

The soldier's oath is to the people and the constitution. It is not to the government, it is not even to the country.

dainkinkaide posted...

Your nation built itself on getting significant help from France and wanting representation in parliament. That's hardly "self reliance" or "defiance of authority".

Regardless, all anyone is really asking for as far as gun regulations are concerned is something like what Switzerland does: Criminal background checks and psychiatric evaluation before you can purchase a gun, mandatory permits for most guns and registration for all guns (preferably at a state level), and no gun show loophole. If you throw in Canada's limits on magazine capacity and/or restrictions on certain firearms preventing them from being used outside a gun range, then, as far as most gun control advocates are concerned, you'd be golden.

Then, to actually solve most gun violence once and for all, you just need to take the relatively simple step of ending poverty and racism.

You say that ending poverty is relatively simple, and yet no nation on earth has solved it.

I very much disagree with psychiatric evaluation, because that's giving the government power to determine who is allowed to have political representation.

I also disagree with registration, because as we've painfully learned. Registration is giving the government power of removal.

Give up Zero

They are bugmen

They havent even come to terms with their mortality yet. They only exist to seek an easy life and consume what they desire.

They will follow whoever promises them safety and riches over freedom and power.
---

People voted for Donald Trump because they were defying the establishment that wants more and more power though.

Hillary was the definition of status quo "just letting it happen".

Not that it really changes anything, all Trump does is throw a wrench in the gears of the government for 4 years, he can't do anything while the entire government is working together to try and oust him so they can get back to doing whatever they want (which is all people really expected).
---

VioletZer0 posted...

You say that ending poverty is relatively simple, and yet no nation on earth has solved it.

That was a joke.

See, I was saying that compared to enacting gun control legislation in your country, ending poverty and racism should be a fucking cakewalk.

I very much disagree with psychiatric evaluation, because that's giving the government power to determine who is allowed to have political representation.

Guns are not political representation.

I also disagree with registration, because as we've painfully learned. Registration is giving the government power of removal.

No it isn't. That would require entirely separate legislation that would never in a million years pass Congress and, even if by some miracle it did, would immediately be challenged by opposing parties and any federal court of appeals would, without much deliberation, recognize that it quite obviously violates the Second and Fourth Amendments and strike it down as unconstitutional.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

People voted for Donald Trump because they were defying the establishment that wants more and more power though.

Hillary was the definition of status quo "just letting it happen".

Not that it really changes anything, all Trump does is throw a wrench in the gears of the government for 4 years, he can't do anything while the entire government is working together to try and oust him so they can get back to doing whatever they want (which is all people really expected).

This is honest to everything why I voted for Trump.

There were two extremely bad options. The tie breaker was that Hillary was going to go "According to plan" which was extremely bad for us. Where as Donald Trump was going to run amok and fuck everything up.

So I picked the latter.

dainkinkaide posted...

Guns are not political representation.

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

-Mao Tse-tung, shortly before disarming and enslaving the people.

When it comes to who you're going to enslave for profit, who are you going to enslave? The people with guns or the people without?

dainkinkaide posted...

No it isn't. That would require entirely separate legislation that would never in a million years pass Congress and, even if by some miracle it did, would immediately be challenged by opposing parties and any federal court of appeals would, without much deliberation, recognize that it quite obviously violates the Second and Fourth Amendments and strike it down as unconstitutional.

The only reason why the Constitution has any weight is because the government generally chooses to follow it.

The government, any day, could choose not to follow it. As they have many times before.

trump will never build that wall
rich people love having illegals around they don't have to pay benefeits for
and more illegals means more competition amoung the lower class, more criminals, more slaves

i just wish we could elect someone who didn't let the roads go to shit
---

RoboXgp89 posted...

trump will never build that wall
rich people love having illegals around they don't have to pay benefeits for
and more illegals means more competition amoung the lower class, more criminals, more slaves

i just wish we could elect someone who didn't let the roads go to shit

Trump himself hires tons of them...

Why do Americans fetishize thoughts of killing government employees so much?
---

If you had any high standards you'd seek to leave the shithole that is America and move to one of the many other better 1s world countries that actually operate like one. Highly recommended as an American myself. Country doesn't care about you and it wont fix itself just because you stay and suffer. It made its choice and it was to not benefit its citizens and instead would lie to them and spin the propaganda machine like communist countries. Leave and let it rot or rot with it.
---

SolKarellen posted...

Why do Americans fetishize thoughts of killing government employees so much?

Because they abuse their authority over us.