posted August 10, 2019 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Monday on CNN, when asked about people thinking they will come after your guns, Biden responded: "Bingo! You're right if you have an assault weapon."

---

Joe 'Plugs' O'Biden wouldn't recognize an 'assault weapon' if a Marine stuffed it up his kazoo.

posted August 10, 2019 11:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Nobody needs an assault weapon.

---

posted August 11, 2019 12:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Nobody needs an assault weapon.

---

It's none of your business in the first place.

posted August 11, 2019 10:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Nobody needs an assault weapon.

---

I'll decide that for myself thanks.

posted August 11, 2019 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
So, let me get this right--first, the Dems call President Trump Hitler--then they demand Trump forcefully take away guns. You can't make this stuff up! Biden wants to confiscate these types of firearms, because they look scary.

---

to be fair (to hitler ) guns were perfectly legal in nazi germany, only jews were subject to harsh gun laws at the time

otherwise gun laws were fairly loose (looser than they were prior to the third reich)

hunters could own whatever they wanted, the age to own a gun was lowered etc

posted August 13, 2019 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Jews were the ones who needed access to guns.

---

from a nazi viewpoint that would just be arming enemies

that being said you raise a valid point about why infringing on gun laws is potentially dangerous for the people who are having them taken away

though i'll be fair and point out that the third reich wasn't as thorough as far as getting guns back went as they could have been and some jews who had already owned guns prior to the third reich still had them while hitler was in power

my point is that gun laws were fairly lenient in nazi germany and it was german citizens who were well armed choosing to turn a blind eye to a marginalized group being persecuted because they were busy enjoying the temporary prosperity hitler brought to the german people

in nazi germany the issue was more that people will turn a blind eye to things when the government is giving them something even if it's at the cost of other people (divide and conquer tactics in action) having less rights rather than a lack of armed citizens

my point only was in a discussion about disarming the masses comparing anyone to hitler spreads misinformation about the actual conditions of nazi germany and the laws regarding arms during the third reich

it implies that hitler outlawed guns when in fact he loosened gun laws for the most part and there actually still were armed jews at that point in time

painting a skewed picture of the social issues that led to the rise of nazi germany seems a bit irresponsible to me because then you ignore cultural conditions and political climates and those are precisely the things we need to learn from

so yes valid point the jews and nazis were at odds and being equally armed would have been to their advantage, because it's always to your advantage to be equally armed even if it's against your government

i was only commenting on the misleading choice of words though, and it's also misleading honestly to pretend it was just jews in those camps rather than romani people,and the lgbt community etc as well

we hyperfocus on the jewish casualties and ignore the reality of so many other lives lost and that's pretty callous too don't you think?

@shura

i can guess a few groups if i had to bet on it, what i wonder is if it'll be more like the internment camps we had here for the japanese or if we'll go a bit further with that

posted August 14, 2019 01:10 AM            

Assault rifles ain’t gonna do **** .

Face the music if the us government wants to turn nasty no militia is gonna stop it.

posted August 14, 2019 02:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Who could be equally armed to the us military?

Assault rifles ain’t gonna do **** .

Face the music if the us government wants to turn nasty no militia is gonna stop it.

---

assault rifles actually could do a lot, you seem to not grasp that in the event of a revolution the american government is highly unlikely to destroy all of the land it rules over for one thing

because that's not economically sound or intelligent, and there will always be us citizens who are on the side of the government and it wouldn't them serve them well to attack in that manner

it's not strategic for a number of reasons

when you're looking at a high power military attacking its own country you have to understand that it's not going to come down full force unless it doesn't want any ground to rule over which isn't going to happen

aside from that there are rebel groups in other countries the american government has not managed to completely eradicate in spite of them lacking the technological advancements or numbers of the the us military (but if you want to look there's plenty of them that the us military is actively fighting, and those are in countries we bomb more freely than the government would its own land)

on top of that you're ignoring things like guerilla warfare tactics which would be utilized which changes things too, guerilla warfare tends to give an advantage to weaker smaller forces because they know the land much better than their enemies

not to mention every enemy you take out has weapons you can then use so even if a militia were to start out very weak if they take out even a few soldiers then they have military grade weapons and can go from there

smaller armies can win against larger ones through strategic division of resources and soliders (ever hear the term defeat in detail?) too so even numbers aren't necessarily an issue if they're allocated properly

a lot of times in other countries soldiers aren't actively in battle too btw, there's more down time than you would think in many cases (this translates into less battle experience than many people assume in some cases)

they're also just people they get tired and have off days etc and so on they're also subject to emotion which they're far more likely to feel on their own soil than they would overseas

you're not thinking clearly if you think that well organized militias would be incapable of doing any damage, because not only is that not true overseas but it doesn't actually make sense

also here's the other thing our military is spread thin because of their presence in other countries which we need to maintain now couple that with not as many people joining, what do you get? less troops than you're thinking

that's also partially why in order to maintain so much power over citizens police are being militarized, except with cops in a lot of cases they're not even getting training on par with military

there's just so many different reasons why what you're saying doesn't work entirely that it's sort of funny

the us military has very strong weapons, but it's not an unshakable force that no one can stand up against because people do that's why we've been sending troops overseas for years in wars and conflicts that are never won

edit: btw how a country handles a revolution has a direct effect on how many more citizens join it

posted August 14, 2019 03:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Why does anyone need an assault weapon?

I’m not scared about Biden taking away assault weapons from lunatics. I think this will make people feel safer.

---

it will make some people feel safer and others will understand the greater consequences of it

posted August 14, 2019 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
It’s likely enough that many people I know second guess was going to large events due to fear of a shooting.

We don’t need assault rifles.

---

yes we do, we could honestly stand to have better weapons than that (taking bumpstocks away was ******** )

just because you know people who are scared doesn't mean that constitutional rights should be taken away

fear of statistically unlikely events shouldn't control laws

posted August 14, 2019 01:31 PM            

There are more guns than people in the US. Far and away the majority of homicides involve guns.. handguns. And the largest number of gun deaths are suicides. While it's true that mass shootings account for very few of those deaths, we have MANY more such deaths (per 100k) than the next 5 or 10 countries on the list.

Neither walking in fear nor carrying a gun is an appropriate response, but what is? If you think "reality" dictates carrying a gun, sorry, that is fear talking too. I sincerely wish you luck, no sarcasm.

We have always had social unrest as far as i can remember; the system has always excluded many, and no rebellion in this country has never succeeded in wiping the slate clean. The Revolution was vastly underwritten and abetted by Foreign powers eager to take England down, and indeed it was the beginning of the end of the British Empire.. a long, gradual process as much fuelled by overextension as aggression.

There are many guns, legal and illegal, in Britain today, but few gun massacres or homicides. Why is that? The banning of handguns there was instigated by the voters after their ONLY school shooting. But honestly, the British are not naturally subservient to the law. The black market is commonplace and the police STILL are largely unarmed. And the mass attacks you're so impressed with are still puny compared to ours, and sensationalized just like ours.

posted August 14, 2019 01:46 PM            

Show me the part of the constitution that guarantees assault rifles?

posted August 14, 2019 02:00 PM            

i never said there was a rebel army, i was pointing out that well organized militias could in fact do some damage, and i'm not at all romanticizing guerilla warfare obviously it would suck to have to live through that

however, those are the tactics that would likely be employed

when someone says something possible is impossible and there's logical reason why then i'm going to be real about it and point that out

because only someone who thinks that wars are just endless bombs from the sky and that's it or nukes etc is going to have this idea in their head that a well organized well armed militia would be incapable of doing anything

other countries prove that wrong so have other wars

a good portion of those gun deaths you're talking about are actually done with illegal weapons so when you give gun death statistics they're going to be skewed because of places like chicago

you can't cite numbers that include illegal guns when you're talking about whether or not something should be legal

suicides aren't because there's guns they happen for a number of reasons and suicides are on the rise with many methods currently in society so what that says to me is there's a lot of issues that need to be dealt with instead of blaming guns

you could kill yourself with tylenol if you take enough of it, completely lethal, so people who are determined will

we might have a lot of gun violence but we still aren't number one in murders you know that right?

having a means of self defense isn't a matter of fear, that's like saying people who learn to fight are walking around always afraid of getting into a fight that's not the case

what you're doing it you're twisting things to suit your needs here and paint a skewed picture of someone who takes precautions as someone who lives in terror

this isn't the case, it's a play on emotion and it doesn't work

yeah the revolution this country was founded on involved funding and aid from elsewhere, who said it didn't? also social unrest comes in waves it doesn't stay the same,what you have now is an increase and that's causing a rise in violence

this is natural and obviously you can't fully eliminate social unrest i'm not pretending you can (you can't eliminate murder either let's be real here, there's literally no point in pretending anything can put an end to the more gruesome side of existence) however all systems are given to collapse and eventual failure over time and this particular climate is a bit different than say civil unrest at other points

time will tell though now won't it?

i'm not at all impressed by the attacks in britain, i'm pointing that they happen and alternate means are used

i'll let you know when i see something i find impressive, i've yet to see it

the reality is people are always telling themselves to wait around for a long gradual process and that's how you end up with things the way they that they are

typically long gradual processes lead nowhere good and are too dependent on unrealistic factors

like i said the government shouldn't have the right to disarm people and it's that simple, statistics are just that at the end of the day

you break them down to individuals and that's sad but when you look at the numbers and weigh that against reality the individual lives are lost and the numbers dictate everything

posted August 14, 2019 02:04 PM            

btw catalina, the "romanticizing" comment, that's more emotional twists on things you really should stop trying to paint pictures that skew reality by making me out to be someone i'm not

i'm not romanticizing anything, i'm not fearful, and i'm unimpressed by everything i've seen so far including from england

i've been in east ny in the back of heroin dealer's car without a gun high out my ******* skull, knowing just how bad my life had gotten, but i wasn't scared it just made me realize i probably should quit heroin

i don't need a gun to go outside, even in a dangerous place i've done it without even thinking about consequences, but i'm also aware of why that's stupid and why precautions are typically better