HOW MANY CHILDREN NEED TO DIE BEFORE GUN LAWS CHANGE IN THE USA

[entropical]

@entropical your post makes no sense lol.


You all need to get back on topic.

You know that post made perfect sense man.

It's clear to me that the USA is suffering from a Mental disorder never seen before. The Media, Parents, and Politics, are all part of the cause. Common Sence, The truth, and Facts are all being attacked as fake.

I don’t know if it has never been seen before but the scale and extent of it arising from technical advances has not. Although perceived as part of the problem, parents are not in equation because people themselves do not originally have convictions. Opinion is molded through media owned by capital interests.

As for gun control laws those are not intended to stop mass shootings but to control people in a way as to render them defenceless. They will then look to the state as their saviour.

 

[OpenPollenSeeds]

do you want whats happening in Europe ?
Keep those Guns

 

[Hammerhead]

The public has a false sense of thinking any guns we have would defeat our GOV. It would not be possible to do that in the 21st century.

You know that post made perfect sense man.

I don’t know if it has never been seen before but the scale and extent of it arising from technical advances has not. Although perceived as part of the problem, parents are not in equation because people themselves do not originally have convictions. Opinion is molded through media owned by capital interests.

As for gun control laws those are not intended to stop mass shootings but to control people in a way as to render them defenseless. They will then look to the state as their saviour.

Rubbish. You do not need an AR to protect people.. A shotgun/pistol for closed range and a sniper rifle for long range. I don't need anything else. If AR platforms were not available we would not see the same death toll on our children/people when mass shootings happen. You have been brainwashed thinking you can't live without them

 

[awwc]

The public has a false sense of thinking any guns we have would defeat our GOV. It would not be possible to do that in the 21st century.

Yup, unless they give you nuclear weapons, destroyers, aircraft carriers with the guns your chance of winning a war is 0.0000000000000001% or less, mainly if everything malfunctions at once.

Should we give people the power over nuclear weapons, they're weapons after all, if the gov has this?

Mhhh...

 

[St. Phatty]

The public has a false sense of thinking any guns we have would defeat our GOV. It would not be possible to do that in the 21st century.

Rubbish. You do not need an AR to protect people.. A shotgun/pistol for closed range and a sniper rifle for long range. I don't need anything else. If AR platforms were not available we would not see the same death toll on our children/people when mass shootings happen. You have been brainwashed thinking you can't live without them

You must be seeing a different caliber of government employee than I.

The rifle range I go to is used by state, county, and city police for training.

From participating there, I see what the police do, and what the club members are capable of.

There is no comparison. The talent pool among club members - and their friends - is much deeper and broader than what the government police agencies have.

In terms of both Fitness and Target shooting.

 

[RobFromTX]

Yeah. What phatty said. Besides the government is just as polarized as the rest of the country.

 

[Hammerhead]

You must be seeing a different caliber of government employee than I.

The rifle range I go to is used by state, county, and city police for training.

From participating there, I see what the police do, and what the club members are capable of.

There is no comparison. The talent pool among club members - and their friends - is much deeper and broader than what the government police agencies have.

In terms of both Fitness and Target shooting.

Im is not sure what your point is?. The weapons we possess are BB guns compared to what the GOV has access to. The new stuff can/will put you down in seconds without a shot fired.. You could not do much to stop the GOV.


The police are not the US GOV. They use the same Semi auto AR platforms we do. They do not carry fully automatic weapons. They do not have any other munitions of war. The US GOV has access to a hell of a lot more resources than any city could muster in talent and weaponry. If you think they don't you won't last long in that conflict.

If your goal is to kill the gen public sure it's a turkey shoot. I'll still take my Shotgun/pistol/sniper rifle than an AR. It won't be the GOV ill be worried about.

 

[awwc]

Im is not sure what your point is?. The weapons we possess are BB guns compared to what the GOV has access to. The new stuff can/will put you down in seconds without a shot fired.. You could not do much to stop the GOV.


The police are not the US GOV. They use the same Semi auto AR platforms we do. They do not carry fully automatic weapons. They do not have any other munitions of war. The US GOV has access to a hell of a lot more resources than any city could muster in talent and weaponry. If you think they don't you won't last long in that conflict.

If your goal is to kill the gen public sure it's a turkey shoot. I'll still take my Shotgun/pistol/sniper rifle than an AR. It won't be the GOV ill be worried about.

Bro why argue with stupid people like honestly. If you can't see that this is pre 1900's thinking, which that's all it is, outdated thinking that was once valid, then there is no point in discussing it at all.

If you think you having a tricked out arsenal of grenade lauchers, dracos, smg, mp5 whatever you want to have is going to do anything againt: nuclear weapons, destroyers, mines, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles etc. then you're dumb and probably are some kind of a manchild.

The times that the people could overthrow the governments (which happened manyyyyyyy times throughout history of course) are as good as over, the government these ppl that are now there, they're gonna be there untill everything is destroyed.

You can't show up with your little sniper rifle and grenades and bombs thinking you're going to win against a nuclear weapon, which let's say all ppl in the US stand up today and attack the capitol, white house all the official buildings with all the weapons they have, it will take the US less than a day to use exteme force i.e. destroyers, tanks (so you should give the people tanks right?? Following this knowledge), cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and if it doesn't stop after a few weeks most likely nuclear weapons as well (which by this logic should also be given to people.)...............

Idk what to say.


HOWEVER:

I am not against weapons nor am I pro. Because I think the US has entered this vicious circle when it comes to weapons where there simply is : no solution.

The only solution would be to punish weapon use by death which then the ppl would rally and the government would use extreme force and weapons that can and will wipe out the entire population, but by then the issue is: no more ppl is no more slave workers in the banking/financial system etc. so no more paying off debt = failed state. The ultimate embarassement for the US.

 

[armedoldhippy]

The public has a false sense of thinking any guns we have would defeat our GOV.

before the govt can use ANY of that power and weaponry on the citizens they will have already broken all of the safeguards in the Constitution, and the laws passed based on it.

nuclear weapons, destroyers, mines, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles

are you so stupid as to think that the military would use those weapons on their families, friends, etc? "destroyers, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons" LOL! the govt is on this continent with the citizenry. they're gonna nuke themselves to stay in power? that makes a warped sort of sense with The Chump and his co-conspirators still wandering around spreading good will to man amongst the population.

 

[JKD]

If you’re arguing for the need to keep weapons as protection against a tyrannical government, then by your own argument you’d have to expect that government to be tyrannical. Like Syria under the Assads. Like Iraq under Hussein.

 

[armedoldhippy]

If you’re arguing for the need to keep weapons as protection against a tyrannical government, then by your own argument you’d have to expect that government to be tyrannical. Like Syria under the Assads. Like Iraq under Hussein.

way more citizens than govt. employees. if "we the people" all actually said "go fuck yourself", they would pretty much do that. the use of our troops is constitutionally precluded RE use against the civilian population, and even if orders to the contrary were issued, i suspect our military would also tell them to go pound sand. the National Guard can only be used as crowd control, break up riots etc. all govts veer toward tyranny over time, convinced that "we know better..." like the US leaned under The Chump, as well.

 

[JKD]

way more citizens than govt. employees. if "we the people" all actually said "go fuck yourself", they would pretty much do that. the use of our troops is constitutionally precluded RE use against the civilian population, and even if orders to the contrary were issued, i suspect our military would also tell them to go pound sand. the National Guard can only be used as crowd control, break up riots etc. all govts veer toward tyranny over time, convinced that "we know better..." like the US leaned under The Chump, as well.

I agree with your argument that US citizens don’t need firearms to guard against dictatorship

 

[armedoldhippy]

I agree with your argument that US citizens don’t need firearms to guard against dictatorship

you are assuming the best. smart people guard against the worst, and are relieved if their preparations end up being unnecessary. nowhere did i say we didn't need them. i'm saying that we SHOULDN'T need them...we SHOULDN'T need insurance, but only fools don't carry any.

 

[JKD]

you are assuming the best. smart people guard against the worst, and are relieved if their preparations end up being unnecessary. nowhere did i say we didn't need them. i'm saying that we SHOULDN'T need them...we SHOULDN'T need insurance, but only fools don't carry any.

You’re trying to have it both ways - you argue the need for firearms to guard against dictatorship, but then argue the government wouldn’t actually behave like a dictatorship and use military might to overpower its’ lightly armed citizens.
In your own argument it’s the law, and that they’re ‘constitutionally precluded’ as you say - the checks & balances, that are guarding against tyranny, not small arms.

 

[Hiddenjems]

To overthrow a government you don’t need to defeat their nukes and tanks, just the minds of the generals that command them, and the hearts of the soldiers.

 

[JKD]

Easy Peasy

 

[mexweed]

the police already fly military surveillance drones into areas to search for suspects, if it's too dangerous they will just have SWAT or FBI come in

 

[zachrockbadenof]

all govts veer toward tyranny over time, convinced that "we know better..." like the US leaned under The Chump, as well.

so what i gather from the above, is we are better off today under biden, then we were under trump. imo, and i have a strong dislike for trump, we are not better off... but that's my opinion... i am not happy with my 401k down, paying 5.49 for a dozen eggs, 4.39 (todays price) for gas etc etc... no, i'm not happy, nor convinced i am better off

 

[Jellyfish]

You know that post made perfect sense man.

I don’t know if it has never been seen before but the scale and extent of it arising from technical advances has not. Although perceived as part of the problem, parents are not in equation because people themselves do not originally have convictions. Opinion is molded through media owned by capital interests.

As for gun control laws those are not intended to stop mass shootings but to control people in a way as to render them defenceless. They will then look to the state as their saviour.

"people themselves do not originally have convictions. Opinion is molded through media owned by capital interests."

How on earth did people have convictions (or even opinions!) before 'media owned capital interests' came along?

"As for gun control laws those are not intended to stop mass shootings but to control people in a way as to render them defenceless. They will then look to the state as their saviour."

How is it that you know the intentions of those that are for gun control laws? Is it possible that SOME people are for gun laws because they lost a loved one in a mass shooting? Or impossible?

 

[St. Phatty]

If you’re arguing for the need to keep weapons as protection against a tyrannical government, then by your own argument you’d have to expect that government to be tyrannical. Like Syria under the Assads. Like Iraq under Hussein.

You obviously don't know any Syrian or Iraqi natives.

The Iraqi people mostly liked Saddam. Same in Syria.

It's the US gov controlled media that parrots lies that are chosen because they are the lies Israel wants to be spread.