>>93769

You're theoretically right. If you could simply cause all firearms on the planet to vanish at this moment... No one would have to worry about getting shot.

But since that isn't possible and you'd only be banning firearms from the law abiding people, the criminals would be armed and could take advantage of the unarmed law abiders.

So you fail.

>if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

Banning guns doesn't make them all disappear. That's pretty naive.

But regardless, we need it in case the government because corrupted and starts fucking us up.

Better ban knives, too.

sage is saged

Deal with it. You have no argument.

>if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.
>a pack of niggers
>nothing to worry about

More gun control does not decrease crime.

Laxer gun control does not increase crime.

OP is a faggot.

How are you going to disarm the millions of criminals that already have them illegally? I have yet to see any successful attempt by the government at doing this.

Of course the primary reason for having an armed populace is not to protect themselves against other citizens (although this is a valid reason), but rather to safeguard against tyrannical government.

Ban all cars. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal transportation, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

>if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.
If we could put all the evils back in the jar I would have nothing to worry about as well, but both are pipe dreams.

>I dont want to use firearms, because I dont want to that means that nobody should

liberal logic

>if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

Because, clearly, if there is a ban on guns then everyone will turn them in. Just like prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol. Oh wait.

Ban all knives. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal cooking, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

That worked marvelously well with hard drugs, didn't it?

Ban all books. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal reading, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

brb making an open bolt submachinegun out of common household items using using only simple tools

>>93769
>if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

What a compelling argument. Infallible logic like that is difficult to argue against.

Ban all fishing poles. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal fishing, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

>replying to this thread
>with out sage
>2011

=========DUMBFUCK LINE, ALL NON-SAGE POSTS BEYOND THIS POINT ARE BY DUMBFUCKS=========

Ban all ISPs. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be accessing the world wide web, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

>>93769

some people fail to think logically

look at the first response

Ban all language. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be communication, yet, if no one knows how to speak you have nothing to worry about.

You ban guns the only people who will have them would be criminals.

Now law-abiding citizens can't fucking defend yourselves.

This shit is basic logic but apparently the Brits never figured this out.

Ban all sex. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal procreation, yet, if no one has any you have nothing to worry about.

Ban free speech. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be political expression, yet, if no one has the right to express themselves you have nothing to worry about.

>mfw you people have no argument

>>93888
>Implying that the people above the line aren't dumb fucks

>>93865

In Britain that's considered a serious argument for knife control.

>>93888
>>93888
>>93888

Trips means it's true.

>>93920
Yep everyday I have to dodge a shit tonne of criminals firing their Uzi's and shit. Today I got my laptop out in the middle of a busy shopping center and walked to the bus stop with out. Not once did a nigger pull a gun out to try and shoot me.

>>93945
>caring about fucking numbers
>lets not do this here

The second amendment was to protect the public from the state.

Guns do that.

Guns are the great equalizer, just as effective in the hands of a strong youth as in the hands of a old lady. The same cannot be said of many other forms of defense.

Ban all zoos. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal amusement, yet, if there is none one you have nothing to worry about.

Ban all grocery stores. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be purchasing food and supplies, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

>>93955
>>93955

Ban all post numbers. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal replying, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

We need weapons to insurrect against the government. Sure we could use shovels and baseball bats, but damn guns are so much easier.

And yes, it's illegal anyways, but still.

Ban all TRIPFAGS. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal identification, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

Ban all drugs. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be having an interesting Saturday night, yet, if there is none one you have boredom to worry about.

>For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense
> Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.
>In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.

>>93952
Cocaine and other related drugs are illegal in NA. Do you really believe that there is no cocaine in NA at this moment? Do you really believe that the act of banning something will cause it to cease existing? Are you really so naive to think that criminals would obey a law that does not aid them?

Ban all racism. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be preserving your heritage, yet, if no one has any heritage you have nothing to worry about.

>>94052
>>94052

Ban all schools. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal education, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

>>93769
>yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.
Except for the criminals who acquire arms illegally, you stupid faggot.

>>94083

It's....it's crazy enough to work...

Ban OP. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be that he'll have to stop posting, but he's a shitposter anyway.

>>94095
Idiot. If they plan in acquiring them illegally is because they want to do illegal things like... I don't know... killing someone? In that case, even if they were to acquire it legally, he has plans in killing someone.

>Hey criminals, no cocaine allowed.

THERE IS NOW NO MORE COCAINE EVER! IT WORKED!

Enforce Mandatory Posession of Guns & Require Yearly training:

People will have to buy firearms, stimulating the economy

New facilities for firearm training will create jobs

No sane person will rob a store where everyone is packing heat(The insane would do it anyways)


You're welcome

Ban everything. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be existence, yet, if no one is alive then you have nothing to worry about.

>>94125
That's my point, dumb fuck, he's saying if we pass legislation to ban all guns, no one has to worry about anything (including safety). I'm telling him we still have to worry about criminals who gone unaffected by these laws as we will be defenseless to them.

LEARN TO COMPREHEND IDIOT

People will always have guns. People will always use guns illegally.

Even in China gangsters have guns even though they are illegal.

OP is a faggot and probably 12. You don't know the real world yet OP you faggot fuck, it's not your fault. you'll hopefully learn one day before its too late.

>>94140
>>94140
>>94140


Lmao.

Ban all hammers, I don't give a fuck.

Ban all money. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be personal wealth, yet, if no one has one you have nothing to worry about.

Ban all sex. I don't give a fuck. Your only arguments could be procreation or enjoyment, yet, if you were a /b/tard you'd have nothing to worry about.

you dumb fak u iz be thanking lak u be iz a smert dewde but u just dumb ass nigga fak cuz us naggahez will allwehyz has our glocks to cap the crackerz mah nigga

>Ban keyboards
>3 weeks later
>60% of americas youth is now employed

I don't give a fuck.

RACIST

>thinks laws can be broken

He actually thinks this

I KNOW, LET'S BAN STUPID SHITS LIKE OP. LET'S OUTLAW THIS KIND OF CRAP.

>Sorry stupid ppl, only smorts allowed.

>>94205
>banning people for saying shit you don't like

Its like I'm really on /v/!!
Kill yourself.

Ban all feet. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be walking around, yet, if no one has any place to go you have nothing to worry about.

>>94204
>>94204
>>94204

Ban all laws. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be public order, yet, if there is none then you have nothing to worry about.

>>93769

>Implying guns are the only weapon in existence.

>>94234

Ban all shoes. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be protecting your feet, yet, if feet are banned then you have nothing to worry about.

>>94220
Ok, ok, Im sorry, You're right, let's focus here for a second:

Let's ban guns, and knives just in case too, and let's ban rocks, sticks, planks, baseball bats, brassknucles, fists, kicks, hammers, ice picks, machetes, chainsaws,

>joking about banning someone for being stupid =/=suggesting we ban someone for saying something I don't like.

shut the fuck up.

>>94203
>>94203
Then how would they type their resumes?

>Banning anything

If you ban something it will always be accessible. All banning will do is hinder you and whoever else bans it in the long run. It also wouldn't change anything.

yesss

lets ban guns like HITLER did


which led to those 2,000,000 german women being raped by jew bolsheviks & brainwashed slavs


lenin and stalin banned guns too. guess what happened


everything happened


remember orwells 1984. that rat cage on the face torture? where do you think he learned it!

or how about totskoye nuclear tessst

ALL THOSE FRIED GOYIM

On 14 September 1954 the U.S.S.R. conducted a military exercise incorporating a nuclear test detonation. The exercise involved 44,000 Soviet troops at the Totsk range in the Orenberg region. Troops were positioned in trenches as close as 5 km to the designated ground zero, with one group of troops in a forward post about 2.5 km from the designated ground zero. A Tu-4 "Bull" bomber was used to deliver an RDS-3 nuclear gravity bomb, an implosion device using a composite uranium-plutonium core. The weapon detonated at 9:33 AM Moscow time (6:33 GMT) with a yield of 40 kt at a altitude of 350 m. The detonation occurred about 280 m off target, placing it closer to the small group of forward positioned troops. At least 40 minutes after the detonation, troops engaged in maneuvers taking them within 0.5-2 km of ground zero.

Reports differ regarding the degree of instruction to troops and decontamination procedures followed. According to some reports, some soldiers were suffering radiation sickness upon return to their base later that day. The soldiers were sworn to secrecy regarding the exercise, however. Reports of long-term radiation injury are poorly documented; reportedly the archives of the local hospital from 1954 to 1980 were destroyed. In 1990 a committee was established to provide treatment to surviving participants.

I think gun control is a multi-faceted and complex issue, that depends on a variety of social factors, and I doubt that the ideal solution is necessarily the simplest one

Firearms are more than a personal defense. They are the people's insurance policy against a government gone wrong. Only an armed population can truly be free.

>Your only argument could be personal defense
Uh, no.

The entire reason the right to bear arms was made was that in the event the government ever became tyrannical, the common people of the nation would have what is necessary in order to fight a revolution for their freedoms.

The founding fathers had just finished fighting a war with a government they considered tyrannical, which could have only been won using the modern military weapons of their time. They wanted to make sure their descendants would be able to do the exact same thing if the government they were about to create were to ever become tyrannical. That's why they created the right to bear arms.

And besides, Thomas Jefferson once said "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry." A government is just comprised of ordinary human beings, there's no good reason they should be allowed to have or do something and then not allow the common people to do so.

Ban all religions. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be ... aaah ... umm ...

Let me get back to you this one.

Ban all gun control. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be protecting the peopl, yet, if everyone has one you have nothing to worry about.

Stop being naive, OP. If guns are banned, there would still be guns on the black market. Let's say theoretically that nobody uses guns after it's been banned. People would result to knives, or other stuff to kill/injure.

What you don't understand is that since anything was on this planet, it has wanted to fuck up someone else's shit. There has always been war, and thieves, and murder, and nothing will ever change that. Even if you somehow made all the guns in the world disappear people will switch back to knives. Then what? You make all the knives disappear? Then people will move on to some other weapon and after you somehow make all the weapons in the world disappear, people will murder other people with their hands. Now what? Are you going to make hands disappear too? Fucking great, no guns, no knives, and now no hands x.x

Ban all other bans. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument could be control over something, yet, if nothing is banned you have nothing to worry about.

So if you are overwhelmed with superior numbers or are outmatched by someone physically superior than you you're pretty much fucked. But if you had a firearm of some sort you could level the playing field. So if all firearms were banned people would have a lot to worry about because it diminishes your ability to defend yourself.

>>94262
Association Fallacy

>>94274
possibly the only person in this thread to say something halfways sensible, shit like this is why /pol/ needs to be locked in a crate and thrown off a bridge, it just attracts swarms and swarms of dumbasses and nobody ever debates anything past ad-hominems and the same old pro-gun or anti-gun horseshit.

>>94302

If this happened, people would have to take responsibility for their own actions and beliefs, being properly ridiculed and despised for them, instead of attributing them to a god.

I'm okay with this.

Banning things clearly works. That's why prohibition and the drug war has been great for this country!

>>94280
A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house - Socrates

Your armed populace would quickly become a dead populace, 90% of popular uprisings fail without serious outside support, especially in countries where government forces have proper military leadership, training and equipment.

>mfw anti gun control ppl use logic arguments and say crime wouldnt go down
>mfw statistics prove otherwise

>>94321
Guns are explicitly killing machines. Knives, while potentially harmful, have other applications. Guns are also far more dangerous than knives. In the modern era, the general population has no need for guns. As someone pointed out above, statistics show that most people don't use guns for self-defense very well. That's the job of police officers and law enforcement anyway.

>>94405
It wouldn't. Deaths from legal firearms would decrease (homicides, suicides, self-defense), but if someone wants to commit a crime they'll do so with a gun or a crowbar, doesn't matter.

Only betas need guns to defend themselves. Real niggas knuckle up.

>>94427

>mfw you can say that, but statistics repeatedly show the opposite to be true

>>93769
I'd agree with that statement if not given the fact that as a nation we would not remain defenselss. This would mean we'd have to give arms to somebody, that leaves the entire nation vulnerable to a small armed group. To keep the government in check, we'd need arms ourselves, or else that small group can control the government- which in turn can hurt us (being defenseless and such).

>>94412
>Implying that law enforcement uses those firearms any better than your average joe.

I dont own a gun. I have never owned a gun personally, and will probably never own a gun personally. I dont need one in the city where I currently live. I dont even lock my door.

But I should be ABLE to go and buy one if I want one.

I do not need the government to tell me what items I can and can not have that I can reasonably make use of without infringing upon the rights of others. Obviously I cant have a tank, there's nowhere to park, and I'd fuck up some types of streets just by using them, and would not fit into some streets. Obviously I cant have a cruise missle, deploying it could potetially fuck up somebody's property.

BUT I can easily take a gun and go to crown land and hunt or simply shoot for pleasure in absolutely safety for myself and everybody else and their property if I simply use it resonsibly.

If I was malicious, I could fuck up far, far many more people up with a few trips to a garden store then I could ever hope to with a firearm.
Are you going to restrict my access to basic chemicals too? Because that would be almost impossible in a developed industrial society.

And as for "nobody having guns" that genie is out of the bottle, and it cant be put back in. There are millions upon millions of guns. My country has far more guns then it has people. We dont even have the manpower to disarm the population.
And we dont need to. There is NO problem.
I grew up in a farming community in which my family along with every other family had guns for practical purposes. (If a grizzly wanders down from the hills, help is about 40 minutes away, and if those cops are busy helping somebody else. well....). And this isnt a "what if" scenario, it happens every spring.

Nobody ever gets murdered there. There are no robberies, you might get in to a fight with some shitkickers at the bar, but you wont be killed.

I like the way things work now, we are allowed guns, and simply ban shitty people themselves via prison.

It's impossible to make an argument against gun ownership that isn't based on logical fallacies

Read, and then form an opinion. Good stuffs in there.

>>94453
So you're telling me that banning firearms reduces rape, assault, theft, battery, murder, etc.

Does it also reduce world hunger?

There are statistics also showing that there's no causation and there are some that show that banning guns increases crime.

>>94356

explain how that relates to my post without using wikipedia please

USA is so fucked they are actually better with arms. Don't turn my Europe into such crimefest shithole though.

OP, how about this. We ban all privately owned firearms, one day after the government disarms itself.

State with most amount of legal gun ownership (Utah) has lowest rate of gun-related violence.
State with lowest amount of legal gun ownership (New Jersey) has highest rate of gun-related violence.

Leave me and my guns the fuck alone you liberal control freak. Your authoritarian policies are obviously complete failures. The moment firearms are made illegal is the day I pack up and move to greener pastures in another more gun-friendly nation.

>>94262
I am absolutely against restricting access to firearms but your logic is rediculous. You just basically said in your post that guns are useless. Or are you implying that Hitler and Lenin siezed all of those guns while people were napping or on the toilet?

Stupid arguments dont help anybody, think things through.

>>94412
Exactly, a firearm has only one purpose; to kill, I personally would advocate gun control being tighter in urban and suburban environs, with exceptions made for rurals who might want to hunt or keep critters from livestock.

Why a person living in the city needs a gun can just about be boiled down to "well, if I don't and the other guy does he'll shoot me", fact of the matter is owning a gun dosen't decrease your likelihood of being shot by a criminal unless you're the sort of nutball who wears it on their hip all the god damn time.

In any case, to my knowledge whilst it may be legal to kill someone in self-defense in the states, it's certainly not considered a god given right to perform extrajudicial executions on intruders in your home.

>>94500
No, but reduces death by gunshot. At least with a knife you have a sporting chance. A gun is a pussy way to go at someone.

>>94302
Blissful ignorance?

>>94555
>normative statement

more facts, less arguments from emotion please

>>94535
>you liberal control freak
>liberal

It's really annoying when you lump us responsible liberal gun owners with the far left that wants to ban guns.

>>94555
>it's certainly not considered a god given right to perform extrajudicial executions on intruders in your home.

And that's not legal. Once a person is disarmed and stuff you can't go up to them and execute them.

also, inb4 ZOMG AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
They're not legal post-80something.

>>94555
>In any case, to my knowledge whilst it may be legal to kill someone in self-defense in the states, it's certainly not considered a god given right to perform extrajudicial executions on intruders in your home.

In my state it is perfectly legal to shoot tresspassers.

>>94481
>>BUT I can easily take a gun and go to crown land and hunt or simply shoot for pleasure in absolutely safety for myself and everybody else and their property if I simply use it res[p]onsibly.

But how is it to be ensured that you even know how to use it responsibly? I mean, if not, just waiting for you to fuck up and kill someone and then punishing you after the fact is presumably not the optimal method...

Do you have suggestions as to more preventative means of ensuring responsiblity and safety for everyone else and their property?

>>94511
Your argument:
>The Nazis banned guns
>The Nazis were bad
>Banning guns is bad

ban all hazardous chemicals because if someone wanted to build a bomb they could

>>94463
An effective law enforcement system should be.

>>93769

>Herp, derp, ban de guns!

We don't have to make an argument. The SCOTUS has ruled.

>>94570
Like it or not, the morality of wether you should be allowed to kill a person under any circumstance is a key part of wether firearms should be freely available, with the exception of arguments springing from hunting and pest control useage, as for the latter uses the majority of nations allow lisenced useage of certain varieties of firearm in any case, so it's only really relevant to argue about firearm legality in the context of self-defence

>>94611
no i said that banning guns led to 2 million german women being raped to death

I grew up with bikers, in my youth we all had long hair and beards. Sort've like hippies, except we liked to fight, alot.
I was never one to ever fight anybody who didnt want to fight me or cause trouble for anybody who didnt start it but still, whenever I went on tours, "regular" people were scared of me.
Especially old people, old people often visibly reacted to my presence and were clearly afraid and reponded by either being rude (they were afraid, but they were not pussies) or by shrinking away from me.

Then I travelled to the USA and in my travels I ended up in a small town in Arizona, I forget the name. But *everybody* had a gun. They wore them in holsters, on their hips. And the average age looked to be in the 70's.
These people were some of the nicest people I have met on the planet. They didnt appear to give a fuck how I looked, people said hello to me on the street and when I entered a diner instead of people looking at me in horror or suspicion, they asked me questions about my bike and were quite pleasant.

Because fear didnt exist for them. They were able to be civilized even to somebody who was very different from them, if only cosmetically.
They might not have approved of my looks but they had absolutely nothing to worry about and they knew it.
Thats freedom.

I would have no problems with living in an entire society of people like that.

Ban all rubber bans because you can get enough of them together to launch a steak through the PRESIDENTS HEAD!

EVERYBODY PANIC!

>>94635
I'm quite sure that Medvedev and Putin are eyeing Alaska lustfully, waiting for the next opportunity to Sieze your natural resources and womenfolk, you fucking cretin.

What if we loosened gun control laws but increased the amount of hoops you need to go in order to become a licensed gun owner? Basically increasing amount of certification you need but giving people more freedom once they have said certification.

>>94656
your enemy is not just the russians nowadays, and they dont just eye alaska..


how much debt does USA owe by the way? its only a matter of time... until liquidation

If someone breaks into my home wielding a machete, I would prefer to defend myself with a fucking gun, and not a machete.

And yes, I have had my home broken into by someone wielding a machete.

Kind of a moot point anyway. "From my cold dead hands" is not an idle threat, it is a promise. If faggots like OP finally get their way, I will shoot the people they send to collect my guns.

Deal with it.

>>94642
>give everyone a gun
>everyone becomes social, benign, and carefree

>>94670
>What if we loosened free speech laws but increased the amount of hoops you need to go in order to become a licensed free speaker? Basically increasing amount of certification you need but giving people more freedom once they have said certification.

>>94600
How is it to be ensured that I will not drive into the oncoming lane? How is it to be ensured that I do not grab a baby from a mother and whip it under a bus? How is it to be ensured that I will not get a factory job and purposely poison the product during packaging after inspection?

Human cohabitation relies on trust. You trust thousands of faceless people every moment of your life in ways that you probably never even considered.

What reason do you have to not trust me with a firearm when you trust me in so many other potential or direct ways?

And sure, I have a suggestion, education. In junior high (in the 80's in Alberta I dont know if its still the same) I was taught to reponsibly use tools in shop class, I was taught to responsibly operate a vehicle in driver's ed and to maintain said vehicle in auto, I was taught to responsibly use chemicals in science and later chemistry, and I was taught to responsibly handle firearms in outdoor education. (Although I had already been taught by my parents).

op is the queen of all faggots.
ban all fists. i dont give a fuck. your only argument is picking up and using things, but if no one has them you have nothing to worry about.

>>94704
Pussy, you should have engaged him in Machete combat like a manly Jamaican man.

>>94705
Exactly, and everybody who is not is quickly removed and burried.

>>94611
Except that isn't the argument you mouth breathing retard.

The point is that it becomes a little difficult to kick down the doors of millions of people and drag them off in the middle of the night, if there is a loaded shotgun waiting behind each one of those doors.

If even a 1/4 of the Jews in Germany had a gun and the will to use it, shit never happens.

>>93769
>Your only argument could be personal defense
Actually one of many is the Constitution of the United States.

OP I would be able to get a gun within next 3 days if a wanted to.
Chances are you wouldn't.

Your next argument?

>>94642
Probably has more to do with the cultural impact of Easy Rider than firearm proliferation.

>>94757
do you really that's a good thing?

>>94726
Real men aren't stupid enough to bring a knife to a gun fight

>>94783
I really a lot of things!!!!!

>>94801
REAL men take a knife to a gunfight, and WIN!

>>94704
This. As far as I'm concerned, an attempt to confisicate guns is the precursor to further tyranny, and is no less than a declaration of war against the people.

>>94846
Real men are men that are still alive.

In any kind of confrontation, the idea is to survive. A gun increases my chances of survival.

Fuck op.

>>94850
'The People' are a means to an end, the military-industrial complex is eating us all alive, lol.

>>94751
And before the retard OP responds, it should be pointed out that many state constiutions guarantee the right own firearms as well. Mine specifically mentions self-defense as a reason for it.

>>94704
And it's attitudes like this that cause unrest and crime in the first place. People in this nation have been conditioned since birth to a belief that they are entitled to everything. When individual interests conflict, or the unattainability of something becomes apparent, people get frustrated and blame the system. The very system designed to work toward their best interests is scapegoated to disguise their ravenous appetite for whatever they can get their hands on. Because of this, people call for fewer rules and regulation in attempt to satisfy themselves. But that only allows their whims to collide in a chaotic struggle no different from primitive society. A mature man must learn to accept himself and relinquish his envious desires. Only through mastering his will can he achieve serenity in his life and in the greater society.

> State with most amount of legal gun ownership (Utah) has lowest rate of gun-related violence.
> State with lowest amount of legal gun ownership (New Jersey) has highest rate of gun-related violence.

Oh you. Using facts and evidence and such. Don't you know that more guns means more crime because [Citation Needed] ?

>>94886
Confiscating my weapons is not just taking away my property, but taking away my freedom as well.

All the pretty rhetoric in the world doesn't change
the fact that I will kill you dead if you try to make your agenda come true.

>>94890
I live in Vermont. I can go buy a handgun right now, at 12:30 at night. No waiting period, no background checks, no nothing.

One of the lowest crime rates in the country.

>>94886

Self-defense is not an "envious desire". When you achieve your dystopian society and the freewill of the individual is replaced with some kind of insect-like hive mind controlled by an all knowing computer or whatever it is you delusional faggots have wet dreams about let me know. Until then it is entirely rational for an individual to protect himself against other individuals and tyrannical government.

>>94953
You just proved my point

>>95057
Your point is completely hypothetical, because I will fucking kill you if you ever try to make it reality, so your point is also irrelevant.

You're full of shit. More guns in the hands of the population means less crime because criminals now they'll get their nuts blown off. Take all the guns off the citizens and the criminals are the only ones with the guns -then they have free reign. What, you think all the criminals are going to hand all their guns in to play fair?! Fuck that.

In America being armed is considered a civil right, not because Joe Negro might break into your home, or because hunting is a fun sport. Being armed is a right because ultimately all liberty comes from force of arms. Free men are armed so they may use those arms to defend their freedom.

>>95032
Self-defense isn't selfish; the desire for one particular means of it and the threat to kill anyone in the way is. People don't need a "hive mind." They just need to cooperate well. But many of the current ideas held in America hinder that.

>>95168
>the desire for one particular means of it
No.
the desire for the most effective means of it.

lol. didn't read anything in this thread. just dumpin.

Ban all niggers. I don't give a fuck. Your only argument is "human rights", yet, if niggers aren't human, you have nothing to worry about.

>>95080
Who else would you be willing to kill? For what else would you kill? How many people have to die to give you what you want? What if everyone else were just like you?

>>95168

>the desire of one particular means of it
Firearms are the standard in weaponry at this time. Seriously guy, I think obsolete weaponry of human history is neat, in fact I have a small collection of swords, but they would be entirely useless in;

A) defending myself and my property against a criminal armed with the standard in weaponry of our time

B) The necessity to overthrow or defend against a tyrannical government.

or even,

C) the necessity to defend against a foreign invasion

You are of course welcome to invent a time machine and go back in time to somehow prevent the invention firearms. Godspeed.

inb4 lolitrollu

I think that bullets should be banned, but guns should be legal.

Flawless plan.

>>95197
Yes, a gun is an effective killing machine. And that's exactly why it shouldn't be available to everyone and their dog.

>implying there was no crime before guns
>implying if someone is intent on killing you they wont use their hands if necessary

oh libs

>>95300
I'd like to stress once again that prevention of crime and foreign invasion is the JOB of the police and military.

>implying the police have a legal obligation to protect you
>implying there are even enough to do so if they were
>implying they don't have an incentive to fail to prevent crime and ask for a bigger budget

>>95413
im guessing you've never read the second amendment
>>>/china/

>>95413

I would like to stress once again that the military and police cannot be trusted with the responsibility of protecting individuals.

>>95450
It doesn't matter how many 10s of millions of people that government sanctioned agents killed around the world in 20th century, liberals still won't like private gun ownership. Making themselves helpless before the government is practically defined as a good thing by them.

>>95474
liberalism is just another term for having the victim mentality

THEY LOVE BEING DOMINATED

>>95413

Not exclusively it isn't. In America the citizenry legally has a broad range of police powers and is expected to serve as an armed militia force in a time of war.

>>95369

A gun being a highly effective weapon is why is it good to keep in the hands of the People. The People need every power equalizer they can get.

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised." - Niccolo Machiavelli

>>95450
And this ultimately why people are so opposed to gun control. They've been taught their whole lives to fear and distrust the military with such extreme paranoia that they go berserk at any possibilities that they might lose a potential weapon or power suppressor. But these people are men just like you, only occupying a different function in society. Yet they're constantly portrayed in a very negative light. Trust needs to exist between the citizens of a nation. But too many people are afraid to do it.

to everyone making these idealistic "power for the people against tyranny" arguments

I seriously don't see how you imagine having guns will, in practice, prevent too much power accumulating in the hands of the government

assuming you keep your guns, what would you do to oppose this? gun down the next police officer who gives you a ticket you don't like? or what?

I don't get what scenario you have imagined here... the return of the SS or something?

>>94137
>>94137
>>94137

Did world problems just get solved?

OMG?

>>95623
soccer moms will never stand for it

>>95493
I believe that policy is wrong. A nation needs a professional military, not a disorganized mass of civilians with guns. I also don't agree with the term "the People." Military personnel are citizens too, there's no need to separate them.

>>95753
>i believe

there your problem right there. there is nothing to believe or dispute, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

dont like it? get out

>>95753
>A nation needs a professional military, not a disorganized mass of civilians with guns

And we have one. And we have standing state organized militia forces as well (National Guard, and various State Defense Forces, Naval Militias, etc...). And we ALSO have a few hundred million strong unorganized militia, armed and ready.

>>95619

There is a clear line between trusting fellow individuals serving in the military and trusting the military apparatus itself. You are correct, many people read history, and find individual disarmament abhorrent. Every century in recorded history provides us with totalitarian dictators of various ideological flavors. Unfortunately, It is a common occurrence for a single individual or small elite group to seize complete and utter control of the military apparatus and expand and abuse its powers at cost of life and liberty. It is a necessity to protect oneself against this.

>>95753

If the military and police are just Joe Citizen too, then if we're disarming the citizens let's start with the police and the military. After all, the argument is that the average private citizen cannot be trusted with arms. If the military and the police are simply composed of your average citizens, they cannot be trusted with arms any more than any other citizen.

>Victim disarmament

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

Drugs are illegal. People still have them. If guns are illegal worldwide, people will still make them. If 'no body' has any guns; e.g military, army, etc. They turn into Qaddafi and fucking rule this shit.