Basically. Annnnndddd i started a political war in the comments.... Or just a lot of pictures of Nazis. I saw a movie once where only the police and military ha
x
Click to expand

Basically

Basically. Annnnndddd i started a political war in the comments.... Or just a lot of pictures of Nazis. I saw a movie once where only the police and military ha

Annnnndddd i started a political war in the comments.... Or just a lot of pictures of Nazis

I saw a movie once where only the
police and military had guns.
It was called Schindler' s List.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+755
Views: 51921
Favorited: 110
Submitted: 02/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to badsamaritan submit to reddit

Comments(587):

[ 587 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+106
#60 - beatiejuice **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #403 to #60 - purealterego (02/22/2013) [-]
this will never happen in um murica'
#67 to #60 - eddio (02/22/2013) [-]
You are a beautiful man.
User avatar #61 to #60 - pompladouche (02/22/2013) [-]
*starts slow clap
#537 - thisotherdude (02/23/2013) [-]
How about we just get rid of all guns and bring back swords? That way if you want to commit mass murder you'll have to be one badass son of a bitch who can cut down about 20 other guys with swords.
How about we just get rid of all guns and bring back swords? That way if you want to commit mass murder you'll have to be one badass son of a bitch who can cut down about 20 other guys with swords.
User avatar #540 to #537 - konradkurze (02/23/2013) [-]
ahem
'Revolution' had that on the show.....Miles Matheson was one evil mofo with swords
#590 to #537 - AeroChic (02/23/2013) [-]
I could just imagine people trying to go hunting. They'd be running through the woods chasing deer with swords held above their heads. BADASS.
I could just imagine people trying to go hunting. They'd be running through the woods chasing deer with swords held above their heads. BADASS.
#551 to #537 - Woodlock (02/23/2013) [-]
you.   
   
I like you.
you.

I like you.
User avatar #554 to #537 - lapsushominum (02/23/2013) [-]
That just might be crazy enough to work.
User avatar #539 to #537 - thatnerdyguy (02/23/2013) [-]
If I ever start my own country, I'll make you like, the head of homeland security or something so you can instigate this.
#562 to #537 - algonquin (02/23/2013) [-]
but what if some people have curved swords, THEN WHAT MAN, DAMN IT THEN WHAT!
#45 - randomserb (02/22/2013) [-]
So why isn't every European government enslaving their population?
#600 to #45 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
Portugal here. They already are.
User avatar #69 to #45 - techketzer (02/22/2013) [-]
The freedoms they allow their people make them more profitable.
For the moment.
User avatar #279 to #69 - gravitystereo (02/22/2013) [-]
I don't know why you got thumbed down, you're pretty much right.
There's a correlation between government involvement and Economic freedom.
The more government involvement, the less economic freedom.
That's why North Korea is last on the list of Asia's nations (161 or something), and Hong Kong is doing so incredibly well. Hong Kong has a Laissez-faire system (little to no government involvement) and is one of the highest on the list.
+5
#411 to #279 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #390 to #279 - oceanfrank (02/22/2013) [-]
and people say capitalism is a bad thing.....
User avatar #380 to #279 - techketzer (02/22/2013) [-]
This is FJ.
At time I wonder why I'm even bothering.
#414 to #380 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
''For the moment'' seems weird. What does that even mean? There is no way any European government will and could ever under any circumstances enslave its population.
User avatar #632 to #414 - techketzer (02/23/2013) [-]
It might seem so, but it is not if you take the time to think about it.
It means that to the ones in power, an unshackled populace is more lucrative than a restricted one.
Government takes its percentage from profit, called euphemistically "tax", like a mafia crime syndicate would; therefore it cannot restrict individual striving for gain, as that is its primary income.

The basic mechanisms for a dictatorship are already in place.
A police force that is blind to reality and enforces the very letter of the law without conscience, a mechanisms of legislation completely unbound to the will of the people (EU commissary), and that's all that is needed to install autocracy or even tyranny within an incredibly short space of time.

Basically, my argument here is very simple.
It is that any structure of domination and rule, even if regulated by majority as a democracy is, can be used or abused to served tyrannical ends with terrifying efficiency.
To truly ensure freedom of the individual human existence and mind, any and every variation of such a structure needs to be abolished.

(Very interested in a good debate here; I'm not perfect and might learn something new from you.)
#644 to #632 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
The government doesn't need to make a profit in that way. It collects taxes and redistributes it to education, poor people, infrastructure, police, et cetera. Of course, politicians need an income, but that doesn't depend on the amount the government earns from taxes.

I don't know where you live, but seeing the police force as being blind to reality and enforcing the very letter of the law without conscience is a huge exaggeration. And the EU exists so we can compete with other giants such as China and America. And thus you need unity within the EU countries.

Do you even have any examples of your government using/abusing its position to serve tyrannical ends with terrifying efficiency? (I hope that makes sense, Im not English)

And my country has elections every 4 years (even more frequent past couple of times), with new parties leading each time, and the ones in power can't make any changes without other parties/citizens going crazy about it and discussing it for months.
0
#313 to #279 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #386 to #313 - techketzer (02/22/2013) [-]
Glorious, golden chaos.
Yes, there is.
User avatar #394 to #386 - gravitystereo (02/22/2013) [-]
interesting
#620 to #279 - goofyplease (02/23/2013) [-]
Danefag here. According to the economic freedom index (www.heritage.org/index/)
I am quite free. However, i can't take a **** without the government wanting to tax the paper, water and labor going in to that action. We have one of the biggest government spendings in the world, and are one of the most free countries.

Just saying.
User avatar #475 to #279 - squadmissile (02/23/2013) [-]
Or you know, planned economies don't work?
#123 to #69 - widar (02/22/2013) [-]
Wat.

So you're implying that the European democracies are really dictatorships that just cover it up for now and could turn at any second. And the reason for this conclusion is that there are strict gun laws. I totally see the logic.
#377 to #123 - techketzer (02/22/2013) [-]
Apparently you don't see anything that's not slapped in your face.

Weimar Republic was a democratic republic, but I'm willing to bet my dinner you have never heard of it and have not even the slightest idea why it is of relevance here.

And disarmament of the people is not the reason, but a symptom. I never said otherwise.
Get your act together, you idiot; FJ hates my opinion and still you get thumbed down despite disagreeing with me.
#484 to #377 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
The Weimar republic wasn't about disarming the people, it was about disarming the country, which every major European power had tried their best to do for the last 200 years. It was punitive, unfair and lead to fascism being accepted as a response to the allies conditions at Versailles.

Don't try and make out that their is previous for the situation in America because there isn't, at all. Most people in other countries just accept that they have a small penis.
User avatar #633 to #484 - techketzer (02/23/2013) [-]
"The Weimar republic wasn't about disarming the people, it was about disarming the country"

Where is the difference?
You disarm the country, you've disarmed the people. You disarm the people, you've disarmed the country.

Disarmament in Weimar Republic was not even the point; that Weimar Repuplic could be seamlessly transformed into a ruthless dictatorship was.

All of this has nothing to do with modern day USA, apart from the mechanism of an armed populace able to resist a tyrannical government.
#455 to #377 - widar (02/23/2013) [-]
I'm reasonably sure that, in fact, I know more about the Weimar Republic than you do.
(So give me your dinner)

You can of course take a few examples where there seems to be a correlation and then say "Hey, see?"
But just because the Weimar Republic happened to become a dictatorship, that doesn't mean that all other democracies can do the same thing and you have to be armed to the teeth to defend yourself against your own government. The Weimar Republic had some serious flaws in its constitution that were exploited, for example that the president had almost the same power as the emperor did in the German Empire.
Also, what you seem to be forgetting is that even if the population had been armed to the teeth, they were, for the most part, not willing to revolt anyway. Nothing about the nazis would have changed, the people were content up until 1943 or so.

Ah, whatever, this is useless. I'm just wondering if you people really believe this **** and live in constant fear and need your guns to protect yourself at all times (maybe you have a bunker in your backyard too and wear a tinfoil hat at all times) or if you just have to come up with ridiculous reasons so that you can keep your guns.
I don't even mind if you like guns, I like guns FFS! But what's the problem with licenses and certain limitations? I just don't get it.
User avatar #636 to #455 - techketzer (02/23/2013) [-]
"the people were content up until 1943 or so"
That may well be the grandest delusion I have ever heard of.
Granted, the Germany ruined by WW1 was the most perfect feeding ground for a socialist dictatorship there was in all of known human history, so yah, you're half wrong half right here, actually.

I see you're a reasonable fellow not shackled to "Meeeeh, guns are baaaad". Kudos for that alone; a free mind is much more important than any weapon system of this world.

Summarizing, my point is that the mechanism we call government is not to be trusted. Duh, eh?
Sure, it's been quite tame for the last 60 years or so in the western world, but it has racked up a higher count of corpses in the 20th century alone than all of war has in recorded history of mankind, neglecting the role government had in declaring those wars, even.

It's not strictly about guns; its about the means to resist government if need be (that happens to equal guns in our time.).
Government can be corrupted if it is not corrupted from the start; the ordinary people need a possibility to defend themselves and other innocents, or a bloodbath beyond description or even just imagination is assured.

tl;dr: Guns are the means of the populace to resist the tyrant.
Strip the populace of those means and you play into the hands of the tyrant.
User avatar #436 to #377 - steedawwg **User deleted account** (02/23/2013) [-]
Please do not mention the Weimar Republic, spent two years studying it for GCSE History. But do I get brownie points for knowing what it is?
User avatar #637 to #436 - techketzer (02/23/2013) [-]
Sure, brownies all around.
Weimar is incredibly interesting; town, culture, state alike.
#49 - dangalo ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Saw a film once where everyone had guns, it was called city of god.
#544 to #49 - desadaptado (02/23/2013) [-]
Have a gif good sir   
   
Meu negrito
Have a gif good sir

Meu negrito
User avatar #547 to #544 - dangalo ONLINE (02/23/2013) [-]
Obrigado
#404 - doddythechef (02/22/2013) [-]
The british don't need guns
#441 to #404 - soggytomatoe (02/23/2013) [-]
"She's so drunk!"
#282 - screamingdemon (02/22/2013) [-]
Except civilians did have guns, there was a resistance. But when you have an army against you, a small resistance isn't going to do **** .
It's not like the holocaust could have been stopped if the Jews had more guns. The majority of the German people wanted it to happen. It was democracy. And look at other countries around you, they don't have more than hunting rifles and still manage to have less crime than the U.S. Comparing the holocaust to the U.S government trying to take away assault rifles is idiotic.
#287 to #282 - isradam (02/22/2013) [-]
If only they had listened to Hertzl. "Dude they are GOING TO 			*******		 KILL US"    
   
"Nah man, they cool"
If only they had listened to Hertzl. "Dude they are GOING TO ******* KILL US"

"Nah man, they cool"

#190 - jinkazama (02/22/2013) [-]
I saw a movie where someone was called jason once. It was called friday the 13th. And it thought me the valuable lesson that EVERYONE called jason is a psychopathic murderer
#33 - pyrusd (02/22/2013) [-]
Hitler took guns away from the opposition, not the German people. He wanted them well armed in case of invasion. I know it's a joke, but a lot of people have been using this as a actual reference in the gun control debate thingy.
User avatar #530 - remilia (02/23/2013) [-]
Funny thing is this was Germany and germany still has weapon control like this, only a few people have weapons, mostly Police. Normal people arent even allowed to carry them even WITH a licence.
#543 to #530 - hatemountain (02/23/2013) [-]
Same here in sweden. You may own a gun but can not carry it. Only time you can use a gun is at the shooting range or during the hunting season. In fact, you're not even allowed to wear a knife in public unless it's needed for your profession.    
   
I am totally ok with this.
Same here in sweden. You may own a gun but can not carry it. Only time you can use a gun is at the shooting range or during the hunting season. In fact, you're not even allowed to wear a knife in public unless it's needed for your profession.

I am totally ok with this.
+6
#596 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
#495 - reygar (02/23/2013) [-]
I saw that movie long time ago, was a really good one.
pic semirelated
User avatar #318 - demandsgayversion (02/22/2013) [-]
I saw a man with two arms once. His name was Hitler.
#310 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Yes because Nazi Germany is the only time/place this has ever happened in.
+15
#369 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#401 to #369 - themrsunshine (02/22/2013) [-]
All those silly 'mericans and their weapons...
-3
#421 to #401 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#461 to #421 - themrsunshine (02/23/2013) [-]
As a matter of fact the Danish military is very present internationally, and of all the nations participating in the Afghan war Denmark is the nation, which has lost most soldier per capita due to the fact that the Danish army are peacekeeping the most dangerous regions...

-1
#508 to #461 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #646 to #508 - themrsunshine (02/23/2013) [-]
I have never told anything about wars keeping the world stable. I only responded to your quite inpolite and rather ignorant comment about U.S doing all the work, because no other country wants to get "their hands dirty". I find this statement rather rude, because a lot of nations are contributing to peacekeeping in the world. Of course all contries can't contribute equal simply because of the nations' population. Also I don't consider sacrificed lives drops in the bucket...
0
#647 to #646 - canthavenicethings **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#502 to #461 - anon (02/23/2013) [-]
You mean in Helmand, where the British are doing most of the work? Where Danish casualties are 1/10th of the British casualties? Casualty figures aren't usually a measure of success you know.
#568 - stgfilitov (02/23/2013) [-]
Nazis you say?
Nazis you say?
User avatar #289 - DmOnZ ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
Are you seriously equating the US government restricting firearms (emphasis on RESTRICTING) to the holocaust?
+5
#170 - slimcswagga **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#193 to #170 - jinkazama (02/22/2013) [-]
But if they were made illegal now, in 50 years there would be very few guns. No solution to a problem is instantaneous.
User avatar #232 to #193 - TheMacDaddy (02/22/2013) [-]
How did that work for Mexico?
#405 to #232 - jinkazama (02/22/2013) [-]
Mexico is governed badly. Ireland for example has done well with a gun ban. Because it isn't governed ****** , hence the many mexicans leaving for other countries and the many foreigners coming into countries like ireland.
#52 - floppicus (02/22/2013) [-]
I can't believe I finally get a use for this.
#211 - adamannater (02/22/2013) [-]
Hurr Durr gun control doesnt work, the 99% of countrys where it does are outliers
#SaveOurFreedoms2013
#281 to #211 - nazguultje (02/22/2013) [-]
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a gun in some parts of europe?
#498 to #211 - robotrino (02/23/2013) [-]
your reaction pic earned you my thumb
User avatar #226 to #211 - seniorpokeman (02/22/2013) [-]
Gun control won't work for America. We're connected to Mexico with little or no borders to keep the drug cartel out, and they can easily bring in guns illegally for sale along with their drugs. It's different with Europe (Especially England) because you guys don't have as much problems with the sale of illegal weapons.
#300 to #211 - anon (02/22/2013) [-]
Eh, think about how America is different from the EU:
Giant black market
Giant secondary black market
Right next to Mexico (aka illegal import boarder)
War on drugs made drugs more common
The real problem people fear - criminals, not the government. Armed robberies and murders are common, even in gun-free zones. Removing guns will only hinder law-abiding citizens. (see previous points)
User avatar #221 to #211 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
Gun control does work, but I'd rather get shot than stabbed.
User avatar #266 to #221 - ishalltroll (02/22/2013) [-]
Agreed. As much as I assume that getting shot isn't very pleasant either, I suppose that getting stabbed is a lot more painful.
User avatar #269 to #266 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
Coming from someone who's had both happen to him, getting stabbed hurts a hell of a lot more.
User avatar #271 to #269 - ishalltroll (02/22/2013) [-]
You've been shot AND stabbed before?
What's your profession? Like, security or po-po or what?
User avatar #272 to #271 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
I was born in Philadelphia.
#288 to #272 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
In West Philadelphia, born and raised...

Please tell me you've got an auntie and uncle in Bell Air? You'd make my day.
User avatar #293 to #288 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
In fact, I do.


I really don't but I said it so I don't disappoint you.
User avatar #294 to #293 - numbersixtyseven **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
Awww... Wel, at least I got to get my hopes up today.

Thumb for you.
User avatar #276 to #272 - ishalltroll (02/22/2013) [-]
Well, I suppose that's just as good of an explanation as any other.
User avatar #612 to #221 - dapianoman (02/23/2013) [-]
In Connecticut a bunch of people were shot.
26 died.

In China some more people got stabbed.
No one died.

Personally I'd rather lose an ear and a finger than be dead.
But what do I know.
User avatar #238 to #221 - Zarke (02/22/2013) [-]
It works when guns aren't already a "problem". They're like AIDS. They can go in, but they're really damn hard to get out.
User avatar #241 to #238 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
Also, if someone breaks into my house, I'd rather have a shotgun than a knife.
User avatar #243 to #241 - Zarke (02/22/2013) [-]
**** a shotgun, I want something belt-fed.
User avatar #245 to #243 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
I hope you're really good at spackling.
User avatar #246 to #245 - Zarke (02/22/2013) [-]
Nah, leave the holes. It tells the next guy to **** right the hell off.
User avatar #250 to #246 - heartlessrobot (02/22/2013) [-]
I think it's better for your foundation and whatever plumbing or wiring is in the walls if you just cut the burglars head off, mount it on a spear on your front yard, then hang a sign from it saying "This guy tried to break in".
User avatar #252 to #250 - Zarke (02/22/2013) [-]
It's kind've hard to damage your foundation in that manner. Most walls are hollow anyways.
[ 587 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)