Click to expand
Latest users (2): klowserpok, youregaylol, anonymous(8).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #16839 - Hawke (12/31/2012) [-]
You know what the first thing a dictator does when he gets in power?

He bans guns, and gives the public a certain amount of time to turn in all of their weapons.

Now why would we have an amendment that gives us the right to bear arms? It's simple.

In the event that the government becomes so corrupt, the people could fight back.
User avatar #16879 to #16839 - ilieksheep (12/31/2012) [-]
Now I'm from the UK so I know fuck all about American laws and whatnot, but I do have one thing to say after talking about it with a mate of mine.
The amendment that gives you the right to bear arms? Its stupidly old, it should be updated to fit with more modern times, don't get me wrong I can understand people wanting a gun for protection and all, but they should limit the weapons a person can actually own, and on top of that they should be a lot harder to get ahold of. I don't know to much about how its run really, cause again I'm from the UK, but given how much gun crime goes on in the US, something should be done to limit how easily available guns actually are.

Anyway thats about all I've got to say about it, enjoy.
#16878 to #16839 - unholyjebus (12/31/2012) [-]
Would you say that there is a realistic risk of a European country like the UK with high levels of gun control to become this corrupt? Because shit dude I would like to know if this was the case.
User avatar #16869 to #16839 - newposterintown (12/31/2012) [-]
Specially after the revolution, and all.

Also, Shizune is neat.
User avatar #16871 to #16869 - Hawke (12/31/2012) [-]

Yes she is.
User avatar #16864 to #16839 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Not disagreeing with you at all, but I'm going to quote someone I talked to in a thread
"This could go 1 of 2 ways.
1. The military is with you, and you have a good chance of keeping your rights
2. The military is against you, and you waving around your semi-auto will end in you being hit in the chest by a missile from a drone you never knew was there."
So yeah, fighting back only works if the military is with you on that.
#16907 to #16864 - lnerfan (12/31/2012) [-]
I apologize for the rudeness of this anon, but it illustrates the point quite effectively.
User avatar #16928 to #16907 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Well, the fighter jet may not be kicking down your door, but it sure as hell can blow up your entire house if you show any sign of going against the government.
User avatar #16943 to #16928 - lnerfan (12/31/2012) [-]
And piss off even more of the public when the news gets out?

That's trying to put out a singed hair by pouring gasoline on your head.
User avatar #17196 to #16943 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
If they are willing to use fighter jets at all on the population, I don't feel that media attention is a problem.
User avatar #17218 to #17196 - lnerfan (12/31/2012) [-]
If you've got like 70% of the population going against the government, it's only a matter of time before the military either defects or gets zerg rushed. And that's assuming there's little defection to start with.
User avatar #17242 to #17218 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
If civilians are capable of removing a government, I will be amazed.
Although I can say one thing, since it is 'Murica, it might not be that hard to remove a base via as zerg rush.
Only because, y'know, the rest of the military is out policing the world for some reason.
User avatar #16857 to #16839 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
i agree but this amendment was created under the assumption that people had the decency to govern their own use of said firearms. unfortunately the population has seemed to fail this assumption. however i still think the population should still have firearms, just limit them to pistols and hunting style rifles/shotguns and make the process to get them less easy.
User avatar #16877 to #16857 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
How has the population not been able to do that? The NRA is pretty big, and people involved in it are over-all safe people.
User avatar #17729 to #16877 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
...look at the huge number of gun related deaths in the u.s. compared to anywhere
...look at the sheer number of school shootings in the u.s. compared to anywhere
the general population lost control of themselves even if the NRA keeps control of themselves
(sand countries and africa dont count in this, they are gonna kill eachother off anyways)
User avatar #17739 to #17729 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
The majority of people with guns are pretty safe.
"Huge number" is when you compare it to places with no guns, that don't have countries connected to them. *coughU.Kcough*
User avatar #17760 to #17739 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
canada- allows guns, highly restricted. no automatic weapons. shares a massive border with the u.s.
u.s.- allows guns, nearly unrestricted. automatic weapons allowed.

canada gun deaths in 2009 - approx 610
u.s. gun deaths in 2009 - approx 15,421

citing www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
and www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
User avatar #17776 to #17760 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Not caused, meant to say they were done with semi-auto weapons most of the time.
User avatar #17769 to #17760 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Hold up, The U.S doesn't allow automatic weapons, unless they get a collectors license, and even then, they can not own a weapon made past 1984.
Besides, shootings are caused by semi-auto weapons.
"Nearly unrestricted" these guns require a license.
Also, I was talking about Mexico, bring up some statistics on that.
User avatar #17796 to #17769 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
anyhow in wrapping up, using Canada as an example, we can conclude that making it extremely difficult to get guns would be the better choice. if you make it impossible then people get antsy and bitch, if you make it too easy then the gun deaths go up. making the guns hard to get would help to keep them out of the hands of morons and criminals.
User avatar #17786 to #17769 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
mexico gun deaths in 2009 - 19,803... mexico is essentially lawless and it only outpaces the u.s. by a small margin.

either wich way my previous comment was meant to dispell your notion that the bordering countries had anything to do with the gun deaths in a specific country
User avatar #17794 to #17786 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
Well, considering the fact the U.S banned drugs yet the U.S still gets it from Mexico, I don't see how guns could be different.
Banning guns won't stop them for the U.S really.
User avatar #17805 to #17794 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
it hasnt stopped guns from coming from the u.s. canada either but it seems that somehow we managed to control them enough
User avatar #17814 to #17805 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
I wasn't saying anything about it stopping guns from going to the U.S to canada.
The U.S hasn't been capable to control the drugs in the U.S just because they banned it and search things coming and going from Mexico.
User avatar #17821 to #17814 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
but you were saying that guns would just come in from mexico. i was using a current example to dispel that notion.
User avatar #17825 to #17821 - friendlyanonymous (12/31/2012) [-]
They still would.
User avatar #17854 to #17825 - deadlysilentbob (12/31/2012) [-]
this is an assumption based on another thing the government tried to control. guns and drugs are 2 very different things and if the country your bringing the guns into is not in a civil war its not very lucrative. i doubt it would become that big of a thing. and even if it did, most of the people whom are the problems with the guns are either too stupid or too lazy to go find a black market dealer.
 Friends (0)