Upload
Login or register

herpdaki

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:2/13/2011
Stats
Comment Ranking:#9621
Highest Content Rank:#3792
Highest Comment Rank:#2271
Content Thumbs: 348 total,  683 ,  335
Comment Thumbs: 5994 total,  7047 ,  1053
Content Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 33 Content: Peasant → Level 34 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 35% (35/100)
Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 257 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:46235
Times Content Favorited:120 times
Total Comments Made:2505
FJ Points:6091
Favorite Tags: MLP (4) | little (2) | my (2) | pony (2)

latest user's comments

#33 - It's not about needing one, its about wanting one and being ab…  [+] (6 replies) 07/22/2016 on If Modern Liberal Websites... +2
#39 - anon (07/22/2016) [-]
Government tyranny? No machine gun can safe you from government tyranny. Not in these modern days. In the old days it might have been musket vs musket, but in these days there is no such comparison. The government has helicopters, drones, teargas, tanks, they can use technology to track people, they can shut down cars from a safe distance. If the government wanted to it could become tyrannical whether people have machine guns or not. So if there was a serious civil war against a tyrannical government, people with machine guns would achieve very little. Look at the Middle-East! There is a war being fought there with freaking remote controls!

Now I'm not at all saying that there is no risk of the government becoming tyrannical, as I think it isn't at all unlikely to happen in the future, but saying that we need machine guns in order to defend against a tyrannical government might have made sense 70 years ago, but not today...
User avatar
#78 - tittylovin (07/22/2016) [-]
Incorrect. Unless the US wants a scorched Earth on it's own soil, (protip, it doesn't) automatic guns are exceedingly useful in area denial and defending against intruders. This isn't the Napoleonic Wars, where both sides take their troops and agree to stand in a field taking potshots at one another, it's asymmetrical. Guerrilla tactics work on a larger, better equipped force, especially when you know the terrain. It's a literal home advantage. It's not about brute force, but outlasting your opposition. This is partly why Vietnam was such a nightmare for the US. This is how Radical Muslims have managed to withstand 10+ years of constant warfare in the Middle East. It's hard to win a war while trying to maintain relations with the citizens. If we could just slaughter them wholesale we'd be done in just a couple of months.
Also, by this logic we should all have access to modern military hardware and secrets. I agree wholeheartedly. The only reason we don't is because then we really could overthrow the government.
#60 - anon (07/22/2016) [-]
The reason wars in the middle east drag on is because people other than the government have machine guns and rifles. Guns will always be effective unless the government has more riflemen than the general public.
#76 - anon (07/22/2016) [-]
Yes, they do have ground troops using machine guns. However, I don't think that they do this because its supposedly so effective. Rather, its needed to have ground troops to minimize collateral damage that would otherwise be caused by indiscriminately bombing the entire place, which is something a tyrannical government wouldn't be worried about. That is what makes a tyrannical government dangerous, because it wants to keep its power and influence over people no matter the cost. Millions and millions of people have died in the past under the rule of a tyrannical leader because they had little value for the common person and didn't worry about collateral damage (Mau, Stalin, etc.).
#59 - Flammenwerfer (07/22/2016) [-]
Automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 (I believe that's the correct year) are banned from sale and purchase. Only weapons manufactured beforehand are legal to own.
User avatar
#42 - herpdaki (07/22/2016) [-]
It's not a perfect argument of course, but if the government did become tyrannical, then having such a gun does give you a slightly better chance of getting away. You'll at least be able to fend off an initial confrontation, and then you can disappear. For the average person, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort of going and tracking someone like that down.

At the end of the day, I think it just makes people feel a little safer, or it's just a hobby. And since there is such little legitimate reason to ban them, why not let people have it?
#18 - Killing Mei specifically. Easily worth it.  [+] (1 reply) 07/12/2016 on Most satisfying kill 0
User avatar
#19 - amuzen (07/12/2016) [-]
I mean still that's play of the MATCH. That's... That's the best that happened... across 2 games. One guy killing one person, that was pretty much already screwed.