Jump to content

~*Official Thread of America's Return to Thoughts & Prayers Normalcy*~


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

 

 

Ctrl+Pew on Twitter is a good showcase for how the art/science of 3d printing guns has advanced over the last few years.  The designs have evolved well past the first examples that were only capable of firing once.

 

Edited link because D1P posted Ctrpew's entire Twitter page. 56k warning!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

I still tie gun ownership to men having small dicks.

 

Nothing will change my mind on this.

skynews-pollution-generic_5315979.jpg?20
NEWS.SKY.COM

Dr Shanna Swan has found that chemicals called phthalates are causing human babies to be born with malformed genitals.

good news on this front

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the majority of gun owners I know are white suburbanites who think they’re going to have to become John McClane the moment a black family moves in, starts blasting rap music, and selling crack. 

Don’t get me wrong, some are responsible gun owners, but some of the others I wouldn’t trust to mow their own lawn let alone wield a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of gun enthusiast I know are insane dangerous assholes who are the last people I would ever want to have deadly weapons.

 

Gun nuts drive me crazy.

 

The 2nd Amendment is fucking stupid. It makes no sense. If the whole point is to have an armed populace in the case the government needs overthrowing, then anyone out killing police officers is technically operating within the boundaries of the law. So by gun nut logic, this kid is standing up to tyranny or whatever. I mean, who gets to decide what tyrannical people needs to be shot with guns? You? Me? This kid? Are we all supposed to be just overthrowing any government we want? It doesn't make any sense. If we need guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns? What if no one had guns? Wouldn't that be safer? If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns? Great? What's the point of any law? I mean, if we think making murder illegal won't stop murderers, then why have the law at all? Why have any law?

 

Most gun enthusiasm is all just deranged murder fantasy for scared idiots. I hate it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that argument, and I agree that if things dissolve to the point that armed Americans are fighting a guerrilla war against a tyrannical military it would be very complicated. It's hard to see a world where the military would just go full force and try to wipe out any insurrectionists... but I mean, when you really start talking about how anything like this would play out, you start to see the full scope of just how fucking ridiculous that justification for the second amendment is.

 

I mean, what are we even talking about? If the main justification of the 2nd amendment is so that citizens can overthrow the government, then it basically means we live in a lawless society ruled by guns. Why can't I decide that Biden is tyrannical and just go shoot him? Do I decide when how and if the government needs to be overthrown? Who decided and when?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarSolo said:

I still tie gun ownership to men having small dicks.

 

Nothing will change my mind on this.


1/3rd of Black households in the US own a gun

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 2nd amendment was written, the most powerful weapons were cannons and muskets. Private citizens needed to own them - Merchants needed cannons to defend their shipping from pirates, people on the frontier needed guns to defend from animals and Indian raids, and any self respecting gentleman needed a pistol to defend his honor.

 

I don't think they imagined a world where someone in Nevada can press a button and drop a bomb halfway around the world. Speaking of bombs, the first readily available high explosives (TNT, dynamite, and nitroglycerin) weren't around until the second half of the 19th century, and the government regulated that shit pretty fucking fast, since people generally thought average citizens having a bunch of nitroglycerin in their basement was a bad idea.

 

So the argument is what exactly do they mean by "arms" in the second amendment? Muskets and cannons? Does "arms" scale up with new inventions? Should we legally be able to own our own fighter jets? Surely, that counts as an "arm." The government is allowed to have them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Someone tell the Iraqis and Vietnamese

 

I've seen people bring that up before, but very different circumstances. If the US government went tyrannical, and regular Americans started grouping together as a militia force the advantage that the government has that they didn't in Vietnam or Iraq? It's on their home turf. Vietnam and Iraq are foreign countries, the layouts, infrastructure, registration systems, census, etc., etc., all that is unknown, but for American citizens planning military action? The US can pull up everything about you. Track your phone, your car, where you live, who you know, all that, and if the government is truly tyrannical, they probably don't care if they just kill you out of suspicion, and can use a predator drone to fire a missile on the house you're hiding out in, even if there are innocent civilians in there (oh wait, the US already does that in foreign countries without being a tyrannical government...). 

 

Any sort of action against the US military from regular civilians is doomed to fail. A straight up attack would get them wiped out. A guerilla style attack would still fail because, as we've seen with the January 6th insurrection, they'd go over every frame of every angle of every security footage there might be to identify who is responsible, find out where they are, and pull up at their doorstep. It would either end with that person going out in a blaze of glory, or being pulled out in cuffs after the soldiers raid their house. Even if that person ditched their phone, deleted their social media, ran away from their home, it really would only be a matter of time before they're found. 

 

The only way to stop a tyrannical US government would be if high ranking military members objected, and split off to form a proper rebel force somehow keeping control of the personnel and equipment they had control over, and with NATO countries putting pressure on the government, and possibly also joining the fight. Billy Bob who likes to practice playing soldier by shooting empty beer cans in the woods behind his house isn't going to do jack shit against a squad of Navy SEALs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sblfilms said:


1/3rd of Black households in the US own a gun


Blacks can have small dicks. WWE Superstar Titus O’Neal proved that when he posted a dick pic to his Twitter years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

The government has tanks and jets and shit. Your guns aren't going to stop them anymore.

 

I figured UAVs were really it, a cheap practically invisible drone flown mostly by a computer and someone who doesn't need full pilot training dropping missiles on people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

 

Interesting. They said DC is a no guns area, so bring masks, spray, batons, etc.

 

Can't imagine the bloodshed had we had so many people armed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I think people try to attack the second amendment from the "well regulated militia" part. I think it's more effective to attack what exactly it means by "arms." Clearly, we decided explosives do not fall under that category. So, the line seems to fall somewhere between flintlock pistols and high explosives. You could make an argument that semi automatic or automatic guns falls more on the "explosives" side of the spectrum, which we have already deemed are not protected under the 2A. You can't go to Walmart and buy 5 pounds of dynamite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

Basically I think people try to attack the second amendment from the "well regulated militia" part. I think it's more effective to attack what exactly it means by "arms." Clearly, we decided explosives do not fall under that category. So, the line seems to fall somewhere between flintlock pistols and high explosives. You could make an argument that semi automatic or automatic guns falls more on the "explosives" side of the spectrum, which we have already deemed are not protected under the 2A. You can't go to Walmart and buy 5 pounds of dynamite.

Trying to figure out what some white people from the 1700s meant by militia and arms just shows how fucking stupid this country is. The founders knew the world was a changing place, explicitly stated so and gave the future generations the ability to tailor the Constitution to our time. Yet instead of doing that we argue over the dumbest shit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Trying to figure out what some white people meant by militia and arms just shows how fucking stupid this country is. The founders knew the world was a changing place, explicitly stated so and gave the future generations the ability to tailor the Constitution to our time. Yet instead of doing that we argue over the dumbest shit. 

A big part of the reason courts exist is to separate the intent of law vs. the literal translation. To me, that means "well, if the right to bear arms is to keep civilians on equal footing with the government, we should all me able to own bombing drones."

 

Clearly, that is not the case. So we must decide where the line is, or if there should be one at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Basically I think people try to attack the second amendment from the "well regulated militia" part. I think it's more effective to attack what exactly it means by "arms." Clearly, we decided explosives do not fall under that category. So, the line seems to fall somewhere between flintlock pistols and high explosives. You could make an argument that semi automatic or automatic guns falls more on the "explosives" side of the spectrum, which we have already deemed are not protected under the 2A. You can't go to Walmart and buy 5 pounds of dynamite.

 

5 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

A big part of the reason courts exist is to separate the intent of law vs. the literal translation. To me, that means "well, if the right to bear arms is to keep civilians on equal footing with the government, we should all me able to own bombing drones."

 

Clearly, that is not the case. So we must decide where the line is, or if there should be one at all.

 

We should attack the very idea of a Constitutional "Right" because white assholes love to quote as they quote the Bible.  What a coincidence!  But if we examine the intent of the 2A, at the time in which it was conceived a group of people with guns was effective in staving off any foreign invaders because they were separated by a huge ass ocean.

 

You know has there been a deep dive into who exactly wrote, fought for, and implemented the 2A, and any other commentary of why they wanted it?  The US's birth had people of differing viewpoints competing for their vision, so I wonder what the contesting viewpoints were.  The USA today is a bigger melting pot of differing ideologies than it was in the 1770s, did the writers of the Constitution take the social unrest into account?  Because they were were all White and Christian.  Did they imagine the use of mass social manipulation, propaganda, spin, and disinformation that causes at of of strife and unrest today?  I doubt they recognized the scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

We should attack the very idea of a Constitutional "Right" because white assholes love to quote as they quote the Bible.  What a coincidence!  But if we examine the intent of the 2A, at the time in which it was conceived a group of people with guns was effective in staving off any foreign invaders because they were separated by a huge ass ocean.

 

You know has there been a deep dive into who exactly wrote, fought for, and implemented the 2A, and any other commentary of why they wanted it?  The US's birth had people of differing viewpoints competing for their vision, so I wonder what the contesting viewpoints were.  The USA today is a bigger melting pot of differing ideologies than it was in the 1770s, did the writers of the Constitution take the social unrest into account?  Because they were were all White and Christian.  Did they imagine the use of mass social manipulation, propaganda, spin, and disinformation that causes at of of strife and unrest today?  I doubt they recognized the scale.

 

The only “defense” of gun rights at this point is, “it’s in the constitution.” This is legally compelling of course but the constitution has been amended and should be again to purge the second. There are no compelling moral or practical arguments that support it anymore. There were almost 40,000 firearm deaths in 2019. It’s ridiculous.

 

Any choice we make is going to have collateral damage. If we could snap all guns out of American hands would this mean that somewhere, someone who would have been able to defend themselves would be unable to do so? Yes. And I truly sympathize, and this gets to the suggestions that mclumber had earlier.

 

But gun ownership is the disease, not the symptom. It needs to be treated.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

The only “defense” of gun rights at this point is, “it’s in the constitution.” This is legally compelling of course but the constitution has been amended and should be again to purge the second. There are no compelling moral or practical arguments that support it anymore. There were almost 40,000 firearm deaths in 2019. It’s ridiculous.

 

Any choice we make is going to have collateral damage. If we could snap all guns out of American hands would this mean that somewhere, someone who would have been able to defend themselves would be unable to do so? Yes. And I truly sympathize, and this gets to the suggestions that mclumber had earlier.

 

But gun ownership is the disease, not the symptom. It needs to be treated.


2020 saw an uptick in firearm deaths (25% in non-suicide deaths). The interesting thing is that suicide death barely increased by 100 between that and 2019, which if you listen to the talking heads seems like it would have been a ton more. The key difference is that in 2020 we had an elephant and coronavirus making bigger news than homicides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

If you’re wondering how we got here, read Gunfight by Winkler. One of the best reads on guns and gun control.


People on this board won’t even read the articles they post, what makes you think they’ll read a whole ass book?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris- said:


People on this board won’t even read the articles they post, what makes you think they’ll read a whole ass book?

 

hyphen.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chris- said:


People on this board won’t even read the articles they post, what makes you think they’ll read a whole ass book?

Don't even read the tweets tbh

  • Shocked 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Commissar SFLUFAN changed the title to ~*Official Thread of America's Return to Thoughts & Prayers Normalcy*~

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...