Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by darthgoober
As an individual you absolutely are. But as a group that get organized as serve as a beacon of hope to the rest of the populous... not really. No dictator wants to have to kill most of the people he's looking to rule over and mounting a resistance buys time for other nations to take notice and step in too. Hitler probably would have been a lot easier to beat if he were still fighting his own civil war because everyone refused to give up their guns rather than allow him to slowly disarm so many of them.

The days of armed revolts by the rabble are over.

Do you know why revolutions often happen? Because some rich ******* wants to topple another rich *******, and rule.

If being in "the controlling elite" takes more then money, like it did in feudal Japan, you can have potential funding for a revolution.

But this is America. Where everythings for sale. Where politicians go with their hats out like beggars, looking for handouts.

And on the other side of it, the underclass has their creature comforts. And the very poor, they serve to motivate the rest to work just hard enough to not become them.

It's a brilliant setup, honestly. All rich people get a stake, cutting off any possibility of a revolt from some unhappy wanna be with deep pockets.

Who wants to ruin a great setup like this, if they have the means?

Originally posted by Robtard
Hitler didn't disarm the masses, in fact, in 1938 the Nazi party installed a more relaxed gun legislation, as the previous was very restricted due to Germany's imposed restraints after WWI.

He did disarm the Jews, Gypises, communist and other "undesirable" types later on.

Originally posted by cdtm
The days of armed revolts by the rabble are over.

Do you know why revolutions often happen? Because some rich ******* wants to topple another rich *******, and rule.

If being in "the controlling elite" takes more then money, like it did in feudal Japan, you can have potential funding for a revolution.

But this is America. Where everythings for sale. Where politicians go with their hats out like beggars, looking for handouts.

And on the other side of it, the underclass has their creature comforts. And the very poor, they serve to motivate the rest to work just hard enough to not become them.

It's a brilliant setup, honestly. All rich people get a stake, cutting off any possibility of a revolt from some unhappy wanna be with deep pockets.

Who wants to ruin a great setup like this, if they have the means?

And there are plenty of people who'd like to ruin this great set up we have going here right now in the present day, let alone within the infinite scope of possibilities that the future holds. Just imagine that a true neo nazi or some nut that believes he's Christ reborn slips through the cracks and gets elected in 3 short years, do you really think that he'd be content to maintain the status quo?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah the Nazi's started off as a pretty friendly party to gain people's trust and make them think that they didn't have to worry about them. Then he disarmed the people who were most likely to fight against him. I have no problem admitting that totally disarming those who will fight against you is somewhat different than disarming EVERYONE but only to the point that they won't be able to effectively fight back, my point is that the necessity of getting rid of armed resistance from one's own populous before a tyrant can truly seize absolute power demonstrates the necessity for that potential armed resistance.

Dunno man, you seem to have gone full blown TI with the conspiracies and government takeovers and whatnot, which is a crazy counter as most people are not talking about melting down everyone's gun, just revisiting how we do background checks, better communication between our agencies, not giving the schizophrenic a gun license, maybe limiting the ammo capacity of guns and other sensible things like that.

Originally posted by darthgoober
As an individual you absolutely are. But as a group that can get organized as serve as a beacon of hope to the rest of the populous... not really. No dictator wants to have to kill most of the people he's looking to rule over and mounting a resistance buys time for other nations to take notice and step in too. Hitler probably would have been a lot easier to beat if he were still fighting his own civil war because everyone refused to give up their guns rather than allow him to slowly disarm so many of them.

If Trump (or whomever) declared themselves The Forever King tomorrow and established martial law, the right way to combat that would be through political and financial pressure (and in the worst case, fleeing the country). Grabbing my gun and pretending I'm in a Call of Duty match is the last thing any sensible person would want to do unless they're already a psychopath who doesn't care about their lives or collateral damage.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dunno man, you seem to have gone full blown TI with the conspiracies and government takeovers and whatnot, which is a crazy counter as most people are not talking about melting down everyone's gun, just revisiting how we do background checks, better communication between our agencies, not giving the schizophrenic a gun license, maybe limiting the ammo capacity of guns and other sensible things like that.

Originally posted by BackFire
People using saturday night specials or whatever homemade guns are called would still be a huge improvement over these people using AR 15 type weapons, much more likely they'd fail or screw up, or that they'd even have the ability to make them. If people were just making their own weapons all the time then the gun control in other countries wouldn't work - they do. So I'd still consider this huge progress.

As far illegally owned guns go, yes those wouldn't disappear overnight as there's already a ton of circulation, but illegal guns come from somewhere, they don't just materialize out of thin air, they were at some point made legally and purchased legally, but over time it would become more difficult to get guns illegally because the stockpile of illegal guns would diminish.

Lastly, a lot of gang bangers may have bought the guns legally for all we know. Even if they live in a state with strict gun laws, they could have just traveled a couple hours to a state with lenient gun laws and just brought it back. This is why if gun control is going to function at its full potential it needs to be done on a consistent national level and not vary so much state by state.

Drugs have also been illegal for a long time, how well have we done in keeping those out of the country?

Originally posted by Firefly218
This is just paranoia. We’re no longer under the tyranny of King George, we have a full-functioning multi-leveled representative democracy with checks and balances. The government is you and me, we don’t need to take up arms we can just vote Trump out of office.

Kids are being slaughtered, so people need to put aside their baseless paranoia and vote for government officials who support gun control

Other than better background checks, which I think most sane people would agree with. what type of gun control are you talking about?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Drugs have also been illegal for a long time, how well have we done in keeping those out of the country?

Its a lot harder to smuggle an AK into the country in your ass than a bag of coke, bro.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Hey I'm not saying that any of this WILL happen, I'm saying that I lack the faith in humanity to bet everything on it NEVER happening. You want to talk about things like working to make sure that actual mental cases don't get guns then I'm all on board. But when you start talking about restricting someone who's perfectly stable from guns just because "they don't need them"... that's a totally different story. That's a bad precedent to set and it's really tough to unring that particular bell.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Its a lot harder to smuggle an AK into the country in your ass than a bag of coke, bro.

Dunno, have you seen his ass? Don't underestimate it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Its a lot harder to smuggle an AK into the country in your ass than a bag of coke, bro.

You think all of even most drugs are brought in people's ass?

You can break weapons down into some really small pieces for smuggling, they'd actually be easier to smuggle than drugs. as things like drug sniffing dogs would useless.

Here we go

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34934574

[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If the government is so far-gone that its willing to use lethal force on its own citizens then there is no reason to assume that it would hesitate to use the full force of its military. The US military is so far beyond what some dickhead mountain men with assault rifles could handle even with coordination that any en masse coordinated resistance would be over within weeks. Sure you can argue that a dedicated underground resistance can never truly be wiped out completely (as the War on Terror shows) but at that point it doesn't matter. The country has been totaled, everyone's' lives have been destroyed. It's a zero-sum game. Overthrowing a dictator with military force is not worth turning American cities into Terminator-esque hellscapes just so Billy Joel the midwest bumble**** can LARP as Rambo for a couple months.

If Trump (or whomever) declared themselves The Forever King tomorrow and established martial law, the right way to combat that would be through political and financial pressure (and in the worst case, fleeing the country). Grabbing my gun and pretending I'm in a Call of Duty match is the last thing any sensible person would want to do unless they're already a psychopath who doesn't care about their lives or collateral damage.

What you don't get is that the zero sum game IS the final deterrent. Everyone knows that a tyrannical takeover won't work here because there are plenty of people willing to scorch the Earth to prevent it. It's a virtual impossibility for a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even Sadam to successfully rise up in this country.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You think all of even most drugs are brought in people's ass?

You can break weapons down into some really small pieces for smuggling, they'd actually be easier to smuggle than drugs. as things like drug sniffing dogs would useless.

Here we go

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34934574

[b][Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets. [/B]

Its called a joke.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Cos I really don't need a handheld surface-to-air guided missile launcher. But should I be allowed to have it just cos I can afford it and want one?

Originally posted by darthgoober
You draw the line at potential effectiveness. I totally agree that no one needs a surface to air missile, but I also believe that people shouldn't be limited to weapons that military body armor renders totally ineffective. We have to be able to fight back. It's not necessary that we're able to fight them on even terms, it is necessary that we're at least a threat to an individual soldier.

Then there is no limit and if a billionaire wants a nuke, he/she should be allowed to have one along with the silo to house and fire it. Cos how else are you going to stop the collective might of the US military? Have to nuke, bro. Or have the fear of it be realized.

ps You've gone full TI. Never go full TI.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then there is no limit and if a billionaire wants a nuke, he/she should be allowed to have one along with the silo to house and fire it. Cos how else are you going to stop the collective might of the US military? Have to nuke, bro. Or have the fear of it be realized.

ps You've gone full TI. Never go full TI.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Its called a joke.

Ok, still it gave me a chance to bring up a valid point. so thank you.

Originally posted by darthgoober
You need a nuke to be a threat to an individual soldier? I think you over estimate the defensive capabilities of a soldiers body armor.

You're talking about the US military subjugating the whole country under Forever King Trump, not individual soldiers.

headlines should read "white supremacist kills 17 in terrorist attack"