Mass Shootings in America Thread

Started by darthgoober264 pages
darthgoober Senior Member

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

The military is comprised of individual soldiers. As long as you're a threat to the soldiers, you're a threat to the military. People aren't looking for an even chance of actually winning, just the ability to really fight back and have at least some kind of chance. In an all out fight to the death a bear would kill a wolverine, but that doesn't have stop wolverines from scaring off bears over a fresh kill.

It's funny that you say things like "no one's talking about melting down all the guns" when I say that we need the ability to at least be a threat while simultaneously trying to twist what I'm saying into "everybody needs a nuke". No one's asking for a nuke, just a chance to go down swinging and maybe bloody a nose(figuratively speaking) in a worst case scenario.

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
headlines should read "white supremacist kills 17 in terrorist attack"

As soon as all islamic terror attacks are described accurately we'll discuss it.

There is no option B here, just to be clear. It's not even up for a debate.

jaden101 Restricted

Originally posted by Surtur
As soon as all islamic terror attacks are described accurately we'll discuss it.

There is no option B here, just to be clear. It's not even up for a debate.

BUTT DA MUZLINS

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by jaden101
BUTT DA MUZLINS

How many deaths since the year 2000 caused by Muslims here, vs white supremacists and shit?

Provide the number.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat
Originally posted by jaden101
BUTT DA MUZLINS
Surtur Restricted

Just give the number. Not hard.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

you're a phaggot?

Kurk Restricted

The idea that we should be able to bear arms in order to fight against a tyrannical government is laughable. In 1787 maybe not because the best technology around for both sides in regards to hand-held arms was muskets lol, but with what arsenal we have today available to citizens vs the military....I shouldn't have to explain this.

And by all means I'm a hardcore Constitution-er.

Surtur Restricted

Give the number. Notice the cutoff date is 2000 so little weasels can't exclude 9/11.

The number, please.

Silent Master Senior Member

I am noticing a rather large double standard here in the way people want these things described.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

i am noticing that i made a valid point that you have no means of arguing against, without utilizing ad hominem dogshit and other strategic fallacies.

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i am noticing that i made a valid point that you have no means of arguing against, without utilizing ad hominem dogshit and other strategic fallacies.

I'm guessing you and other delusional leftists are the only ones noticing you made a valid point.

jaden101 Restricted
Originally posted by Surtur
Just give the number. Not hard.

Look at you, defending Nikolas Cruz.

Surtur Restricted
Originally posted by jaden101
Look at you, defending Nikolas Cruz.

Defending him? He should be immediately executed, assuming we have the proof we need of guilt. Execute him, painfully.

But see, we aren't gonna whine about one thing not getting proper headlines and not the other.

cdtm Restricted

Originally posted by darthgoober
The military is comprised of individual soldiers. As long as you're a threat to the soldiers, you're a threat to the military. People aren't looking for an even chance of actually winning, just the ability to really fight back and have at least some kind of chance. In an all out fight to the death a bear would kill a wolverine, but that doesn't have stop wolverines from scaring off bears over a fresh kill.

It's funny that you say things like "no one's talking about melting down all the guns" when I say that we need the ability to at least be a threat while simultaneously trying to twist what I'm saying into "everybody needs a nuke". No one's asking for a nuke, just a chance to go down swinging and maybe bloody a nose(figuratively speaking) in a worst case scenario.

Alexander the Great ate hoards of armed civilians for breakfast. 2,000 men could route 20,000, no sweat.

With today's modern technology and training, they could oppress millions of armed citizens, if they wanted to. It wouldn't even be a fight. A single trained sniper could take potshots at whomever he wants, all day long.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Kurk
The idea that we should be able to bear arms in order to fight against a tyrannical government is laughable. In 1787 maybe not because the best technology around for both sides in regards to hand-held arms was muskets lol, but with what arsenal we have today available to citizens vs the military....I shouldn't have to explain this.

And by all means I'm a hardcore Constitution-er.


You're assuming that the available options on both sides remains static throughout the conflict though, and it wouldn't. It wouldn't be a single fight on a large battlefield that consisted of the entire military vs everyone who'd want to fight back all at once. Every individual soldier with a bazooka and/or hand grenades that gets killed provides a bazooka and/or hand grenades to those fighting back. Any soldier who does disagree with the tyrant enough to defect simultaneously decreases the size of the military while bolstering the resistance. Every day that the rebels hold out increases the likelihood of aid from the outside from a nation who doesn't want the USA becoming the next Nazi Germany. It'd be an extremely longshot fight, but not one that was completely unwinnable. Hope springs eternal and all that.

jaden101 Restricted

Originally posted by Surtur
Defending him? He should be immediately executed, assuming we have the proof we need of guilt. Execute him, painfully.

But see, we aren't gonna whine about one thing not getting proper headlines and not the other.

Unfortunately your argument is based on you making fictitious nonsense up in your head again.

See in this case what happened is nobody jumped to any conclusions straight away and only once stuff started coming about his links to a far right group and his training with a paramilitary white supremacist organisation did people start saying it should be labelled a terrorist attack.

Apparently you're fine with that series of events but when a brown person with a funny sounding name kills people you think it's best to immediately shout ISLAMIC TERRORIST as opposed to waiting to find out about links to Islamic terrorist organisations etc.

That's why you have it in your silly little head that they never get called Islamic terrorist attacks. Not because they don't get called it but because they don't get called it without actually finding out if they are first.

Surtur Restricted

Originally posted by jaden101
Unfortunately your argument is based on you making fictitious nonsense up in your head again.

See in this case what happened is nobody jumped to any conclusions straight away and only once stuff started coming about his links to a far right group and his training with a paramilitary white supremacist organisation did people start saying it should be labelled a terrorist attack.

Apparently you're fine with that series of events but when a brown person with a funny sounding name kills people you think it's best to immediately shout ISLAMIC TERRORIST as opposed to waiting to find out about links to Islamic terrorist organisations etc.

That's why you have it in your silly little head that they never get called Islamic terrorist attacks. Not because they don't get called it but because they don't get called it without actually finding out if they are first.

Nah, don't say dumb shit. Dipshit whined about headlines. We either get proper headlines for all this shit, or none.

I repeat: it will be all or nothing.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by cdtm
Alexander the Great ate hoards of armed civilians for breakfast. 2,000 men could route 20,000, no sweat.

With today's modern technology and training, they could oppress millions of armed citizens, if they wanted to. It wouldn't even be a fight. A single trained sniper could take potshots at whomever he wants, all day long.


Yes but the oppressor would be striving to keep as much intact as possible, otherwise he rules over a wasteland. And what you say about the sniper holds true for the other side as well.

As for Alexander, you're talking about open field combat. But how did Vietnam work out for the technologically superior force?

cdtm Restricted

But you see, we weren't trying to oppress Vietnamese citizens. (No matter what the hippies say.)