ITT Sarien "finishes" his AK-47 Build

[Galleleo]

and you really think that an unarmed populace with an armed police force would work out well. i see many instances of this in the real world. wait. no, i don't, and if i do, it's in countries that are far from a "democracy". btw, "democracies" are far from anything that would preserve whatever ideals you hold - democracy is mob rule. your fantasy ends when a pro-gun puppet gets elected.

Ever tried Europe? I see a lot of democracies and unarmed populaces with armed police forces there. Seriously, where do you even come up with that?

[Money]

need more guns in europe, maybe someone can start shooting ugly ppl and rid the world of them, since they seem to come from there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[genocidal]

Ever tried Europe? I see a lot of democracies and unarmed populaces with armed police forces there. Seriously, where do you even come up with that?

Maybe but do they have a belligerent me-first populace that gets shit done? I DO NOT THINK SO.

[Squeezer]

and you really think that an unarmed populace with an armed police force would work out well. i see many instances of this in the real world. wait. no, i don't, and if i do, it's in countries that are far from a "democracy". btw, "democracies" are far from anything that would preserve whatever ideals you hold - democracy is mob rule. your fantasy ends when a pro-gun puppet gets elected.

Then we don't elect pro-gun puppets. I know Democracy is mob rule, but Republicanism, the actual government of America, is about representation. We defer our individual rights sometimes for what our leaders know is fair and just. Civil Rights would have never come to fruition without the aid of the Justice Department. We need government to protect us in a sensible way. When they don't, we hold them accountable.

and if someone wanted a gun, someone with malicious intent, then all they gotta do is join the police, or military. such a society would have a tendency for the worst kinds of people to join those institutions. what, you think getting rid of guns will change peoples' minds about them? of course, your solution will be "make the requirements to enlist tougher". unless you can show specifically what that implies, then it's a pipe dream - surely they would do it if they could, and they can't. i'm pretty sure it's easier to join the military than it is to get a concealed weapon license.

Unless we hold those with weapons responsible. This requires people to elect leadership that will keep military units in check and use the force responsibly. Who do the police and the military serve? The people of the United States of America. I think we're beyond Kent State at this point and I'm sure you Lousianians (is that correct?) understand, like us Seattlites, that catastrophic riots tend to garner the national attention and enact people's attention for change. In these dire situations, we try to learn from the experience and reflect on what we can do better in the future. I see no reflection whatsoever in how we view the second amendment and the effects of gun violence.

This ideal hasn't always held up (think Rodney King, that guy recently that prevented that other guy from seeing his dying mother in-law, tons of other police fuckups), but we never hear about the normal cops that do their job and don't harass people. I think you have a sort of Machiavellian of what the military will do with an unarmed populace. It's not like the military fears the armed civilian anyway. They have tanks and you have an AK? You've got a Desert Eagle, but they have trained soldiers and an organized system. Do you really think at this point with hyper-militarization that your .45 matters? They have nuclear bombs and you think we can somehow regain control through force, should our government turn tyrannical? We have to use our best judgment to elect people that will ensure that doesn't happen. In my mind we should elect people that want to revise gun laws in this country.

it's as ridiculous as a marxist utopia. and it is flawed on the same principle: the idea if achieving some "non-material" goal - by controlling materialism.

I'm not calling for an end to Capitalism. Hell, I don't want to abolish the second amendment. Point to the place where I've said that. I only believe that we would be better served to rid ourselves of firearms. That's my opinion and what I've posted is the reasoning why I don't own them. As I understand, Canada is heavily armed but has nowhere near the same murder rate as the United States. Go figure.

paradise: don't lie, you were high when you wrote that. it made even less sense.

dudes a dodger dog; a footlong; a weeenerr!

[Vykromond]

What is your favorite Amendment?

i like 1*. 3 owns too i fucking hate troop quartering. 9 owns because it's the rorschach blot of constitutional amendments. anyway i like all of them really, let's not get rid of any please!!!

* plz dont say "without a 2 THERE WOULD BE NO 1!!!" i heard that before

[Jerome Scuggs]

i don't mean to trip, but isn't that what we elected obama to do? to bring accountability and responsibility back? what gives? and how, specifically, would you make the military held accountable - do we not hold them accountable now? how would one go about translating "accountability" into statutes and regulation? or are you hoping that we just elect the right combination of do-gooders?

and what of our arms industries? will the gun lobby give in? and what of the workers in those factories who get laid off by a lack of demand? do we cripple the gun industry, and bail them out? or would the military increase its purchase of guns? (didn't they lose a couple thousand m16's in iraq? they could afford to lose more, i guess.) and what would the military do with rifles that it doesnt need in this era of modernity? same thing theyy always do: sell them to other countries. so that doesnt save lives... it just means those who die are outside of our immediate awareness. change i can believe in!

and unless you get rid of gun companies, you won't be able to truly get rid of weapons. it is not common to read of the bank robber who didn't rob the bank because he realized his gun wasn't registered. you smoke weed, you know black markets. accidental firearm deaths from legal weapons total... 600 people a year. compared to 43,000 per year for cars, by the way. heh, in the future, assuming gun-control, all the weapons in america could very well be the very weapons our military disseminates globally - only to come back with the rise in black market demand.

so you have to weigh the importance of economic, military, and social needs. we let obama make decisions for all three - how will you ever be able to compromise such obviously paradoxical positions?

FDR's solution: massive debt. he reconciled the "antagonism" between farmers and industrial laborers by paying them off - in the form of subsidies. paying farmers to not grow crops - deliberately driving up food prices and lowering supply. and then paying laborers, in the form of minimum wage, so they could afford the food prices.

obama would, theoretically, have to reconcile the interests of gun owners, gun manufacturers, and hippies. he would have to extensively reform the military. create agencies to crack down on weapons. bend more rules to let the police more effectively seize illegal contraband. while at the same time pleasing those who may favor constitutionality.

do you seriously think obama's up for it? or anyone?

[Xog]

Sociopathyismists

[kthx]

Nobody cares what you have to say about guns homo.

[Xog]

Nobody cares what you have to say about guns homo.

Ooh, I must have said something seriously insulting in order for you to come up with a post like that.

Now that I think about it, I never even mentioned the word "gun" yet.

But I'm sure all you want me to say to you is "I'm sorry for talking about guns!" or else you wouldn't have even posted. Unless you're just dead set on calling me a homo for no reason. That's the only reason for your post in fact, it had nothing to do with guns. All you did was call me a homo and covered it up with the gun statement.

So why don't you just go edit that out and leave "homo" ?

PS: Trash talk is waiting

[soup]

KTHX even makes out with his guns.

STICK IN YOUR MOUTH BOY

[Money]

i sleep with the 870

[Galleleo]

need more guns in europe, maybe someone can start shooting ugly ppl and rid the world of them, since they seem to come from there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We shipped them all out in the 16th century.

[Money]

lol to AUSTRALIA, afk

[gran guerrero]

solution:

create lazer guns and light sabers

[Vatican Assassin]

Ooh, I must have said something seriously insulting in order for you to come up with a post like that.

Now that I think about it, I never even mentioned the word "gun" yet.

But I'm sure all you want me to say to you is "I'm sorry for talking about guns!" or else you wouldn't have even posted. Unless you're just dead set on calling me a homo for no reason. That's the only reason for your post in fact, it had nothing to do with guns. All you did was call me a homo and covered it up with the gun statement.

So why don't you just go edit that out and leave "homo" ?

PS: Trash talk is waiting

I mean, I just want to be able to enter a thread, randomly call you out as sociopaths, and not have anyone respond to it. Is that so hard for you kthx?