11
197

[–] watitdew 11 points 197 points (+208|-11) ago 

OP is a fag.

6
96

[–] lexsird 6 points 96 points (+102|-6) ago 

These faggots are trying to get a toehold here, I keep seeing fag posts like this.

0
50

[–] EllenPaosEgo 0 points 50 points (+50|-0) ago 

[–] [deleted] 3 points 45 points (+48|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
36

[–] kjell 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

If op had a gun, he'd still be a fag but there'd be a slight chance of him being a top for once.

11
-1

[–] Fagtardicus 11 points -1 points (+10|-11) ago 

all homosexuals are dangerous, just not on a mano-a-mano level. getting off on collecting and spreading STDs is exterminatus level shit

0
26

[–] MiMx 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

"70,000,000 gun owners in America behaved peacefully today..." -- relayed by Shonda Ponder

0
4

[–] Tisias 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Say it again!

18
-11

2
118

[–] frenemy 2 points 118 points (+120|-2) ago 

to your points:

  1. guns are a form of protection. it doesn't matter how much body armor you are wearing. you will get dead unless you make the armed person dead. fire enough bullets and i promise more then a few will go right through your armor.

  2. they are the ultimate form of self defense. 'leave me alone or i will kill you' is a fairly convincing argument. criminals don't follow the law, if you hadn't noticed. taking guns will only disarm law abiding citizens, leaving every gun in the hands of criminals. take a look at chicago then remake that line of thought.

  3. very doubtful. 380 million civilians vs 1.4 million troops. it's not even a contest unless they start dropping nukes.

  4. you're saying because maybe someone aside from the rapist might get injured, that a person has no right to use deadly force to protect themselves... that's asinine. with that line of thought, tasers wouldn't be allowed either, as they do cause death. a persons options drop to get raped quietly or get raped while screaming. sounds like a shitty place to live.

  5. maybe, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. all you can do is make sure everyone is on equal footing.

1
35

[–] epsilona01 1 points 35 points (+36|-1) ago  (edited ago)

More on point 4:

Guns are an equalizer. The 300lb person (with a gun) is now no longer that much more powerful than the 100lb person with a gun. The 100lb person now stands a much better chance than if neither had weapons.

1
12

[–] AOU 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

More on point 4:

Mayo dumpsters are easy targets.

1
6

[–] huhha 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Furthermore, it's not a game of total annihilation. Which is why even after yanks steamrolling sand countries the muj in jammies are still having a grand old time.

0
5

[–] frenemy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

to be fair, we've been taking out country leaders at a rather impressive pace. this leaves local warlords, which we're fine with just controlling right now. take afghanistan. farmers grow opium poppies, us soldiers guard the poppies, warlords pick up the raw opium paste and refine for out of country sale. crazy right?

0
1

[–] 6951316? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The lack of heavy weaponry owned by citizens would present a serious obstacle for citizens fighting the government. Besides that I agree.

0
10

[–] TheKobold 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Home made bombs and guerilla tactics go a long way.

0
4

[–] frenemy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

not at 270 to 1, and the 1 not really having the stomach to gun down the citizens they signed up to protect. nukes would be the only way. then you've hit fuck it levels already anyway.

4
-3

[–] qzxq 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

380 million civilians vs 1.4 million troops. it's not even a contest unless they start dropping nukes.

Think Force multipliers

nifty list here

http://listverse.com/2016/01/22/10-shocking-and-bizarre-riot-control-weapons-from-around-the-world/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI

among other things which should give you pause.

0
2

[–] frenemy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i'm well aware. it's still no contest when people get down to the business of killing one another. all that fancy gear is in rebel hands in a night sneak attack, for example.

0
66

[–] jerrykantrell 0 points 66 points (+66|-0) ago 

All your points are predicated on the fact that no one has access to guns. Let me see you get anywhere close to implementing that in reality and then maybe the crap you wrote is not just garbage that needs to be dismissed post haste as I have. Please come back with real substance next time. Also, as an East Indian, I have no skin in the game.

1
8

[–] Boltbeam 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

On the other hand, it's good to see so many people outright destroying this retard, so maybe posting asinine shit has a silver lining?

0
0

[–] xeemee 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

so maybe posting asinine shit has a silver lining?

dunno, but i suggest summoning @highly_paid_orgy_pro at this point

0
57

[–] Alopix 0 points 57 points (+57|-0) ago 

From where does the government derive the right to disarm its people, and to what end?

It's not only that we need guns, it's that the government doesn't need the power to take them from us.

Also, criminals generally steal guns rather than buy them

0
26

[–] go1dfish 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago  (edited ago)

From where does the government derive the right to disarm its people, and to what end?

Yeah, I'd like to know the same about their authority to take a third of my income every year while we're at it.

The truth is the only thing that gives them the "right" to take your guns or your money is the fact that they have so many guns to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

1
1

[–] xeemee 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Yeah, I'd like to know the same about their authority to take a third of my income every year while we're at it.

OH NO YOU DON'T - you don't want to go down that rabbit hole :)

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Also, criminals generally steal guns rather than buy them

The obvious counterpoint is that if there's no guns to steal, criminals will be unarmed. A stronger point is "criminals generally buy guns on the black market." Probably more accurate too.

0
3

[–] kneo24 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Guns will still exist, it will just be harder to get them. If we 100% outlaw guns right now, guns will still be in the hands of anyone who previously owned a gun. Those who want a "new" gun will need to look hard for it, but is still obtainable.

0
1

[–] Alopix 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah my phrasing was shitty there. But if someone raised the point about there not being guns to steal, I'd tell them that even if civilians are disarmed, the cops will never disarm, and this happens:

http://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/MddP3JcmX669lMALbol3SP/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-lost-guns-used-kill-innocent-people/

http://tucson.com/news/local/watchdog/article_82e3712d-7cae-56ec-bfc5-8b427a1b77d8.html

http://fox6now.com/2016/04/17/police-weapons-missing-stolen/

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/09/cleveland_police_supervisors_g.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/elmwood-park/news/ct-elm-elmwood-policeguns-tl-1103-20161028-story.html

http://globegazette.com/news/local/article_05fb7820-04b6-5c72-bfba-597bd84ed3f2.html

Not to mention that shit will still be coming over the border from Mexico(well, soon that won't happen as much, at least. But then, an administration keen on banning guns like this would likely also take down the wall)

118
52

[–] ShillBuster 118 points 52 points (+170|-118) ago 

Good post. Right to the point, for the most part.

I agree with the principle of your arguments, but my issue is a practical one. Asking Americans to give up their guns is like asking them to cut off their dicks. The gun industry is worth tens of billions of dollars in the US -- and that's just the declared profit, without counting the black market stuff. People tend to be a bit reluctant to give up that kind of money. Plus, arms dealers aren't necessarily known as being the most reasonable people anyway.

I'm surprised I got in first, tbh. Asking for, "any thoughts" is pretty much like showing a red rag to a bull.

1
55

[–] guinness2 1 points 55 points (+56|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I'm surprised I got in first, tbh.

I'm permanently in a state of surprise these days.

  • So tell me, if you believe that guns aren't a valid form of protection or self defense, do you think the American Military / Defense Force should stop using guns too?

  • What do you think is the most effective strategy to get gangs and crime syndicates to hand over their guns to the authorities?

  • How do you suppose a disarmed public should protect itself from a corrupt government / domestic enemies?

That last dot point is an important one - hypothetically: if Hillary Clinton was successful in committing widespread electoral fraud and ending our Constitutional right to participate in free elections with the intention of raping our country into a Mugabe-style corruption-driven dictatorship, how would a disarmed population defend themselves against her and her police and military once she owned us like chattel?

1
61

[–] 8Hz_WAN_IP 1 points 61 points (+62|-1) ago 

He got in first because it is the same guy posting under an alt. This thread did not get upvoted organically.

1
13

[–] tribblepuncher 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago  (edited ago)

How do you suppose a disarmed public should protect itself from a corrupt government / domestic enemies?

You aren't. That's the point. The government, under this model, is the sole user of force, leading individuals to be protected by words and words alone, in a country where freedom of speech is slowly choked to death in a manner where it technically still exists but your life is systematically destroyed if you try to exercise it.

Of course, we all know that and this is a shill account mass-dumping upvoats, so we really shouldn't be surprised.

2
5

[–] Ashra 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago  (edited ago)

with thunderous applause... (the retard cucks anyways)

15
4

[–] DoestThouEvenLift 15 points 4 points (+19|-15) ago  (edited ago)

So tell me, if you believe that guns aren't a valid form of protection or self defense

I don't think it's a case of "belief". OP agreed that guns can be used for self-defence, but they just factually aren't a form of protection. Guns don't stop bullets, cars, planes or even flying squirrels from killing you.

What do you think is the most effective strategy to get gangs and crime syndicates to hand over their guns to the authorities?

Your question seems to be grounded in the circular reasoning that, since gangs probably won't want to give up their weapons, we should encourage gangs to buy weapons by legalising them. Imagine if we took the same attitude with murder? Gang members won't stop killing folks? Well, shit. Let's just legalise murder! Is that your plan?

There is of course a logical answer to your question, but I get the impression that you don't want to hear it. You simply slap large mandatory prison sentences on anybody found in possession of a gun. You give people five years for carrying a piece when they only get two for larceny and people will be throwing their guns at you.

How do you suppose a disarmed public should protect itself from a corrupt government

Again, your question is based on the false reasoning that guns protect you from a corrupt government right now. Haven't you spent the last six months spamming Voat with tales about Hillary's "corruption"? Well, what have your guns done to stop it?

Fuck all is the answer you are looking for, my good friend.

1
38

[–] piratse 1 points 38 points (+39|-1) ago 

Why does an 8 day old account that is saying the opposite of the average voater have +133 upvoats and -43 votes? That's a LOT from a 2 hour old post......... VERY sketchy. For example a recent Pizza gate thread with over 400 upvoats, the top comment has +49 votes....... Looks like a bot to me!!

[–] [deleted] 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
22

[–] MiMx 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” -- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

2
8

[–] carlinco 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Which to me implies that the right to keep arms includes not only the light weapons allowed right now.

1
0

[–] Sonic 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

http://www.snopes.com/george-washington-gun-quote/

Second one is a real quote, but by C.S. Wheatly

1
9

[–] MiMx 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” ― George Washington

5
-4

2
50

[–] arrggg 2 points 50 points (+52|-2) ago 

Disarm yourself then, and be the biggest retarded victim you can be!

0
4

[–] MiMx 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

2
-1

[–] Zenhael 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

While I agree entirely with the sentiment, I'm about 95% certain that this quote has been debunked as false.

0
41

[–] Bing11 0 points 41 points (+41|-0) ago 

  1. Sure, you wear body armor against someone with a gun. See who lasts longer. The saying "the best defense is a good offense" certainly holds true here.

  2. You didn't even refute this point, just pulled a red herring and discussed statistics. Guns ARE useful for self defense. To address your red herring anyway: yes, they are useful for crime, too, but the places with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates, so this doesn't seem to be a problem of access for criminals. Perhaps the adage "an armed society is a polite society" has some truth to it, as people are less likely to carjack someone knowing there's a good chance that person is also armed.

  3. You're right, a big hand gun wouldn't be enough to stop a tank. But you're making a case FOR bigger weapons, not AGAINST smaller ones here, even if you don't realize it.

  4. See point #2. You're making the same red herring and again ignoring that guns are useful for self defense. Assuming no guns, how would you propose this potential rapist situation play out? It sure doesn't look good for an unarmed petite woman.

  5. You're missing the point of this quote: it's meant to highlight that a gun ALONE does not fire a bullet, someone has to pull the trigger. Perhaps this is a better example to illustrate the point: cars don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban cars, then?

0
20

[–] FrozenFire74 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

As the declaration of Independence States:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

TL;DR for tards: if the government is against the people, then the people must revolt against the government.

0
1

[–] EnderESXC 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I like the sentiment, but you probably would have been better off quoting the "we hold these truths to be self-evident"/"consent of the governed" lines. Illustrates the point a bit better.

0
8

[–] Fagtardicus 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

hurr durr i use tras can lid nobody ned gun

0
0

[–] xeemee 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

well you inconsiderate mansplaining cuck - i'm triggered!

oh, wait... i take that back

[–] [deleted] 2 points 36 points (+38|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

2
9

[–] Fagtardicus 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

anti-gun yahoos are (((a certain merchant tribe's))) fifth column, remember this and do not treat them as anything else

0
1

[–] EllenPaosEgo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

load more comments ▼ (96 remaining)