You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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
27

[–] piratse 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

This thread has an abnormal amount of total votes. VERY suspicious.

0
11

[–] Gorillion 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Yep, saw the upvoats and title and instantly called bullshit once I saw it wasn't some kind of trick post. It's a legitimate "Doi! Gun Nuts. Ammiright!?" posting.

10
-10

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

This thread did not get upvoted organically.

Any actual evidence?

Is it being downvoted organically, do you think?

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
11

[–] guinness2 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Guns don't stop bullets, cars, planes or even flying squirrels from killing you.

Incorrect.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... and dead people don't shoot at me.

Also, if you think a gun can't stop a squirrel then you're a retard.

Let's just legalise murder! IS that your plan?

That's a silly contradiction. What you really meant to say is: "Let's legalize self defense!", but we don't need to because it's already legal.

Again, your question is based on the false reasoning that guns protect you from a corrupt government right now.

Why wouldn't a government fear an armed population who is enraged by their corruption?

0
3

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

Guns don't stop bullets, cars, planes or even flying squirrels from killing you.

Well guns do stop some things. No form of protection is 100% fool proof. If we go by the logic that it's not fool proof, why use any protection anywhere? It's a slippery slope. You use the means you have at your disposal.

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?

Can you show any statistics that gang members get their guns legally? Is that a statistic that even exists? It's my understanding that a lot of them own guns illegally, and a large part of that is they do illegal things with those guns.