It's illogical

Anyone who knows an ounce of history would know the true dangers that comes with being an unarmed country.

Good Meme.

Well, the history is actually this.
Australia had 1 mass shooting, they then banned guns, and none have happened.
Great Britain have very few mass shootings since the ban on guns.

Sometimes, History is more than American

Well, the worst atrocities of history were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. The Holocaust, The Killing Fields of Cambodia, Stalin's atrocities, are just a few.
In 1911 Turkey disarmed it’s citizens and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
In 1935 China disarmed it’s citizens and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

And history has unfortunately given us plenty of more examples of what happens when an unarmed people is under control of armed people.

Mass shootings are bad and they should not happen. But I fail to see how disarming an entire population can ever be good in the long run. Now if you could blink like Genie and magically make ALL guns disappear, that is the only way I would support it. Because the history I am referring to is full of atrocities when unarmed people are under control of armed people. And if you are suggesting that we should allow the government to have all the guns, then you will be wasting your time trying to convince me to think that way. I am practical, not hard headed. Allowing the governments to be solely armed spells nothing but disaster for the common folk. As history proves.

And yes, you are absolutely right. History is more than American. It was the history of others whom I was referring to. It is what happened to them that I do not intend to see happen within my own country.

Amen to that!

America is a different country. It's not an autocratic military country. It's a democratic country. Sure, these things happened, but America is not Germany, or Russia or China. It's America. It won't do such atrocities because there is a constitution protecting democracy. America isn't some inhumane, totalitarian nation of starving people. If the government takes all the guns, where would they go? We don't know, but it would stock the military or be smelted down into something more useful, I hope. But what America won't do is turn on its people.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi

You are right. America is not those things. And the America I know would never turn on it's people.
But ambitious people are out there. Corrupt people are out there.
We have a Constitution, but it is the people who protects The Constitution. And the people protect it with the Second Amendment.
America would indeed be turning on it's people if it was to ban guns from citizens. Not only would it be opening the door for greater atrocities, like I mentioned in my other comment, it would also be taking away one of our rights. The Second Amendment is a freedom many people are not fortunate enough to have. And doing away with it is doing away with liberty. It is mind boggling and kind of scary hearing people talk like taking away certain rights is a good thing. If they take away this one, arguably the most important right to a free people, where will they stop?

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved." - Aristotle

1. Why would the America Gov't want the wholesale slaughter of Americans?

2. What's stopping the USA from doing that now? You can have a nuke silo in every back yard, and the military can still make a takeover look like popcorn at a tailgate party.

3. The 2nd Amendment is about arming and maintaining a regulated militia, or does that not mean anything?

4. How many other countries share our Second Amendment?

5. Of those that don't, how many of their citizens are being rounded up for target practice for whatever reason, let alone simply because they can, as you suggest would be a given?

1. Why would the America Gov't want the wholesale slaughter of Americans?
Our American government would not. But it is not invulnerable from political or military takeover.

2. What's stopping the USA from doing that now? You can have a nuke silo in every back yard, and the military can still make a takeover look like popcorn at a tailgate party.
The people is what is stopping it now. We have enough people like Trey Gowdy in offices who believe and support The Constitution.
So because of all this advanced weaponry we should just give up if anyone tried to take us over? Wouldn't you rather die fighting than live as a slave?

3. The 2nd Amendment is about arming and maintaining a regulated militia, or does that not mean anything?
To me it means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But I guess if you want to be in a militia, go for it.

4. How many other countries share our Second Amendment?
Switzerland. Who wasn't invaded in WW2.

5. Of those that don't, how many of their citizens are being rounded up for target practice for whatever reason, let alone simply because they can, as you suggest would be a given?
Some countries have been blessed more than others to not have faced such slaughter.
By that logic I could ask of all the schools in the US, how many have become a target of a mass shooting?

Yeet

Is that lady gaga

Good gosh, no. I'd be puking. That's Scarlett Johansson as Silkin Floss in The Spirit. You can look up the template here under that name.

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be turning against the people to stop school shootings. It wouldn't be turning against the people to try to prevent lives from being taken. It's because of the doctrine of America which says "guns are good" which has allowed this to happen. The Second Amendment need not be completely stripped down because of one ideal. In fact, it's only one change. It might be a right to bear arms, but the right to live without fear of some kid with an assault rifle who wants to kill you because they have mental issues. What has to change is not freedom as its whole, but one thing to save children from being mowed down and many more from being traumatised. The reason I'm against guns now is because of the Florida Mass shooting. I liked playing "Alt-right knight" for a while, but I decided to stop it and actually show my true idea. The school shooting should be a wake up call to the fact that guns have the ability to kill. There are corrupt people. But not every politician is corrupt. A school shooting is an atrocity. An attack on unarmed civilians by civilians. It's not a foreign power nor some corrupt government official staging a coup, but a person who needs help, needs the care which Donald Trump denied so he could satisfy his redneck yesmen and does not need a gun. This is not just a matter of freedom, it's saving lives.
And the freedom to bear arms is not as important as freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of being able to vote, freedom from fear and freedom to live. And we know when it will stop, we don't demand a full take down of the second amendment. We only want one thing to change. The right for people to bear arms must change. What if a person who died in the shooting could've cured cancer?
The only thing which scares me is the fact that people died that day and it could've been avoided. And what's more important, a right which allows people access to a killing machine, or a child's life. A life is more important than a gun. Not because of anything racial or anything like that, but because you can't buy back a person's life after they die. A life worth saving should be saved.

Also, you need people to do atrocities like massacring, and just leaving them to starve will leave people rising up against you without a gun. And remember that a soldier is still a human. Not all soldiers are autonomous organic robots. They're given guns because we trust them.

I realize you want to stop mass shootings. Who doesn't?

Is banning guns from civilians really the only solution you can think of? Why must all Americans suffer because of a few nutcases? There are millions of legal gun owners. If we was the problem you would know it.

I brought up some of the worst cases in history, and I can not change your stance on the importance of an armed populace. I am a bit confused by what you want when you say change the right to bear arms. You say this:
"we don't demand a full take down of the second amendment"
And then you say the right for people to bear arms must change. What is the change you are wanting?

Guns are not the problem, the individual is the problem. Until the columbine killers mass shootings was not really a thing. Now, unfortunately, it has almost become a trend. Why? What has changed from the beginning of our country to now?

Like with most trends it is spurred by the media. The media glorifies these bastards by going on about them so much. Potential mass shooters read about, hear about other mass shooters and they want to be like them. They want to be feared, respected, to go down as a legend to be remembered. They are attention junkies. Potential mass shooters idolizes other mass shooters.

Do you support capital punishment? If these punks captured or who turned themselves in were met with a very painful and public execution, I believe it would greatly deter potential mass shooters. Instead of the media going on and on about how many people he killed, they would show his execution. Potential mass shooters will see him shit himself, hear him cry, and see the agony he is in before finally dying. We know he done it so why put him in jail at tax payers expense. Think of all that money used to feed and clothe this piece of shit and keep him on suicide watch that could be put for better use?

Perhaps violent video games normalizes this behavior. Games like Grand Theft Auto for example are quite bad. You play a criminal who normalizes mass killings. You get to run around and shoot police and unarmed civilians. Why is such a game needed? How is it productive? It can not be good for developing minds.

Come on, you got to have more ideas to stop these guys than a disarming of all Americans.

*Insert Flashbacks from my English classes in college here*

Yes, but people have the ability to kill. It might be the person who does it and a blank gun doesn't do anything, but a loaded gun gives the tools and stuff to kill. Banning guns is a better way to save more lives then if we just let it all slide. We can't just do nothing and say it is how it is. Guns give the people means to kill.

You bring up the worst scenes in history and put it all because these dictatorships who took away guns. You keep thinking that the American government is out to get you. The second amendment doesn't just protect by legalising guns, it also makes sure that the democracy isn't completely overruled through other means. The second amendment is more than just a small text saying "Guns are legal now".
And media catching onto a scene? The columbine killing gave the wake up call to us and we did nothing to act. It should've been the last. But we all kept by the fact that "guns are good" and even more have followed. If we just ignore it in the media, it will still happen. There are more than one reason a school shooter becomes a school shooter. Quite a lot have mental health issues.
Then, capital punishment. It's wrong, in my view. And if you put shooters on the spot and hang them publicly, it would be ruling by fear, which America does not do. Dictatorships rule by fear. America rules by freedom. You saying that public executions will stop it actually would martyr the potential shooters even more.
Violence in video games? Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. First, there is an age restriction system which is being even more recommended than ever before which is ignored. If people listen to the tag at the bottom of the catirdge, maybe killings won't be normalized to kids.

Why i want to ban guns is because it is what allows shooters to kill, it grants easy access to criminals. If we can't ban them, we should certainly make sure all the states have tight gun regulation. In florida, there is no permit or ID needed. You just get a gun! That's an even more sickening thing. If we can't ban guns, we need to make it so people who know what they're doing have them instead of it being distributed unchecked.

"And if you put shooters on the spot and hang them publicly, it would be ruling by fear" "Dictatorships rule by fear"
But they also rule by absolute control. And banning guns from legal law abiding citizens would be absolute control over a populace. That sort of gun control would be exactly what a dictatorship would do.

And yes, executions would be a fear tactic. But I would rather see that done than taking guns away from law abiding citizens. If the killer is executed, that would be justice. Where is the justice in taking everyone's guns?

Forget the hanging. I was thinking of something more painful for the likes of Dylan Storm Roof!

"there is an age restriction system which is being even more recommended than ever before which is ignored"
Do you think kids are going to look at the game and be like, "Oh, it is above my age I'm not getting it"? No, they are going to want to be like their friends and get it. Unless the parents are of proper morals, they are the only chance of kids not playing such games.

Morals. Lack thereof. There is a big reason these mass shootings may be happening so often. In a society where anything goes, well, anything goes. If the kids want to watch bad things, fine. If parents let their kids misbehave, fine. People look down on it like it is a bad thing to teach their kids right from wrong.

"we need to make it so people who know what they're doing have them instead of it being distributed unchecked."
As I said in my other comment, that is pretty much how it is. We have laws, regulations, and background checks. It is the failure of the law that allowed this to happen. Blaming guns instead of addressing the real problems. The individual himself and the failings of the law, is just a sleazy copout to ban guns.
And the denial of these very real problems only confirms my statement.

I have to disagree your idea of executions. These people WANT to die, if you kill them, they get want they want. They need to go to prison, and spend the rest of their life in a concrete box.

It's not absolute control. Absolute control is putting slavery back in the market. Also, justice in my view is not an eye for an eye. Punishment is needed, but at least don't make it public to the audience. We'll be regressing to the medieval times.
I never said kids and adults follow the age restriction unwaveringly. In fact, it's the opposite.
People look down bad behaviour and if the adults don't tell a kid what's right and wrong, they're not doing their job. Adults have a responsibility which they're not taking.

"We have laws, regulations, and background checks. It is the failure of the law that allowed this to happen. Blaming guns instead of addressing the real problems. The individual himself and the failings of the law, is just a sleazy copout to ban guns.
And the denial of these very real problems only confirms my statement."
The failure of the law is the problem. And the problem is that guns aren't restricted. The law in some states are so bad in gun control, you can buy a gun just because of the money you have. The individual should be checked and licensed in order to buy one. If we can't ban guns, at least control them so kids and adults don't just get one and kill. The keeping of guns, like how it is, is not a good thing.
Also, Donald Trump's idea on "guns at school" is an even more sleazy copout to not do anything.

Let me ask you a question, So let's say your kid attends a school in Florida, and there is a threat that someone will shoot up the school. Would you rather have your kid protected by a gun, or a sign?

(I ran out of time last night.)

"Also, Donald Trump's idea on "guns at school" is an even more sleazy copout to not do anything."
This deserves a reply all to itself.

You brought up a very interesting point. One I have dived into during my ramblings on guns before.
I support the Second Amendment. I support the right for law abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms.
But I am not one of those people who think the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
There is so many things wrong with such a statement. For one it fuels the belief that guns are super powered weapons that can make it's wielder become an unstoppable killing machine.
That is false. Let me break down this belief.
1. Guns can only shoot in one direction.
2. Guns have to be reloaded.
3. Not every shot is going to be a hit.
4. Not every hit is going to be a kill shot.
5. The person with the gun is still the frail little punk he was without the gun.
6. His arm can be broken, the gun knocked aside and disarmed, etc.
7. Only a coward takes a gun to kill unarmed and innocent people.

I could continue but I think that is sufficient for now. Too much credit is given to mass shooters. Statements like "guns make it so easy to kill" makes it seem like that an unarmed person has no chance against a punk with a gun. It really inflates the belief that a punk with a gun is this horrific unstoppable force.
And the supporters of guns do the same thing when they say "the only to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
That is not the ONLY way.

As a martial arts enthusiast I like to believe that a well trained fighter can take on the average punk with a gun.

Also keep in mind the amount of rounds fired during such shootings. It is a lot. The Texas church shooter fired roughly 450 rounds and the Florida school shooter fired more than 100. Although too many people died those days. There was significantly more shots fired than people killed.

That tells me that these cowards are probably all jittery and antsy and are lucky to hit the broadside of a barn door. They are certainly not an unstoppable killing machine.

* I am not saying this to make light of people killed or wounded in such shootings. Nor do I want to make any survivor feel bad because the shooter continued his rampage. I am saying this to give hope to unarmed people in such situations by breaking down the belief that a punk with a gun is unstoppable. He isn't. He is a cowardly punk that can be stopped.

imgflip.com/i/25a6o8

I don't know how to do the show meme thing. So go to that link and look at that person's meme. We have laws in place. I can not legally buy a gun without a background check done on me. I also have a concealed carry deadly weapons license which is updating all the time. Most of the mass shootings were allowed by the inadequacies of the law! How come no one is protesting or addressing that issue?! When a cop guns down a thug the media is all over it! When the law's failure results in students death the media is silent!

"You keep thinking that the American government is out to get you."
You are mistaken. Our American government will never do that. But that doesn't mean it is invulnerable from a tyrannical takeover. Either by political or military force it could happen. But when it does it will cease to be our government as we know it. People may turn against us, but our government will not. But that doesn't mean it is invulnerable.

"Now you're scraping the bottom of the barrel"
And you are just hoping on the popular bandwagon. Why don't you atleast try to think of other ways to stop this?

"Then, capital punishment. It's wrong, in my view."
Now this is rich. First you say I "let it all slide" by not wanting to ban guns. And now you don't even want to execute the maggot that done it?!? Why am I not surprised? Everyone supports abortion due to rape but no one supports killing the rapist?
I let it slide Haha!
Why don't we just make up more excuses for these little shits!
"They have mental issues."
"They were bullied."
Stop! Stop making excuses for them. You talk of letting it slide well that is exactly what you are doing here!
I would have been more open minded to hear your opinions about banning guns had you been for executing the ones responsible! But it seems you only care about disarming law abiding citizens!

The nature of your stance says that you believe all American gun owners are potential mass shooters. And therefore we should take away their "killing machines" to prevent future deaths.
By that logic one could say that all men are potential rapists and therefore should have their ""r@pe tools" done away with!
(As extreme as that sounds some feminists have indeed proposed such a thing. Google "femitheist divine" if you doubt me!

I never said they were bullied, I never said that I joined it because it was a popular bandwagon. I never said that I support abortion, I never said that all Americans will be mass shooters, I never said that I support the new wave of feminism. I never said that I only cared about taking away guns from law abiding citizens. I never said that the media are completely loyal and trustworthy.
What I said was that the second amendment needs to change because it is causing more harm than the American patriotism is comfortable with. In fact, i'd be fine with tighter gun restrictions, making necessary to have an ID and a license to get a gun and also a restrictions on how many guns you can have, and what type of guns. It needs to be that more states have tighter gun control. Florida has one of the worst gun control in the US. If we can't have a ban on guns, just make sure that it's harder to get. You can protect yourself, but you don't need to have an AR-15 to protect your homeland.

Also, I changed my view. When i saw a speech made by one of the survivors, I went from being "Meh, IDC" to "We need to do something." I do have the freedom to change my mind. But I guess that the freedom to bear arms is much more important than the freedom to change your views "Once a X, always a X" as they say

"I never said they were bullied"
I know. That is just a popular excuse people gives for mass shooters along with the mental issues one. I feel such remarks cause people to feel sympathetic towards the killer, and I believe he deserves no such sympathy. But that is just my opinion.

I just accused you of hoping on the bandwagon because that is what everyone else is doing. They only want changes with citizens owning guns. Nothing else is mentioned.

I don't know if you support abortion or not. I was just making a point that most people doesn't want the one responsible to face execution, which is what they deserve.

"What I said was that the second amendment needs to change because it is causing more harm than the American patriotism is comfortable with"
Again, it isn't the guns. It isn't the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not say to take an AR and shoot up a school. Which is why I am arguing making changes with the Second Amendment will not make any real changes.

"also have restrictions on how many guns you can have"
LOL (Please don't hate me for this.) I am curious why this really makes a difference. I mean nature has some darn good restrictions already. Unless you can shoot with your feet the most guns anyone can shoot at once is two. And that is probably going to greatly reduce accuracy. So if someone owns a hundred guns, they all are not really much use to him. Not at once. And if he actually had to use them he would get mowed down while trying to round all of them up XD

"It needs to be that more states have tighter gun control."
As I have been saying, we have some good restrictions already. It's just not always enforced. Like the guy who shot up the Texas church. There was so many red flags on that punk, how did he purchase guns legally? Turns out it was someone's fault who didn't put him on the list, or something like that. That was the point of the meme that I showed you. The law failed to take proper protocol on these guys. Thus their inadequacies allowed these shootings.

"You can protect yourself, but you don't need to have an AR-15 to protect your homeland."
I don't know enough about the AR to argue in it's defense. But veterans who own those guns can give you some really good reasons for their use.

This video you speak of, did the person say anything about what should be done to the shooter? If I was wounded by someone who killed a bunch of unarmed innocent people I would be demanding his head! I would want him put in a cage and let me in there with him and let me bash in his skull! I want to do similar things to those mass shooters anyways. The people they killed could have been friends I haven't met yet.
_____________

"It's not absolute control."
It is a form of absolute control nonetheless.

"Also, justice in my view is not an eye for an eye."
You are beginning to sound like a Christian now. Perhaps you are one. My family is and my dad is telling me similar things all the time.
"Do not over come evil with evil" he says.
As much as I may disagree with you on that, I respect you for taking the higher moral path.

"Punishment is needed, but at least don't make it public to the audience"
Yeah, I can imagine a lot of parents would not like their children to see Dylan Storm Roof executed like I would want it done. But it is true that potential mass shooters idolizes other mass shooters. And if they were to see what happens to such people, I believe it would stop them. Such people are cowards after all.

"The law in some states are so bad in gun control, you can buy a gun just because of the money you have."
What states? I only know about Kentucky. And I know for a fact you get a background before you buy a gun from a legal dealer.

"The individual should be checked."
I thought they already had something in place. But then I don't know about the other states you mention.

There is a new Youtube video: "Disarm Our Threat, Not Ourselves."

the ones who do the ruling are usualy the ones who have the most iron sights pointed at the other

Wait..did you just say " It's America. It won't do such atrocities because there is a constitution protecting democracy." while advocating taking one of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights away? The very one that ensures that the others CAN'T be taken away by the government? Wow, just wow.

What forces the government to obey the constitution? Without an armed populace, just their word. How much do you trust the word of a politician? The supreme court can make rulings on whether or not something is constitutional, but who enforces that law?

Who said guns should be taken away, other than Trump?

The Islamic Ottoman Empire killed those from its occupied Christian Armenian minority - not regular majority Turks - for a reason, wanna guess why? Many able bodied men were shot, but many where forced to serve in the army, or died in forced labor camps. Women, children, the elderly, the infirm... were marched off to die en route. Disease, starvation, exhaustion, the usual brutalities - kinda like in our own Trail of Tears.

Guns were not required in most of those deaths, and anyone thinking that ordinary citizens - let alone those of fringe elements demonized by propaganda of those in charge - can repel the highest tech weaponized soldiers with grandpa's rickity rifle - or even a fully automatic AR-15 - is lying.

There is no comparison between Communist, Nazi, or other autocratic takeovers exterminating potential political opposition, intellectuals, teachers, the educated, members of the free press, minorities, homosexuals, etc to what is going on here

- oh wait, there is.

My bad, I stand corrected.

Four words: Bullet to the face.

What does that silliness even mean? *pats you on head*

Most, if not all bullets travel at such a speed that attempts to dampen or protect from it are futile, and will break through the skull and into the brain or spinal cord on rare occasions.

In liberal terms bullets kill people.

So you understand how bullets work.
Good.

Now if you can explain what YOU meant with that previous post.

Too much to read. Think you can shorten it?

LOL
That was the short version. If it wasn't for this comment limitation I would really get carried away XD

Lmao. If only I could write that much

There's also a reason a that foreign countries will not attempt to attack the United States on its land. Even of they were to somehow get past the government, they would then have to deal with a 75% armed private populace. It's easy to attack someone who has no means of defense.

Why would the government turn on its people? Sure, if you vote in the wrong person, it might happen, but it would have to go through multiple obstacles, and even then, why? The US federal government wouldn't just turn on its people because it is not a country like that. In fact, Donald Trump is closest to being like dictator. He's putting the people he wants, who support him, in positions of power. He's putting Ivanka, her daughter, in a very high position, far beyond the reach of the people's power.

But his populist approach puts him in the region of being like Julius Caesar. They're both "Class Traitors", people who stick their nose into the common people and use that to gain popularity. You might say I'm betraying Amrica, but I'm British so i don't count.

Also, foreign countries? Yeah... no. The whole reason there's an ARMY is to fight, not just outside of the country, but inside as well. Warfare has also evolved. North Korea aren't just going to send in troops, when they have a dysfunctional "nuke". But, seriously, you can blitz people like the Germans did to Britain in WWII. There was no actual landing on Britain by the Nazis in WWII. And I don't think you can train 75% of America to fly a plane, can you?

Donald Trump a dictator? And you dismiss the Obama administration? I'm not even going to go there at this point. I'm not looking for a debate about it, but just thought I'd give my opinion on why we need the 2nd amendment.

The government can go rogue as it has tried to do on multiple occasions in this country. We don't need to know how to fly planes. That isn't even the issue.

As for foreign governments invading... Yes, they would be more apt to try if the majority of the population weren't armed and we didn't have the best, or one of the best, seemed forces in the world.

Okay, we won't debate the Obama administration,

The plane thing was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

Foreign governments invading? By now Britain and Australia would've been overrun, but they aren't. And there is such a thing called a military which gives the reputation, not civilians wielding weapons, but professionals who are disciplined and whom we trust to keep us safe. The fact that civilians are armed doesn't change anything. America has one of the best funded militaries too

They're being overrun by Islamic jihads and changing their structure. If you don't see that, I'm sorry for you.

Dude. You are British. Your nation's empire was BUILT on invading other continents. And before you go off on some banal "but that was a different age" tangent.. you brought up the german failure to invade britain in WW2. But last I checked, Britain and the USA succeeded in invading both Europe and dozens of regions in the pacific. You think that we can do it to other nations but we're magically immune to it ourselves? The Royal Navy is a ghost of what it once was, and the US Navy is spread across the entire planet. Almost impossible to conceive right now, but the state of the UK or US today would have been unimaginable in 1935. Things change.

"Why would the government turn on its people? Sure, if you vote in the wrong person, it might happen, but it would have to go through multiple obstacles, and even then, why? The US federal government wouldn't just turn on its people because it is not a country like that. In fact, Donald Trump is closest to being like dictator. He's putting the people he wants, who support him, in positions of power. He's putting Ivanka, her daughter, in a very high position, far beyond the reach of the people's power."

That entire paragraph was self-contradictory and just ended up proving my point.

It's not. In fact, I was attacking Donald Trump. He is the person who isn't doing anything about the situation. He's not listening to the about 70% of people against the guns. And all he's done is just suggested a flimsy compromise which is arming teachers. He's fine with the disgusting lack of gun control because he caters to the deep south. He has a very fanatical following and that following are people against the gun control. Though they are under represented, they're not the ones being killed in the schools. What I'm saying about Donald Trump is not that he will do what you fear, but he's doing the same thing but his side is conservative. You put everything about the future autocracy, saying it will sprout from liberal ideas because 'they want to take our rights' but Donald Trump is a conservative President. Not like Obama who was a liberal. My argument was attacking Donald Trump and his supporters because his supporters put their trust in him which you can't easily do in politics. It's not bad to be a conservative, but the main argument conservatives use revolves around the idea that it will come from the government, while completely ignoring the fact that DJ Trump is doing all that, but he's with them. He's on the side he wants to be on and the jingoism will protect him for he's not like Hill Clitoris whom no one trusts but is Donald Trump. The person protecting the flimsy, almost non-existent gun control because he knows what side he should be one. The reason I seem contradictory is because Donald Trump is the president of the US, but he's a different president from the democrat president who conservatives label as a rising dictator. He's very different.

You're British? Then kindly leave this memes comments. You have no business in our politics.

And how many dangerously oppressive regimes - whether dictatorial, communist, fascist, etc. - have stripped their citizens of arms before taking and consolidating power?

I mean, whether or not those citizens could have actually organized and effectively resisted is moot, the point is that their guns were taken to /prevent/ any potential resistance.

Totalitarian regimes do that, yes, but its motives is to stop an uprising. I'm talking about first world, democratic countries. They're doing it out of trying to protect its people and making sure a travesty, like the Florida Mass shooting, would never happen again. Just because a totalitarian nation does something, it means that all nations who do the same thing are doing it because they're totalitarian.
It's not an immoral act to ban something which has the purpose to kill. Though it's put in for protection, not everyone is a law abiding citizen. And though guns aren't themselves evil, how people use them and how it can be so easily exploited makes them so much more deadly.

The only resistance the legality and accessibility of guns provide is when you have someone, exploiting the same law you keep by, pointing a pistol at you.

And thus the whole point of my meme, liberals are going on and on about how Trump is "literally Hitler" and is building a totalitarian regime, and "destroying the world". If they truly think that, why would they want everyone disarmed, instead of ready to fight back and depose the monster they claim he is?

There's really no point in arguing with these kinds of people. These kinds of people will turn to /us/ when the government they shaped turns on them.
And guess what we won't be there.

Heathens with moral superiority complex.

You replied to yourself, which is so touching in these trying times!

Two months ago I disagreed with you, and you sobbed that I was a BlackAttack alt bullying you.

Last year you had to get one of your minions to get someone I know to intercede on your behalf because again, you felt under siege by BA.

You're the type that runs screaming at BBQ's if a hummingbird swoops too close to your Cola.

So you're right, you won't be there. Tucked away in your napsack with your toy crossbow in the crawlspace specially equipped for the coming zombie apocalypse.

You mean the way yous did like snowflakes in a microwave over the fake Antifa 'crisis'?

Blithering little dicked wimps running for cover.

Not all liberals think Trump is "literally Hitler", only SJWs and other extremist left wing groups. It would be like saying that all conservatives think Trump is "Jesus" and are deep south stereotypes.
And the reason why liberals haven't taken up arms is because Americans have the right to protest, and it's much better and less bloody than taking up arms. Even if they wanted to, they would be seen as extremists or even terrorists because they aren't a proper militia but a bunch of riled up people. We don't need to wage a civil war to get what we want.

False equivalency, since any /future/ president could be a dictator.

And given the heavily SJW nature of the political landscape these days, the next /democratic/ presidency could very possibly be a dictatorship, or totalitarian.

It's not fair to expect the country to tiptoe around paranoid delusions. Arming teachers is the most ridiculous excuse for a revenue stream the gun lobby has come up with to date.

Yeah, our military really wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan. I hear there aren't any of them left these days. Those silly fools with their AKs buried in the sand didn't stand a chance.

Evil leaders are more likely to brutalize their own people than a foreign enemy.

Which honestly, you would need to do because there's no other way to beat the US military on their own turf. They could fly a drone over and wipe out your whole town in a heartbeat if they wanted to. Coup quelled...

No. The premise was yours, albeit it was reconfigured to fit a question which you are a using logical fallacy to avoid answering the question - itself a logical fallacy. Also, the fallacy you 'meant' to charge was "begging the question"

And please don't tit for tat me on logical fallacies. Been a while, I am beyond rusty, and they're supposed to provide a framework, not REPLACE the actual debate. That's cheap, hollow, and taking the easy way out. And quit frankly, I'd like to shove a red herring up the ass of the next straw man idiot to cite them two, which way too many of these right/left bots do here, causing me to ad hominem em.

Slap some meat on them bones THEN get the carving knives...

quite*

Or in other words, it's an argument against the ridiculous rhetoric they employ.

I'm an idiot. It's late. I'm tired. I keep replying without reading what has been posted already only to find you already have and way better.
My aplogies.

Zero.
And it wasn't THEIR citizens.

They did so AFTER they took over. How can they possibly do so otherwise?

Guns are a luxury, ownership is not common.

Said guns tend to not be designed for military use. Don't need an AR-15 to shoot a jackyl attacking your sheep.

Said owners are not designed for military. If you think a Rabbi with a Gatling gun could have staved off the SS long enough to even shut his door, you been watching too many Rambo movies.

How many millions of Jews died in the holocaust? Shit I forgot, the entire jewish population of Europe was a lone rabbi trying to defend his temple. Your posts are more retarded with each passing day.

Gee, I dunno. I give, how many?

Try READING what I said instead of pretending to be an illiterate idiot.

Who are you anyway? Never mind, no reason to recall you still.

but home invasions went up 87% the year after they did ban guns. Also the murder rate in mexico exploded after they basically banned guns. Plano Texas has the lowest crime rate in the USA but has the highest concentration of guns.there are more guns than ppl.

Now uk is turning in their knives lol. No b.s.. a knife buy back program.
It's sad that liberals are more concerned about "with what" people kill rather then "why."
Mass stabbings in UK China Japan and yes in Florida these last couple of weeks.
Media silent.

The media was occupied with Florida mass shootings. In fact, the UK is doing something about it. And what America isn't doing is doing something which will save people. It's not absurd to me because I live in Britain, I am British, but I am taking my stance in the gun thing because I want to. A motivation to kill isn't the killer on its own. A gun can kill. And it only allows for more deaths.

So you take away the guns, so ppl start killing each other in massive numbers with knives.
What is the next item ppl will begin killing each other with in Cuckland?
On a side question. Do you enjoy alot of soy products?

Seen that documentary about the UK called 28 Days Later?

People are killing each other with their teeth now!

Before 1945 multiple articles since the early 1900's claimed 6,000,000 jews were killed or were in danger of dying somewhere in the world. Something is really odd about that.

Ware but if trump had All the guns he could get all of them and kill the world

this has nothing to do with any thing I just want to mark the end of this battle

sorry david