[AATW]

It's just like AATW calling out his own country. He doesn't trust his fellow countrymen with guns because he doesn't trust himself with guns and projects it onto others.

I don't particularly want to live in a society where people feel the need to have or carry guns around to feel safe.

The fact of the matter is that Dems cheat elections, rig them so that you can't track their cheating, then, when that doesn't work, they try to shoot you dead.

So...they probably shouldn't have guns then.

[Rushy]

I don't particularly want to live in a society where people feel the need to have or carry guns around to feel safe.

You already live in a society where people feel the need to carry guns to feel safe. I'll take your point a bit more seriously the moment your police forces and military are completely disarmed. Until then, you live in a society that determines some people are allowed to have guns entirely based on whether they're enforcing the government's will.

So...they probably shouldn't have guns then.

The problem isn't the gun.

[AATW]

You already live in a society where people feel the need to carry guns to feel safe.

Incorrect. People don't carry guns here. The police here don't routinely carry guns either. There are some specialist units who do but, in general people do not carry guns not feel the need to. I'll leave you to think about how nonsensical the concept of a disarmed military is.

The problem isn't the gun.

Up to a point, but removing the guns is an easier fix than trying to fix a large population, a percentage of which will obviously be mental because statistics.

[Tom Bishop]

People don't carry guns here. The police here don't routinely carry guns either. There are some specialist units who do but, in general people do not carry guns not feel the need to.

The only reason you keep bringing this up, even randomly unprompted in a discussion, is because you are trying to justify something. If you are sure of something, you don't bring it up randomly unprompted in discussions. This means that you aren't so sure if it is better that you are denied firearms, or whether it is wise to disarm the public.

Also, the primary intent of the Second Amendment in the US is not for the purpose of personal safety, so your safety argument is irrelevant.

[Rushy]

You already live in a society where people feel the need to carry guns to feel safe.

Incorrect.

Oh really, so if I disarmed your police and military entirely, would you feel more or less safe?

There are some specialist units who do but, in general people do not carry guns not feel the need to. I'll leave you to think about how nonsensical the concept of a disarmed military is.

Only in the mind of a person such as yourself does it make sense to disarm the citizens of a country but allow its government to own and distribute weapons only to people it chooses to.

Up to a point, but removing the guns is an easier fix than trying to fix a large population, a percentage of which will obviously be mental because statistics.

The purpose of removing guns from a population is not for the benefit of the population; it's for the benefit of the government ruling over them.

[garygreen]

okay so when are y'all gonna get to using the guns to protect you from the government? when does that part happen? i feel like the right has been pretty clear that the state and society are systematically oppressing them, stripping their rights away, selling state authority to corrupt interests, etc etc.

so like...get to it. you got the guns. when does the liberation start?

[Shane]

save us with your guns, Rushy

[AATW]

The only reason you keep bringing this up

I didn't. Rushy did - look at the post I was actually responding to.

Also, the primary intent of the Second Amendment in the US is not for the purpose of personal safety, so your safety argument is irrelevant.

The Second Amendment was written before the government had drones, missiles and nuclear weapons.
The safety argument is not mine, it's one often trotted out by gun fans.

[AATW]

Oh really, so if I disarmed your police and military entirely, would you feel more or less safe?

I said "people", I'm talking about the general population.
Again, the concept of a "disarmed military" is a nonsensical oxymoron.
I think I'd feel less safe if police routinely carried guns. But overall I agree it's the right thing that they have specialist units who can.

Only in the mind of a person such as yourself does it make sense to disarm the citizens of a country but allow its government to own and distribute weapons only to people it chooses to.

And only in the mind of a person such as yourself does it make sense to let "the people" have guns so they can rise up against the government and then spend most of their time shooting each other rather than doing that.

The purpose of removing guns from a population is not for the benefit of the population; it's for the benefit of the government ruling over them.

What  benefit to the government get from doing that? What, it would mean you can't all rise up against them? You can't anyway. I mean, you could try but they've got much bigger and better toys than you. And you don't have an authoritarian government anyway so why would you want to? In case you ever have one? That seems vanishingly unlikely and even if it did ever happen see above about the better toys they have. I know whose side my money would be on.

[Rushy]

okay so when are y'all gonna get to using the guns to protect you from the government? when does that part happen? i feel like the right has been pretty clear that the state and society are systematically oppressing them, stripping their rights away, selling state authority to corrupt interests, etc etc.

so like...get to it. you got the guns. when does the liberation start?

The fire rises, brother, but they expect one of us in the wreckage.

The only reason you keep bringing this up

I didn't. Rushy did - look at the post I was actually responding to.

You inserted this into the argument in the other thread. No one brought it up but you, here's the specific point at which you brought it up:

It's not a very good attempt if you don't even get a shot off.
I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because reasons.

You bring up this topic so much you don't even remember when you bring it up anymore! Amazing. I had to split this thread off because you were so excited to discuss this topic.

[Tom Bishop]

It looks like AATW forgot why the Second Amendment exists in the US, but I stayed true to his generalities and fixed it for him:

I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because of me.

[honk]

I said this in the election thread, but it belongs here:

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.

I'm not saying you can't rebel; I'm saying you won't rebel. Prove me wrong.

[juner]

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

[Rushy]

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

I'm not saying you can't rebel; I'm saying you won't rebel. Prove me wrong.

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

[Roundy]

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

Examples?

[Rushy]

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

Examples?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/kamala-harris-assault-weapons-ban-tax-relief-pennsylvania

https://pelosi.house.gov/issues/gun-violence-prevention

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-democrats-continue-push-for-assault-weapons-ban

[Roundy]

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

Examples?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/kamala-harris-assault-weapons-ban-tax-relief-pennsylvania

https://pelosi.house.gov/issues/gun-violence-prevention

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-democrats-continue-push-for-assault-weapons-ban

Oh, ok. You should rest easy then. If I'm found with a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb by the federal government it will definitely be taken away from me and I will definitely get in a lot of trouble. So this "disarming" that you speak of actually happened decades ago, no need to fear it as something imminent now.

[Rushy]

Oh, ok. You should rest easy then. If I'm found with a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb by the federal government it will definitely be taken away from me and I will definitely get in a lot of trouble. So this "disarming" that you speak of actually happened decades ago, no need to fear it as something imminent now.

Nuclear weapons and dirty bombs aren't real, so I don't think anyone has to worry about whether you have one.

[AATW]

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

What do you want a gun for then? It's raison d'etre is violence.

[Rushy]

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

What do you want a gun for then?

Recreational activities.