I think a lot of people are missing the point about gun bans (srs) GTFIH

[Danger_Close]

Lol this. countries like china and Russia with all their national military resources, phuck even north Korea - none of them dare actually try to go head on with America. no country is that dumb, not my country or anyone else's.

...but redneck joe with his tiny collection of guns out on his farm thinks he can take out his own government?

Do all Americans think like this?? :S what is wrong with your country...srs...

you sound like the biggest jellyfish ever. As opposed to what? just let the gov steam roll us? You are whats wrong with our country, the way you think, the way you assume, the way you have no fight, the way you have no will, the way you make fun of those that DO. People like YOU are the problem.

Washington had a poorly equipped, under trained, undisciplined army and went up against the unbeaten brits that were the best army in the world, with numbers like 15 to 1 and he STILL won.

[Danger_Close]

if your americans really think a developed country with democracy which SURVIVES through you buying **** and making **** (goverment revenue) why would they ever want to or need to turn on you lol?

Just doesnt make sense? okay so govts can be corrupt, but there only trying to take some of your money, give themselves a job and provide a sense of service to the country...

I highly doubt there going to need to shoot everyone one day... If that ever did happen its gna be china shooting you down for some land to grow food on haha

no bro. "you shall know them by their fruits"


this government wasnt to gut america.

[UtahBrah]

you sound like the biggest jellyfish ever. As opposed to what? just let the gov steam roll us? You are whats wrong with our country, the way you think, the way you assume, the way you have no fight, the way you have no will, the way you make fun of those that DO. People like YOU are the problem.

Washington had a poorly equipped, under trained, undisciplined army and went up against the unbeaten brits that were the best army in the world, with numbers like 15 to 1 and he STILL won.

Even George Washington would lose a battle today with legal firearms against tanks and predator drones.

[Brust88]

Finally someone who gets it. I agree with OP 100%

I'm convinced that 98% of Americans don't understand the true meaning of 2A

A fitting quote for this thread "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots"

[saiyar1]

Why are people acting like the Constitution is some flawless, timeless document? It's not. It's not even correct to say that the Constitution affords us the right to bear arms. The Constitution had to be AMENDED (ie - Changes... Yes CHANGED) to include that.

So apparently it was perfectly fine that the Constitution was CHANGED dozens of times throughout the years, but all of a sudden now we shouldn't be progressing, adapting, and making new choices because it's nearly treasonous to do so?

Typical definition of a conservative... Simply sticking with something kicking and screaming regardless of opposing viewpoints because "it's been like that" or "just because it says so".... And then follow it up with some "insults" such as libtard or left wing nutjobs/*******s/morons/etc.

[hockeyd13]

Opie, that is correct.

While I believe that the 2nd amendment has rightfully expanded to include the tenets of personal self defense, the true meaning of the 2nd amendment was for the allowance of personally owned firearms in the event the legislative processes of our government no longer worked for the people, and tyranny or totalitarianism ensued.

And while it is unlikely that the firearms owned by the general populace today would allow them to fight the combined might of the US military (if the totally volunteer force ever actually decided to back a unified assault on its own nation, which is unlikely), that is not a sufficient argument against a legitimate uprising or revolt in the face of true tyranny. Just because it might be "doomed to fail" does not make it a reasonable cause, lest we simply lay down and accept tyranny.

Given the specific protections of the Bill of Rights, I do not believe that we will actually ever see such a situation, which is exactly why the Bill of Rights must be interpreted in ways that allow for the greatest amount of individual freedom and protection.

[hockeyd13]

Why are people acting like the Constitution is some flawless, timeless document? It's not. It's not even correct to say that the Constitution affords us the right to bear arms. The Constitution had to be AMENDED (ie - Changes... Yes CHANGED) to include that.

So apparently it was perfectly fine that the Constitution was CHANGED dozens of times throughout the years, but all of a sudden now we shouldn't be progressing, adapting, and making new choices because it's nearly treasonous to do so?

Typical definition of a conservative... Simply sticking with something kicking and screaming regardless of opposing viewpoints because "it's been like that" or "just because it says so".... And then follow it up with some "insults" such as libtard or left wing nutjobs/*******s/morons/etc.

You're missing the point, and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment contradicts literally just about every legal interpretation as set forth by precedent of the SCOTUS. Your interpretation is also incorrect in light of the specific explanations that were provided by Hamilton, Jefferson, and many of the other founding fathers. As Jefferson put it:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
and
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

It's not as if governments of all types have been immune to the development of tyranny and totalitarianism. Over the last 100 years of "civilized society" despotism has arisen out of nearly every form of government, including rule by the people, and typically after the control or ban on the private ownership of firearms.

The most effective amendments to the Constitution are those that are meant to expand personal liberty, not the other way around.

Pairing this side of the argument to the your arrogant definition of a conservative is nothing more than weak emotional appeal, fallacious at best. You provide no real counter point to this side of the argument other than "times change" and "conservatives this/that".

Even George Washington would lose a battle today with legal firearms against tanks and predator drones.

So because it would be an uphill battle at best, we should simply accept tyranny? You fail to take into account that our military is an entirely volunteer force, with individuals from different backgrounds and different sociopolitical ideals. It is unlikely that such a force could ever be used against us to its full potential, and it is even more likely that portions of it would side with a legitimate revolution initiated by the people.

[DeanoBobino1986]

Interesting video about obama

Was 99.999999% certain who it was at about 45 seconds. Was right. Pretty awesome video, srs. Repped.

EDIT: Will hit you on r/c.

[Darknightbegins]

oh noez, some rednecks lose their ******* jobs. you *******

It's better they get on welfare and have Obama pay them to do nothing. Economic Stimulus

[DeanoBobino1986]

Hoy sh*t. Extremely intredasting video. Did not see that coming. 10/10 srs


Bump for debate

LOLZ, I c wut u did thar.

[TommyTuffGuy]

Ultra liberal here on most views, not putting together how anyone liberal wouldn't be FOR gun ownership rights. It falls directly in line with rights of the citizen.

If anything, liberal minded people should be firey pissed about 'gun control'.

This isn't the Bilbe and you can't pick and choose which stories you choose to believe and which you don't. You have to be for the rights of the people across the board.

[shanks1992]

does anyone remember from their history classes why the constitution was written? It was written not to empower the government, but to actually limit the government's power over us citizens, making it truly a government of the people. Basically, it was intended so that the government works for us and our wishes, we are not controlled by the government.

Lol guess that worked out well.

[EliteJV]

When gun ownership and bans are debated on, it seems the number 1 topic is regarding personal safety. While this is a valid topic, it is not the only reason for debate, and possibly not the most important reason for debate.

The constitution of the United States obviously included the right to bear arms. But does anyone remember from their history classes why the constitution was written? It was written not to empower the government, but to actually limit the government's power over us citizens, making it truly a government of the people. Basically, it was intended so that the government works for us and our wishes, we are not controlled by the government. This is why government power is getting out of hand today.

Going back to the 2nd amendment, the main reason it was included was so that citizens would have a means to protect themselves if their government ever started to oppress them or become a tyranny. Don't think that can happen in today's society? Who would have thought that a single man could brainwash all of Germany and start WWII? Look at some of the policies that get shoved down our throats today, not even necessarily on a national level but just in your local government. Removing guns is just one step closer to a defenseless society in the situation of power abuse... Which is exactly what the government would want.

This thread is for serious debate, I'm open to whatever you guys have to say. No butthurt *******s pls, and keep the arguments logical, not emotional.

reps for accurate political theory.

brb thomas hobbes
brb leviathan

[OldManMatty]

There is no reason to own or use a gun outside of war

[shanks1992]

There is no reason to own or use a gun outside of war

But mate the government is gonna take our guns and enslave us all?

[Conspiracybrah]

There is no reason to own or use a gun outside of war

Self defense, hunting, any other sport or hobby with gun doesn't apply?

[Brandon0212]

I would keep my gun anyways a long with millions of other people.

Come at me

[YokedBrah]

I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment (as stated in the 2nd amendment) was to keep a well-armed militia.

[hockeyd13]

I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment (as stated in the 2nd amendment) was to keep a well-armed militia.

Funny how people like to leave out the entire part dealing with the right itself when making that argument.

As ratified by Jefferson: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[xSlick1x]

2nd Amendment was made to give citizens the ability to rise against the government should it turn into too controlling. But that was back when citizens had the same firepower as the national army. In these times it's ridiculous to think people would rise against the government with hand guns and assault rifles. Even if a whole city were somehow able to rally together and revolt, it still would be no match against the government's advanced weapons and tactics. The gap is simply too big. Truth is the 2nd amendment is outdated, and anyone saying we need it to protect ourselves against the government is ridiculous. If someone the government turned into a tyranny, pretty sure most people would just move out of the country. No one gives a **** nowadays except about their own family and friends.

The 2nd Amendment argument is only used by people who don't want to give up their guns, not out of fear of the government, but for hunting, ego boosting, or personal safety.

They're fighting by throwing stones at tanks in Syria. Fighting back isn't dependent on firepower, only how much you can let them steal your rights from you before you don't care if your biggest weapon is a slingshot.

And incorrect on the last sentence. I don't own any firearms and have never hunted before but I fully support the right to own guns. The "2nd Amendment argument" is mostly used by Americans with an understanding of how the gov't has, will and currently is systematically removing the rights our entire country was founded on. Good brave men suffered and died to secure these rights for their families and countrymen and now we have people who want to chit on their effort (regardless of your opinion on whether people need guns or not).

This is, unfortunately, the popular opinion right now and so very wrong, especially the last statement. I will not deny that there will always be crazy people in the world, right wing lunatics building underground bunkers stocked to the hilts with ammo and weapons ready for new world order to reign down on them, or hayseed hicks trying to show off who has the biggest gun at the firing range. But I view them to be just as insane as the people that have no fear of government turning on the citizens. Naivety at its best. If push came to shove, I would rather have the option of defending my self, my family, and my country with a semi automatic rifle than nothing. The fact that 2A allows us to carry for personal safety, in my opinion, is just a wonderful side effect.

Edit: Quick note; who's to say that government employees and military personnel would not use their training and high power equipment provided to them by the United States against the US government in a revolution?

The thing that's funny to me is that there there is an insane amount of people who feel the need to prep for "the end of the world" and will and wait for it instead of using those very supplies to change things!! They'd rather end up living in a cave eating rice then fight to keep their current comfort level. I would love to hear the psychology of why someone will amass weapons and ammo for when the gov't collapses, and then watch it happen instead of using the weapons and networks of other preppers to stop it from happening. It has to boil down to being scared (which I completely understand cause I'm not about to be an example of NDAA or worse). I'm not advocating the use of violence and I'm just some dude on a bodybuilding site but it's been made clear that there are no other avenues of effecting change anymore and that our rights, wants, and needs are nor of concern to the current regime.


As far as trained gov't employees turning on the gov't that could be a whole debate in it's self. Would National Guard members fire upon fellow citizens if ordered to? Chances are that the truth isn't the noble thought we like to idealize. People will think of their own needs, and that of their families, before a fellow citizen. If you were in the military and were ordered to suppress a group of civilians with lethal force you might hate it but are you thinking of the status and hopeful exemption you and yours hold because of your position or the lives of strangers? I could tell you right now that I can't imagine a situation where I would consider the lives of my loved ones to be less valuable than a stranger or group of strangers. It sucks but I don't even hold it against someone.

[stiffdogg06]

There is no reason to own or use a gun outside of war

But mate the government is gonna take our guns and enslave us all?

Location: UK.

[DeanoBobino1986]

Ultra liberal here on most views, not putting together how anyone liberal wouldn't be FOR gun ownership rights. It falls directly in line with rights of the citizen.

If anything, liberal minded people should be firey pissed about 'gun control'.

This isn't the Bilbe and you can't pick and choose which stories you choose to believe and which you don't. You have to be for the rights of the people across the board.

I've never understood this, either. Not liberal, but it just boggles the mind that the party of "civil rights" is so anti-rights.

I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment (as stated in the 2nd amendment) was to keep a well-armed militia.

LOL, u w0t m8? Please go....and re-read the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Myron collection. Soon...

[ViolentZ]

Op, western/northern europe have strict gun laws + they live in freedom.


explain pls

[BDPfit]

Op, western/northern europe have strict gun laws + they live in freedom.


explain pls

A couple things about that.

First off the violent crime rate is no lower there (if I remember correctly its actually higher). So banning guns doesn't solve the crime issue.

Second, the culture is completely different. We have had guns since our very existence and they are ingrained in the American lifestyle. It's basically impossible to eliminate guns at this point; only the bad guys would have them if the law abiding citizens turned them in.

Finally, why shouldn't they be temporarily "free"? Their government has them right where they want them, docile and defenseless. It could very well be the case that the government is simply waiting for the right time and circumstances to align when they decide to make moves. Let them be sheep in the meantime.

[shanks1992]

First off the violent crime rate is no lower there (if I remember correctly its actually higher). So banning guns doesn't solve the crime issue.

The definition of "violent crime" in UK law is very different to that of US law.

This applies to a number of EU countries as well.

Countless Ameribrahs have been throwing out statistics (That they probably didn't read over) about our "violent crime rates" being much higher when, in reality, a 16 year old stealing a phone from another 16 year old in England is deemed as "violent crime"

We have crime, yes, but what country doesn't? We don't have readily available guns so our knife crime is statistically higher than the US equivalent. Personally, however, I'd rather have people walking around with knives than assault rifles.

Also, last year we had 35 gun related murders in the UK, which has a population of just over 65 million people.

The US had over 11,000, with a population of 300 million. The population of the US is 5 times greater than the UK yet its gun crime rates are stratospherically higher.

Is this down to the fact that people have readily available firearms? Yes.

Is this down to the fact EVERY American citizen that has a firearm is a raving lunatic? No.

It's down (largely) to gang and organised crime. However it could be argued that were there not such an endemic culture of violence and gun ownership in the United States, then perhaps the amount of killings such as Columbine, Sandy Hook etc would be a lot less.

[CurlsfotheGirls]

OP, you made a good point, but left one thing out. The constitution is the whole basis for the US being a constitutional republic. Not only does it prevent the government from overstepping their bounds, but it also keeps a democratic society from overstepping their bounds too. Now, even if 70% of the population want guns banned, it will never(should never) happen because it goes against the constitution. So not only does it keep the government in check, but it keeps the majority in check too.

mind = annihilated

[Danger_Close]

A bit angled but yeah I was thinking of Obama all the time, I think I would have even if you wouldn't have mentioned him.



Ok I'm not that well educated when it comes to USA's government but god damn do you honestly believe his bullshit?
I mean the people who are suppose to be "experts" are failed politicians/entertainers/artists, and almost every clip in that movie is taken out of context. I thought Michael Moore was bad...

key phrase here

"I'm not that well educated when it comes to USA's government" what makes you think you should open your mouth? Seriously, if i dont know about something, i dont talk about it, because I KNOW i dont know anything about it.

You dont even see how you have been psychologically tricked and manipulated into fallacious way of thinking, which is an false appeal to authority. You expect the NEWS to tell you the truth? The same news stations that are OWNED by the banks? You think a news media is going ti air their owners dirty laundry? You expect the government to tell you the truth when they count on your ignorance of their actions so they can get away with those same actions? Thats like you counting on me to tell you the truth about me stealing from you. Im not gonna tell the truth if im stealing from you, same with government.

You objection to the video is not based in factual knowledge, but rather your emotional reaction to the facts stated, and your wanting to believe its not true.

[ViolentZ]

First off the violent crime rate is no lower there (if I remember correctly its actually higher). So banning guns doesn't solve the crime issue.

Not true + europe is big. I'm talking about north/western europe not the eastern or southern *******s

Second, the culture is completely different. We have had guns since our very existence and they are ingrained in the American lifestyle. It's basically impossible to eliminate guns at this point; only the bad guys would have them if the law abiding citizens turned them in.

I agree, that's why we need a step by step process. Gun ban is too soon, but a registration for instance is a good idea. Obama is for pro gun control,not gun ban

Finally, why shouldn't they be temporarily "free"? Their government has them right where they want them, docile and defenseless. It could very well be the case that the government is simply waiting for the right time and circumstances to align when they decide to make moves. Let them be sheep in the meantime.

I doubt that and I wonder how much time they'll take since they will make a move cause it's already been for 70+ years (and the previous generation are all dead).

[Octobrah]

How would guns solve anything if our government was corrupt? I see how it might be useful if the government went full retard and started shooting people for no reason but if say the local mayor is funneling money for himself or the president is setting up the law to give him some sort of financial advantage what are guns going to do? Are you going to going to go murder them then go to prison for life? Are you going to try and prove a point my shooting some random government official for no reason? And whose to say that what the government is doing is deemed corrupt? Terrorists probably think they are doing the world a favor but in reality it's just there point of view which is different to others peoples views. I'm for guns and will own one soon myself but reasoning that you need them to protect yourself against the government is absurd in these times. Voting is the only real way to control government.

[saiyar1]

You're missing the point, and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment contradicts literally just about every legal interpretation as set forth by precedent of the SCOTUS. Your interpretation is also incorrect in light of the specific explanations that were provided by Hamilton, Jefferson, and many of the other founding fathers. As Jefferson put it:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. U
and
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

It's not as if governments of all types have been immune to the development of tyranny and totalitarianism. Over the last 100 years of "civilized society" despotism has arisen out of nearly every form of government, including rule by the people, and typically after the control or ban on the private ownership of firearms.

The most effective amendments to the Constitution are those that are meant to expand personal liberty, not the other way around.

Pairing this side of the argument to the your arrogant definition of a conservative is nothing more than weak emotional appeal, fallacious at best. You provide no real counter point to this side of the argument other than "times change" and "conservatives this/that".



So because it would be an uphill battle at best, we should simply accept tyranny? You fail to take into account that our military is an entirely volunteer force, with individuals from different backgrounds and different sociopolitical ideals. It is unlikely that such a force could ever be used against us to its full potential, and it is even more likely that portions of it would side with a legitimate revolution initiated by the people.

Strange. I don't remember giving any sort of interpretation of the second amendment. Can you show me where I did that???