Fuck your worthless prayers, do something that actually helps things. Like the people you are bitching about are trying to do.
Again for fuck sake’s the discussion is just done for the sake bashing the other side, not being done to do anything
I do on the other hand I want to actually fucking help…
I think also the big problem is again the cultural significance and consistency of mass shootings.
This is your idea of helping?
What are you trying to say here?
For a while I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that–while really, really, really stupid, you were actually sincere. But your posting of that image instead of addressing two questions now has pushed me over the edge–while I have no reason at all to doubt your deep and life-limiting stupidity, I am also now convinced that you are now deliberately trolling in your own Forest Gumpesque way.
Alright long post incoming…
Some of this can be based off what I learned in 8th grade
If you study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, one thing that becomes apparent very quickly is that the Founding Fathers had an inherent mistrust of government. Obviously the first physical manifestation of this was our own Revolution. But the Founding Fathers did not write the 2nd Amendment as a sole means of empowering the Colonists to fight against King George’s Army. They knew, probably better than anyone, that governments need a vigilant citizenry to keep them in check, and as I said, they had an intrinsic mistrust of Government, including the American government, which was then in its infancy. And they know, in essence, that they were instilling, in the American people, a mistrust of themselves, and the future leaders of the nation.
They admonished the American people, even after the war and after we had won our independence, that we needed to be proactive citizens in the emerging republic. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting rights and self defense. These were repetitive concerns, considering that America, back then, before the Industrial Revolution, was a frontier, barely out of the Stone Age in terms of technology at least. So it was naturally assumed people would hunt and defend their land. It was also assumed that citizens would aid in the quest to become a free nation.
So the 2nd Amendment, while somewhat being about the Militia and the Continental Army fighting against the Crown, mostly it was about an armed citizenry that could, at any time, be prepared to overthrow even an American government that lapsed into tyranny or tried to wield unbridled power over its people.
That is why the American people will never, and I mean NEVER, agree to be completely disarmed so that we become nothing more than helpless cannon-fodder in the event that our government decides to become tyrannical.
This is WHY doing comparisons with the UK and Australia for instance gets debunked off right away.
And as for the consistency of mass shootings, they happen too quick that we are powerless to do any jack shit.
Amazing how that long post had near perfect grammar and internal consistency.
If you believe that some yokels with their rifles and shotguns can seriously battle the US government, then you’re pretty fucking stupid.
Except, as most people on botth sides of this debate never fail to do, you are oversimplifying and not looking at the big picture. You are making a case that is not only simplistic but not even close to looking at the big picture. Because you are not factoring how revolution worked then as well as now.
if the US Government were to lapse into tyranny, say the Federal Government decided to turn the Presidency into a dictatorship or a monarchy, that it would be all or nothing. Meaning that your implication is that even with guns, people would be helpless anyway, so why bother, right? And that would certainly be a fair position if, and only if, civil unrest were to be as simplistic as you are positing, which it never is.And let me be clear, I am NOT saying that my government is going to lapse into tyranny. Only that there are Constitutional provisions if such an event would happen.
I like how you use a lot of words to say nothing at all. No, if it came down to a war between the people and the government, the side with the drones, missiles, tanks, and jets would win. Whatever pissant ARs you have won’t make a pisshole in the snow.
Today, an armed citizenry has only three defensive uses for their guns–self-defense against criminals, holding off an invading force (Canada, maybe?) until the regular US troops arrive, and taking out a dictator at 500 yards.
Anybody who invokes the tyranny fantasy needs to go *straight *to the mental hospital. No stops at Starbucks or anywhere, just straight there, and don’t leave until you’re cured. Okay?
My point is that a lot of people have no understanding of how powerful the masses of a citizenry can be, AND armed with guns, that shoot actual bullets, is better than just standing there getting mowed down. You see, nobody knows how many or what percentage of the armed services would defend civil liberties and “the people.” So it is incumbent upon a responsible citizenry to be at least capable of whatever they could offer their fellow citizens in defense of the Constitution.
These “pee shooters” people are disparaging still shoot real bullets, and in the hands of a good number of people, fighting for their liberty, in an armed militia, side-by-side with military personnel who have the kinds of more powerful weapons the “enemies” have, would be not only helpful, but a powerful force. Add sheer masses and numbers with weapons to augment and aid the military personnel on their sides, and that could very well be the deciding factor.
Pea shooters you idiot.
So much for that “law-abiding citizens” claim. It’s only the laws they like.
When did you run out of desserts at the bird sanctuary (you must have gone, surely)? Was it before or after we sent you all those bags of dicks?
No, I think he had it right. 
You may think that you have some idea of what a revolution looks like, but you don’t have clue one about how dictatorships start. Here’s a hint–there’s no real question about “how many or what percentage of the armed services would defend civil liberties and the people”. The answer is pretty close to zero. There will be no “side-by-side” with military-armed resistance troops.
Of course though if revolution ever did happen in this country, which I doubt it will, then an armed citizenry will help. Of course they would then have to get BETTER weapons as well as the ones they currently have. But I would put my faith in a population of 200+ million people with pea-shooters over a very small minority of armed forces, particularly when you also factor in the armed forces that would come over to the side of the people. But again, this is hypothetical. Government here in America has a healthy respect and fear of an armed citizenry, whether you choose to accept that or not. And NOT because a few guys with what you call pea shooters can, in and of themselves, make the difference. Because the masses far outnumber the government and the military, and again, this isn’t even factoring in the help the US people would get from the military.
He was gambling that nobody would bother reading it, correctly in my case.
Lol