This thread shows how stupid gun advocates can be.
They should be neutered.
They should be neutered.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
People can't actually buy that crap, right
Nevermind, had a look at the previous page
Last edited:
Memes comparing the Democrats to the Nazis are pretty popular on social media.People can't actually buy that crap, right
Nevermind, had a look at the previous page
I'd rather take a few out with me rather than get marched to the gas chamber.
What do you suggest the minority should do in such a situation ? Be defenseless and live at the whims and fancies of the majority. I don't think your a minority so you cant really appreciate the predicament.
They would have gotten killed even if they hadn't killed 17 nazis. Right to defend oneself is an inalienable human right. In most countries people waive there right to own guns on the condition that the state would protect them, but when the state turns on you then all bets are off and your on your own and in such a situation it is better to have a gun in your hand when your surrounded by a lynch mob and the police is not answering your call.
Please just stop...
“Access to guns and the systematic murder of six million Jews have no basis for comparison in the United States or in New Jersey. The Holocaust has no place in this discussion and it is offensive to link this tragedy to such a debate.”
- The Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest New Jersey
“The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.”
- Alan Steinweis, history professor at Univ. of Vermont
"The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler's Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families."
- Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League
What exactly are you saying? That people should be allowed to have guns because maybe the jews could have killed some nazis in WW2 before being killed themselves?
What if the minority is not 1% of the population but rather 40% ? Would you still believe they should be defenseless and marched off to death camps ?
And im not defending gun laws in the US. I dont think this thread is only limited to the US. Im only on a limited point that you cant expect a minority to be defenseless when the majority desires a genocide.
And what exactly are you saying? That the jews should have rolled over because they were not only outnumbered but outgunned too?
What if your aunt had balls?
“Such counterfactual arguments are problematic because they reinvent the past to imagine a possible future. In fact, Jews were not well-armed and were not able to adequately defend themselves against Nazi aggression. Thus, reimagining a past in which they were and did does not provide a legitimate basis for arguments about what might have followed.”
- Anthropologist Abigail Kohn
You’re literally posting as if you’re reading from the NRA’s playbook on this topic.
How on earth did you get that out of my question?
Again, what do you suggest? That the public today should have access to guns because the jews were unarmed when the nazis came 80 years ago?
The Jews of Europe didn't know that the Holocaust was about to happen.
What bollocks are you taking about? I'm not suggesting anything other than comparing the plight of the European Jews during the Nazi regime has nothing what so ever to do with gun ownership in the USA and it is in no way comparable,
"die fighting"
"take a few out with me"
"should(n't) have rolled over"
"outnumbered"
"outgunned"
The Holocaust reimagined as a bad action movie.
"take a few out with me"
"should(n't) have rolled over"
"outnumbered"
"outgunned"
The Holocaust reimagined as a bad action movie.
Must scare the politicians at least here in Virginia they are so desperate they want to change a law before the local government opens. Im sure if the germans had to fight guerrillas in their own soil the war could be a bit different. Fighting soldiers is one thing but fighting “ghost” soldiers is another and don’t forget wasn’t only jews who they went after but any communist, gipsy and gays, quit a lot of people.
About time someone said something right.
Sorry I don't understand the point you are trying to make here? As for the Germans fighting guerilla tactics on their soil. They did in every country across Europe they occupied when they had control.
No, it doesn’t.
Sometimes I wonder about you...
It's a silly debate. No matter where you go, you'll see mentally unstable people making bad decisions. For example...Take that guy from the London attack... If he had an assault rifle, he could've killed far more people than he did. But "luckily" he only had a knife.
There are so many things wrong in the US when it comes to gun control. First of all you have a president whose rhetoric is just like throwing fuel at a fire. Secondly, he is a businessman and therefore gun lobbyists are controlling him like a puppet.
The biggest problem however, is the ridiculos second amendment. Is it freedom to be able to carry a firearm? To protect yourself? I live in quiet Scandinavia and you don't need a gun for protection - because your neighbour doesn't have a gun either. I believe, that I live in a land of freedom. And using the right to bear arm is not a necessity to being free. That's my opinion.
Americans - you need to answer one simple question: Are hundreds of innocent lives every year a fair price to pay, so that millions of paranoid rednecks are able to "protect" themselves? I don't think so.
There are so many things wrong in the US when it comes to gun control. First of all you have a president whose rhetoric is just like throwing fuel at a fire. Secondly, he is a businessman and therefore gun lobbyists are controlling him like a puppet.
The biggest problem however, is the ridiculos second amendment. Is it freedom to be able to carry a firearm? To protect yourself? I live in quiet Scandinavia and you don't need a gun for protection - because your neighbour doesn't have a gun either. I believe, that I live in a land of freedom. And using the right to bear arm is not a necessity to being free. That's my opinion.
Americans - you need to answer one simple question: Are hundreds of innocent lives every year a fair price to pay, so that millions of paranoid rednecks are able to "protect" themselves? I don't think so.
Not surprising. Forget about the tons of shootings that weren't prevented I guess- or if they were -9/10 it was an off duty cop, military or some other kind of professional.This is making its rounds on Facebook at the moment...
I do believe the guy who shot the murderer was a LEO.
I read he was.
The worst is when they say the Nazis were socialists.
I've been waging war against these simpletons on social media for a decade+. All I need to do is quote a speech old Adolf gave in Munich on April 12 1921. Couple paragraphs in that speech explain the entire situation, explicitly. There really isn't any rebuttal possible when you have Hitlers own words staring you in the face saying, to paraphrase "We are the far right wing party of Germany" and "Socialism = Nationalism, and zee Jews stole the word Socialism and perverted it from its nationalistic origin".
A big part of this, is that the 2nd amendment has been essentially redefined over the last 50 years or so, probably due to brilliant PR and lobbying carried out by the pro-gun lobby. The original framing of the 2nd amendment, is literally, and I mean literally, talking about how a citizen militia must be armed, and therefore the government won't interfere in this citizen militia having guns.
The reason for this is pretty simple. When the 2nd amendment was written, virtually every single military aged male was required, by law, to belong to a militia. De-facto, every male citizen, since women had no legal obligations to the state regarding military service, was a member of a militia, and therefore HAD to be armed, and it's very expensive for the government to build up a stockpile of weapons for militias, and then doubly expensive to store and later distribute them should the need arise. Not to mention the logistical problems of arming and equipping militias that range over a continental sized country if an emergency should arise. Relatively recently, the Supreme Court decided to ignore the rules of grammar, and change the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, interpreting the single clause as two separate clauses, which it isn't and never was.
Tell me if you see a period, colon, or semicolon anywhere in this sentence? "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." What the Republican Supreme Court did, was insert a period, where no period exists, to create TWO clauses out of a singular clause. They created this fictitious break, between "free State," and "the right of the people". Basically, the 2nd amendment was changed from meaning "Since a well regulated militias is necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people (the militias), to keep and bear arms can not be infringed". It was changed to, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state". AND "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So I'm guessing gun reform is now off the table. Probably be pushing for more open carry and the like now that he feels emboldened by this incident. More power to the NRA. Dickheads!
Bring back the wild west!
What a fecking moron!! If guns were banned then the lunatic wouldn’t get his hands on one to be in a position to shoot anybody in the first place! America’s obsession with guns will never end no matter how many mass shooting there are, there’s always an excuse for having the guns.
The next thing will be more people buying guns, more have-a-go heroes and a new spate of innocents getting killed in crossfire. But that will be ok because at least the bad guys are being taken out.
"Evil" took three lives though.He might wanna rethink that logic...
Back around 2011-2012, I reported a military officer for posting a Hitler/Obama meme on a social media site, laying out that this officer has many enlisted and officer friends and thus directly influencing propaganda. Legal never responded.
Doesn’t surprise me unfortunately, knowing some of the shit my uncle said about him while still on active duty back then.
Was a shotgun even in UK you guys can have shotguns, so banning guns in this case would be a disaster
Thanks, I didn't understand because they normally don't go with thoughts and prayers and here goes with that god doesn't protect them
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sigh, thoughts and prayers.
Been a while since we've heard one of these.
Hope no other person was killed.
Hope no other person was killed.
Another mass shooting and nothing will happen yet again.
Oh but a guy with a gun stopped the shooter so there a good thing!
Oh but a guy with a gun stopped the shooter so there a good thing!
These morons in Virginia. Camo paint, combat gear, what a fecking state this country is in. So glad I have an exit strategy.
How can you leave when your 401k is up 70%.