Guns for teachers - The MemePresident

[Potjeh]

There never was a strong unified culture in USA.

[shubla]

all you have is a "what if"? alright then i can counter with the same. "what if" all of the churchgoers were armed? then those 5 guys would be dead very quickly. and yes there is lots of panic and chaos when shooting starts. the same with a fire the same with a bomb going off. that doesnt mean you remove the ability to stop the problem. you dont see people advocating for less fire extinguishers. so lets keep guns in the good guys hands.

So what? Your solution is not a solution and thus should not be put into a effect.
If guns would be more restricted, the man might not have a gun, and thus no one would die. (He could use a knife, but that is less effective and less people would die)

Disarming the innocent people is necessary to disarm the non-innocent people. Its stupid thought to think that a human living in a modern society would need a gun. Hunting/shooting hobby is maybe the only reason.

making guns illegal simply makes the problem worse.

Guns are illegal in many countries, but they all have less gun related deaths than the US. What is the major difference, if not the amount of guns that people have?
Some countries have higher gun deaths than USA even with less guns, but these countries (such as honduras) have some really big problems with crime and drugs or maybe even a civil war happening in them. There are neither of those issues in the US.

hitler, stalin and castro all drank water. drinking water makes people dictators

and what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

It means that even if some dictators had strict gun policies, it does not mean that strict gun policies automatically make countries or leaders of them dictators. Correlation does not imply causation, limiting guns is a thing that happens in most of countries in earth, thus of course even countries where bad things happen might have some limitations on guns, without anything to do with the bad thigns happening.


And for the rest of your post and thoughts.

You are an idiot. Good half a thought bro.

So when is this mythical point when 2nd Amendment is actually used to do something about the government tyranny? Same time when the South rises again?

Look, there is a far more powerful constitutional weapon against government tyranny. It's called the 1st Amendment. Too bad you guys have no idea what to do with it, though. But yeah, in general, to win a revolution against a government you need the majority of the population on your side. Pulling a Waco won't get anyone on your side. And when you do get to the point where the majority is behind you you don't need any guns, because the military will refuse to fight their friends and families.

Now, as far as intention of the 2nd Amendment is concerned, I believe the vision was that the federal government should have no standing army. Federal army would only be created in times of war, and the core around which it'd be built would be state militias. A big reason for this would be preventing the feds from strongarming the states, and another reason was that a standing army needs a lot of taxes to fund it. And look how well that worked out, today you've got by far the most expensive military in the world. Though I suppose there's a loophole to make that kosher - just stay in a constant state of war by declaring war on abstract concepts so there's no danger of actually winning and ending the war.

Exactly, you need support of the majority or support of the army. Support of the army is not always enough, because after all, citizens are the ones that keeps the country up and running.
And if you have support of majority or support of the army, some weapon wielding citizens dont help a shit.

[shubla]

There never was a strong unified culture in USA.

Probably same thing with all large countries. Russia, China, India, none of them have "strong unified culture".
Although with internet getting popular around the world and stuff, this may change slowly over time.

And when you do get to the point where the majority is behind you you don't need any guns, because the military will refuse to fight their friends and families.

Not necessarily, you can just tell the military not to kill their own families, but everyone else. If somebody thinks differently, then kill his family.
You dont always need majority of the people on your side.

[Ysh]

There never was a strong unified culture in USA.

Perhaps it is only my perception, or perhaps it is some other thing. I think the men have only become less independent as these days go on. And there are many more men around. Maybe in past it was just more easy to live as you will, without some other men to come and stop you.

[synaris]

i need some sleep, so imma stop here for now.

Disarming the innocent people is necessary to disarm the non-innocent people.

that is a lie. pure and simple. with nothing to back it up.



another fun pic to post. i love these.

Guns are illegal in many countries, but they all have less gun related deaths than the US. What is the major difference, if not the amount of guns that people have?
Some countries have higher gun deaths than USA even with less guns, but these countries (such as honduras) have some really big problems with crime and drugs or maybe even a civil war happening in them. There are neither of those issues in the US.

actually, we ARE approaching a civil war. so much horrible shit that our goverment has done in the past to our own people is coming out and they are trying so hard to censor us all that we are approaching the breaking point. the disgusting globalists are ranting about the "evils" of guns before the bodies of those dead children were even cold.

It means that even if some dictators had strict gun policies, it does not mean that strict gun policies automatically make countries or leaders of them dictators. Correlation does not imply causation, limiting guns is a thing that happens in most of countries in earth, thus of course even countries where bad things happen might have some limitations on guns, without anything to do with the bad thigns happening.

the fact that every dictator did the same thing doesnt strike you as odd? okay i guess you dont have basic pattern recognition. i for one dont want to take the chance. i always err on the side of caution.

You are an idiot. Good half a thought bro.

this statement is useless. you didnt put forth any views or opinions to be scrutinized you just insulted me.

Exactly, you need support of the majority or support of the army. Support of the army is not always enough, because after all, citizens are the ones that keeps the country up and running.
And if you have support of majority or support of the army, some weapon wielding citizens dont help a shit.

they are attempting to get the support of the majority. thats why they created the likes of feminism and nurtured groups like black lives matter. BLM got millions in funding from gorge soros alone. because they want division. its a long term plan, they try to destroy the family and religion so only the only authority figure in our lives are the goverment. the good news is, they fucked up. they didnt expect trump to win. thank god for that.

pay attention to the viewpoint of the mainstream media. its all the same, except for fox. because they are all ran by the globalists. hell the students from that school will tell you, CNN wanted them to read from teleprompters ect. and if they had the wrong opinions then CNN didnt want them on camera. many students there are pro gun yet you never seen them on the mainstream news. you have to go to infowars to see interviews with them.

i think the expression was "slicing the salami". they prey upon the fact that you dont notice small changes over a very long period of time.

also cant help but notice that you wont talk about how many deaths are caused by other means in countries where guns are illegal. as i said before, of course the ratio of people killed with guns are not going to be 1 to 1 when comparing a country where guns are common to one where guns are not. i also doubt you watched the video.

anyways, im tired as hell. i probobly made a million typos. ill check this thread when i wake up.

[Potjeh]

Trump stacked his administration with Goldman Sachs and Exxon. Yup, sure is foiling their plans. And LMAO @ trusting FOX. That red KoolAid sure tastes good, eh? I just can't fathom how anyone things there's an integrity in a party that claims to love Jesus and proclaims poverty a sin and greed a virtue in the same breath.

[VDZ]

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/kni ... e-control/

According to the stats that article is based on, there are 5.7 times as many firearms murders than there are 'knives or other cutting instruments' murders. A good argument for saying handguns cause more deaths than rifles (over 20 times as many, assuming not many rifles are misclassified as 'type not stated'), but not for implying knives are more likely to result in successful murders than guns.

more people die in france from knives than people in the USA do from guns.

I'm having a hard time finding statistics on this. Do you have a reliable link for this? Do make sure to verify your sources. You mentioned InfoWars in another post; they are well known for reporting with little evidence and frequently being proven factually wrong.

hitler, stalin and castro took the guns. all the dictators agree. gun control works when you want to enslave a nation. america was born of revolution, and we never want to go back to the kind of tyranny of king george or anyone like him.

Hitler also eliminated 83% of unemployment in his country, greatly improved the roads, railroads and other infrastructure, hosted the Olympic Games, drew paintings and loved dogs. All things you should avoid lest history repeats.

if you really believe that taking the guns stops crime you need to look at chicago. people loved to brag about it being the first gun free city. its also the first city with "no go zones" where police actually STOP YOU FROM ENTERING because crime is so high in that area. its the murder capitol of the united states now.

If you look at the statistics, Chicago has always had a high murder rate. With the exception of 2016 and 2017, Chicago murder rates have actually been pretty low compared to historical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_ ... go_by_year). Due to underreporting the numbers might not be entirely reliable, but Chicago having tons of murders is nothing new.

another fun pic to post. i love these.

I don't. Simplifying a problem and using drawings to make them appeal to emotion better while making only dismissive statements and avoiding properly explaining your arguments is not at all conducive to conversation and will only increase groupthink by discouraging people from voicing dissenting opinions because it might make them look dumb through comparison with the cartoons. Opinions should be shared by conveying information that makes the opinion feel reasonable. I want to hold opinions because they make sense, not sheerly because I would be "dumb" for disagreeing.

[shubla]

Disarming the innocent people is necessary to disarm the non-innocent people.

that is a lie. pure and simple. with nothing to back it up.

We have a set of people, X, Y and Z.
We want to disarm people that have the trait M.
We know that one or more people from X, Y and Z has/have the trait M.
We dont know which ones, but some of them do.
What do we do?

We disarm them all, not that hard.
Not a lie, but some basic logic.

the fact that every dictator did the same thing doesnt strike you as odd? okay i guess you dont have basic pattern recognition. i for one dont want to take the chance. i always err on the side of caution.

But did you know that every single dictator also drank water? I think that there is a clear pattern right there.

[ven]

To consider:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/c ... op_school/
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/c ... n_laws_in/

[shubla]

One thing not related to guns would be to decrease the amount of media attention that these things get.
Stop putting it in the news, at least the names of the suspects.

And about the guards.
Maybe if there are multiple guards right next to the suspect, could he be taken down.
Everybody runs away anyway, so the real harm is done within the first few minutes after the shooting begins.
Ones that are wielding guns should locate where the shooter is, find him and incapacitate him pretty much immediately, if it takes even 1 or 2 minutes, there are potentially already many, many victims.

People who think that restricting guns would not decrease school shootings and equivelant are simple and stupid. They clearly can not understand /think about things.
I guess that some people fear that they get their guns taken away. Which is bad, because guns are badass. Or so do they think. People who do shootings think of the same. At least the few school shootings in Finland, the preparator has always been a big fan of weapons/firearms, taking videos of themselves posing or shooting with their gun and stuff, I think at least some cases in US have the same thing in them.

If somebody wants to shoot non-living-things as a hobby, maybe the guns and ammunition could be kept at the gun range in some lockers.
Hunting could be exception, but for hunting you should only be able to buy hunting rifles, which are not that effective in harming a large amount of people, compared to semi-automatic or automatic weapons.