Guns for teachers - The MemePresident

[shubla]

The guns for the teachers are there to protect the kids that are being shot at.

Wouldnt it be nice if everything worked as intended?

[Potjeh]

Counterargument to guns preventing government tyranny: NSA.

[Ysh]

Counterargument to guns preventing government tyranny: NSA.

There is level of tyranny beyond what is the current experience. I do not know if there is any man who thinks that own gun will automatic prevent all tyranny.

[shubla]

recently a man in a church shot someone who openly admitted on facebook that he was planning on mass murdering people across several churches. first one he went to he only got a few shots off before a good man with a gun took him down. good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. the police cannot teleport to a scene. guns in the hands of good guys save lives.

What if there happent to be like 5 guys in the church with weapons? Panic ensues and it becomes unclear who is the suspect, and they start shooting each other. Thus adding more guns is probably not a solution.

in addition, everyone wants to ban the rifles. rifles rifles rifles.

I dont get where you got this "everyone wants to ban rifles" from. I want to ban all guns.

hitler, stalin and castro took the guns. all the dictators agree. gun control works when you want to enslave a nation

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

non-americans may not understand but, that second amendment isnt there for everyday use. its not there for hunting, its not there for bragging rights. the only time we will need it, is when its under attack. it was made so that we protect ourselves from all enemies. foreign, AND DOMESTIC.

You have the largest army budget on this planet, more than bunch of others combined. You dont need guns on civilians to "defend your country"
And if some country decided to attack your country, having handguns or stuff on civilians helps nothing, militaries of other countries have missiles and tanks.
Same thing if your own government decided to attack its civilians. They would have the army with them, and the army has big stuff that you can not defend against with some bloody handguns or rifles...

You have some real great faith on democracy over there if you think that every citizen must be armed to teeth so they can defend against the potential hostile actions from politicians
Theres plenty of countries without "second adaments" or whatever you want to call those things. And their citizens have not been overthrown by some maniacs yet!
Also would nazi germany not have happent if all citizens had guns? YES, it would have happent still. They were a popular party. Same applies for all of the persons you listed. Most of the dictators that world has seen were actually quite popular, at least in the beginning of their reign.

In conclusion, I think that most of americans, if not all. Are just dumb.

I also think that democracy does not work because of this fact, majority of people are stupid, thus making voting useless, and if you concetrate power to a small amount of group, which is what democracy does, but just in a neat way, they will start misusing it. For sure not as much as in some other governments, but still.

[synaris]

Counterargument to guns preventing government tyranny: NSA.

There is level of tyranny beyond what is the current experience. I do not know if there is any man who thinks that own gun will automatic prevent all tyranny.

owning a gun in real life is like owning a sword in haven. it doesnt stop tyranny or raiders from existing. it simply gives you the ability to fight.

edit:

What if there happent to be like 5 guys in the church with weapons? Panic ensues and it becomes unclear who is the suspect, and they start shooting each other. Thus adding more guns is probably not a solution.

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.

I dont get where you got this "everyone wants to ban rifles" from. I want to ban all guns.

i got it from the posts above mine and from the mainstream media. and making guns illegal simply makes the problem worse. like in chicago. it also won't prevent guns from existing. you make them illegal and that simply means that only those willing to break the law in the first place will possess guns.

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?

and yes we have a large military. that the globalists want to turn on US citizens as a matter of fact. do you want to know what happened after katrina? the local police and the military teamed up to STEAL guns from citizens who didnt even get hit that hard by the hurricane. heres a video for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4

and no one has taken over countries without second amendments? what do you think the european union is? a group of unelected tyrants that are going to try to gain through force, what they cannot through politics. for example, greece wants out because they replaced their leader with someone no one even heard of before. what happens to the citizens of greece if the union tries to take that country by force?

and yes, some dictators were quite popular. thats how venezuela became communistic. the citizens regret their decision now. and without guns, they cannot take their country back.

also dont assume i like democracy. FUCK democracy, our founding fathers compared it to two wolves arguing over which nation to devour next. we were born a republic, and god willing we shall remain a republic.

[jtpitner]

You are an idiot. Good half a thought bro.

[Potjeh]

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.

[synaris]

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.

the second amendment PROTECTS the first. if you dont have have the second then you WILL LOSE the first.

[Potjeh]

Except it doesn't. Go try and resist the government with arms, you'll be gunned down and everyone will just write you off as one of them crazy conspiracy theorists. Heck, they'll probably use the incident to further restrict people's rights. But sure, keep on preaching NRA lines like they're gospel, it's not like this organization exists to serve arms manufacturers rather than citizens.

[Ysh]

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?

I hope I will never know.

Look, there is a far more powerful constitutional weapon against government tyranny. It's called the 1st Amendment.

1st amendment is useful, but its use do not make 2nd amendment not useful.

Too bad you guys have no idea what to do with it, though.

Men are not very rational creature. This is unfortunate I think.

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.

This is speculation of course. I think maybe if there is revolution, I will stay neutral for as long as I am able to do it. Many men might think as I do here. I do not know if thing is as neatly black and white as you have put it here.

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.

United States American federal government is disaster, this is sure. My blood is as red as any of other United States American and I still will tell this to you. Country is too big and her people I think no longer share strong culture for variety of reason.