How liberty ends?

[EyeBRollin]

In other words, you are in favour of banning /severely restricting guns like these "safer and more politically stable" countries have done (and the Democrats want to do). I rest my case.

Firearm restrictions work. This isn’t rocket science.

 

[EyeBRollin]

You literally just came out and gaslit me immediately in responses to a post analyzing gaslighting. It really is that pathological: you have no idea how bad that just looked.

Accusing others of child abuse because they don’t agree is one of the most deranged ad hominem attacks one can make.

 

[EyeBRollin]

They were functionally banned in several democrat-controlled cities which is why litigation had to be brought to begin with to establish the right...

Guns are not banned in any city or state in the USA.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Firearm restrictions work. This isn’t rocket science.

Well you certainly don't strike me as a rocket scientist

 

[HaleyBaron]

Just like communist ideals, libertarianism only works in theory. Society needs government and taxation to survive. Good luck surviving without a military or police force, you would end up like war torn African nation.

I'm pretty sure society survived before the government and taxes. Like, most of human history. Having your own militia and force was not unheard of.

 

[speed dawg]

Guns are not banned in any city or state in the USA.

Only because the NRA is one of the most powerful special interest advocacy groups in the country. If that ever ceases to be true, liberals will try to restrict/ban as much as possible. Other countries were mentioned - well, those countries are more docile and have less violent people ON THE WHOLE. The US, guns or no guns, is a violent country. It's best to have protection.

Exhibit A: The riots of 2020. Guns are the only thing that kept people in check. There's a certain segment of the US population that simply wants to see the country burn, and those sh*tballs need to be regulated. Guns do that.

 

[AttackFormation]

Libertarianism works very well provided that it's not taken to an extreme. The U.S. was founded as a libertarian nation and by all accounts it did very well for the first 200 years of its existence. Incidentally, things are now getting worse as the U.S is becoming less libertarian. Libertarianism does not mean anarchy and no government. It means limited and responsible government. It also means that individual freedoms cannot be too easily discarded in favour of the common good.

Yeah... nah. USA was absolutely not founded as a right libertarian nation. The core principle of right libertarianism is the nonaggression principle, and USA was founded on violating it.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Only because the NRA is one of the most powerful special interest advocacy groups in the country. If that ever ceases to be true, liberals will try to restrict/ban as much as possible. Other countries were mentioned - well, those countries are more docile and have less violent people ON THE WHOLE. The US, guns or no guns, is a violent country. It's best to have protection.

Exhibit A: The riots of 2020. Guns are the only thing that kept people in check. There's a certain segment of the US population that simply wants to see the country burn, and those sh*tballs need to be regulated. Guns do that.

Before the Nazis and Soviet Union could rise, they first had to remove guns from the people. Only after that happened were they able to take over. The rioters of last year were paid soldiers of the state to cause mayhem and destruction, and all the videos of them trying to go into neighborhoods or city urban areas showed that people with guns were the ones to stop them. The news did not cover the suburban living folk who literally threatened them with guns in their hands. Or the gangsters in the mexican neighborhoods who told them the **** off. I'm pretty some people died during that.

Gun is the #1 defense we have against any force, and people like EyeBRollin just doesn't get that.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Is this how our liberty ends in the western world?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Only because the NRA is one of the most powerful special interest advocacy groups in the country. If that ever ceases to be true, liberals will try to restrict/ban as much as possible.

The same NRA that is funded by Russia?

 

[AttackFormation]

A quote without context backed up with appeal to an arbitrary authority figure...

 

[EyeBRollin]

Gun is the #1 defense we have against any force, and people like EyeBRollin just doesn't get that.

Which “force” are you supposedly defending against?

Exhibit A: The riots of 2020. Guns are the only thing that kept people in check. There's a certain segment of the US population that simply wants to see the country burn, and those sh*tballs need to be regulated. Guns do that.

The only recent riot was January 6, 2021.

 

[AttackFormation]

Before the Nazis and Soviet Union could rise, they first had to remove guns from the people. Only after that happened were they able to take over.

That's putting the cart before the horse a bit mate, in both cases they could only enact their gun legislations because they had come to power. And they could come to power because they defeated their enemies in civil wars after WW1, which they needed guns to fight. Also, both the bolsheviks and nazis banned guns for their enemies but not members of their own parties, modern gun legislation doesnt look like that.

 

[HaleyBaron]

That's putting the cart before the horse a bit mate, in both cases they could only enact their gun legislations because they had come to power. And they could come to power because they defeated their enemies in civil wars after WW1, which they needed guns to fight. Also, both the bolsheviks and nazis banned guns for their enemies but not members of their own parties, modern gun legislation doesnt look like that.

They never had power until the guns were removed. Just like today where the government still doesn't have ultimate power until they remove every last gun off the street. Modern gun legislation is exactly like that: only the police of the state gets to hold the power of violence, which is why all the Democrat strongholds enforce big police, and is also why they tend to have the largest crime cause they try to demean the people who want to keep their guns. The struggle of citizen vs police is not black and white, and I support anyone who has a gun period.

 

[AttackFormation]

They never had power until the guns were removed. Just like today where the government still doesn't have ultimate power until they remove every last gun off the street. Modern gun legislation is exactly like that: only the police of the state gets to hold the power of violence, which is why all the Democrat strongholds enforce big police, and is also why they tend to have the largest crime cause they try to demean the people who want to keep their guns. The struggle of citizen vs police is not black and white, and I support anyone who has a gun period.

If you mean they didnt have informal power until they actually removed the guns, then all right.

I cant comment much on the whole social situation in the rest of the post unfortunately, dont live in USA.

 

[speed dawg]

The same NRA that is funded by Russia?

I'm fine with this, hope they keep donating.

Which “force” are you supposedly defending against?

The only recent riot was January 6, 2021.

Any force that comes my way. Not to mention the big groups of unruly mobs of 'teens' (LOL) that are usually out looking for trouble.

Certainly you can avoid most all trouble by staying out of shady places, being aware of surroundings, etc. But you can't control everything, and I'm not going to sit around and throw hands with guys bigger than me or when I'm outnumbered. Most things people do or pay for are for emergencies only (generators, insurance, etc.). Guns are no different.

I prefer law and order, not chaos.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm fine with this, hope they keep donating.

Cool wit neo-fascist authoritarian regimes, got it.

Any force that comes my way. Not to mention the big groups of unruly mobs of 'teens' (LOL) that are usually out looking for trouble.

Certainly you can avoid most all trouble by staying out of shady places, being aware of surroundings, etc. But you can't control everything, and I'm not going to sit around and throw hands with guys bigger than me or when I'm outnumbered.

Exhibit A of USA being pussified. People would rather shoot someone than throw hands. Can’t blame “the left” for that one.

 

[speed dawg]

People would rather shoot someone than throw hands.

Absolutely. I'm not stubborn or prideful enough to understand that there are some folks I cannot handle and by 'throwing hands' with them, I am most likely contributing to my own demise. You can have that sh*t.

The smart will survive. The stupid brutes will all give each other brain damage. And that leaks out to other areas too, even guns. That's why the gang-bangers are blowing each other away, they let people like you shame them.

Natural selection.

ETA: If I break down on the side of the highway in Big City, USA, at 2 am and a car load of thugs roll up behind me, I am dead. Unless I have a gun. And in that case, I guess @EyeBRollin would prefer I do nothing, just give up my stuff, because by dang, I owe it to the thugs. That's his mindset. It's like cancer. But what if, instead, they get out and approach me, and I fire off some shots, and they drive off, but one of them gets hit and dies. Isn't the world a better place at that point? And wouldn't the rest of them think twice about robbing somebody next time?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Absolutely. I'm not stubborn or prideful enough to understand that there are some folks I cannot handle and by 'throwing hands' with them, I am most likely contributing to my own demise. You can have that sh*t.

The smart will survive. The stupid brutes will all give each other brain damage. And that leaks out to other areas too, even guns. That's why the gang-bangers are blowing each other away, they let people like you shame them.

Natural selection.

Herein lies the problem. Threat of violence keeps people in check. Natural selection is you either avoid physical confrontation altogether or just get your ass whooped. Nothing humbles a man quicker.

 

[speed dawg]

Herein lies the problem. Threat of violence keeps people in check. Natural selection is you either avoid physical confrontation altogether or just get your ass whooped. Nothing humbles a man quicker.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But the world isn't a perfect place. Like I said before, you can avoid most bad situations by simply being smart. But sometimes you run up against people in this world who are looking for trouble. I guess that has never happened to you. People do not fight fair, and you can get your ass permanently damaged over some stupid ego stunt.

Guns neutralize, and allow for even more natural selection. You have to be smart and able, rather than just able. I didn't make the rules, but I know how to play the game.