Munich Mall Shooting -

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well i'm sorry, nukes or tanks don't kill people. People kill people. I'm a law abiding citizen and my right to own weapon shouldn't be infringed.

Like I said, it's a matter of degrees. Just like it's easier to buy a black powder rifle for civil war re-enactments or deer hunting than it is to buy a pistol than it is to get a CPL than it is to buy a fully automatic rifle than it is to own an operational tank than it is to own your own personal nuclear device. Just because I don't think that there's any problem with a law-abiding citizen owning a pistol and taking a CPL class so that he can carry it to defend himself and his family (and maybe his property) doesn't mean I think it's ok for him to own a nuke.

Oh hey wait, I also already talked about that too: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=163


I'm not shitting up what was original a legitimate attempt by both of us to discuss this by saying "well Jarn says guns promote crime when they're easily accessible to people with violent thoughts, therefore he must actually agree that we should just chain everyone in the world to a wall so that no one can ever do anything violent except in their heads!" ... so why are you going full retard and saying stuff like "well Tecmos thinks some small arms are good to have in the hands of lawful and responsible citizens, therefore he must also agree I should be able to own a nuke if I want one! Lololol I sure outsmarted that dumb Yank!"?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ridiculous argument. Nukes are not available to the public. They cost about 1.8 mil each then you have to transport and store them and then need devices to launch and guide them. Cost prohibitions aside no one makes them for general use. As Azzar said some people do own tanks however.

Like the bus thing though its about intent. A man a couple of years ago who owned a construction company designed a killdozer with gun ports and a concrete and rebar exterior built on top of a bulldozer. He went on a rampage then killed himself after doing millions in damage. He planned this for more than 1 year.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

American ingenuity more dangerous than guns.

He is just grasping and flailing at this point.

His whole argument fell apart when he claimed Americans couldn't own tanks. Which is 100% categorically untrue. A large portion of Americans could own tanks if they cared enough.

Then when that wasn't good enough he added nukes. Completely flailing and ridiculous argument

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Take it up with the US government. After all, I pointed out that this was probably their logic for why you can't do these things.

Also, like I said, it's a matter of degrees. Just like it's easier to buy a black powder rifle for civil war re-enactments or deer hunting than it is to buy a pistol than it is to get a CPL than it is to buy a fully automatic rifle than it is to own an operational tank than it is to own your own personal nuclear device. Just because I don't think that there's any problem with a law-abiding citizen owning a pistol and taking a CPL class so that he can carry it to defend himself and his family (and maybe his property) doesn't mean I think it's ok for him to own a nuke.

Oh hey wait, I also already talked about that too: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=163

I guess we disagree on what degree it should be then. No offense to the founding fathers, but the 2nd amendment is so poorly written compared to the rest.. i mean they should know that "arms" would not always be swords and mousquets like in the 18th century. Who knows what "arms" is gonna be in the next 2 or 3 centuries ?

Props to you for arguing without being an asshole, it gets rare in these areas.

To the 2 nazi-wannabe: a tank without his 105mm canon and shells is not a weapon, idiots. Nukes aren't available to the public ? that doesn't mean it can't be. There's already private rocket launching business, so it must not be that pricey to make a rocket with a nuke.. if a 3rd world country like Pakistan can do it, why can't the hard working regular-joe donald trump (lol) get his own ? for his own safety, of course. Arguments based on "hurr it's too pricey" are laughable in the wealthiest country in the world.

As a conclusion, i should say that i don't really care, i'm not even an american citizen, so it doesn't even concerns me. It concerns me when i see some of you saying that if europeans had the same guns laws as the usa, we would be safer. Saying that is just denying the reality of the numbers. I have literally 4 times more chances to get killed in the usa than in france. I also think that the usa will change their gun laws at some point. I don't think it's gonna be soon, but it's gonna happen at some point.. just like you're gonna change on death penalty and abortion (way sooner for these).

Just my 2 cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nihilist_santa]

Brevik sitting in a cushy jail because of Euro laws. Hows that make you feel about the death penalty?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tecmos Deception]

It was written to ensure the populace would be a deterrent to out-of-line government. What use would outdated weapons be towards that?

And remember that the bill of rights just acknowledges inherent rights, it doesn't grant rights. Humans have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves. I think owning and carrying small arms, within reason (violent felons don't get guns, no one needs grenade launchers, stuff like thst), is a good part of that.

Even the universal declaration of human rights acknowledges an inherent right to life, liberty, and security of person. But it's clear reality that no gov can provide security of person to every individual, so they are entitled to the ability to pursue that themselves to the extent it doesn't infringe on others' rights.

What good would a declaration of rights be without any individual capacity to protect against infringement upon them by evil men?

[Raev]

Enough with the '2nd amendment protects nuclear weapons'. The US Constitution was written in 1790 or so. When they wrote 'arms', they meant firearms: pistols and rifles. These can be used defensively, to protect oneself, one's family, and one's property from criminals. A nuclear weapon does not work on a personal scale.

Originally Posted by Jarnauga

I have literally 4 times more chances to get killed in the usa than in france.

Here are some stats for you, courtesy of a liberal trying to bash Trump who is apparently unaware that he is making Trump's point and nationmaster.

French are killed at a rate of 10.5 per million people. US Whites are killed at a rate of 11.9 per million people - nearly identical. However, US Blacks are killed at a rate of 56 per million people. In other words, despite owning most of the firearms in the country American white people kill each other at basically the same rate as the French. If you want to reduce crimes, you should disarm the Blacks.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To the 2 nazi-wannabe: a tank without his 105mm canon and shells is not a weapon, idiots.

Just my 2 cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are the idiot. This is, again, completely categorically false.

Do you even read before you post??? You were provided with an example of how a tank is a WMD even without its 105mm shells...

You are just either stupid or trolling now.

[Domo]

Brevik sitting in a cushy jail because of Euro laws. Hows that make you feel about the death penalty?

I would like to study his psyche. And then do some testings...in a dark room, with drugs, cow blood, bad music and a dildo.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Enough with the '2nd amendment protects nuclear weapons'. The US Constitution was written in 1790 or so. When they wrote 'arms', they meant firearms: pistols and rifles. These can be used defensively, to protect oneself, one's family, and one's property from criminals. A nuclear weapon does not work on a personal scale.



Here are some stats for you, courtesy of a liberal trying to bash Trump who is apparently unaware that he is making Trump's point and nationmaster.

French are killed at a rate of 10.5 per million people. US Whites are killed at a rate of 11.9 per million people - nearly identical. However, US Blacks are killed at a rate of 56 per million people. In other words, despite owning most of the firearms in the country American white people kill each other at basically the same rate as the French. If you want to reduce crimes, you should disarm the Blacks.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


ETA: Honestly though they wont respect the laws as shown above so disarming wont work. There is only one solution removal by force.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

French are killed at a rate of 10.5 per million people. US Whites are killed at a rate of 11.9 per million people - nearly identical. However, US Blacks are killed at a rate of 56 per million people. In other words, despite owning most of the firearms in the country American white people kill each other at basically the same rate as the French. If you want to reduce crimes, you should disarm the Blacks.

Though to be more fair, I'm pretty sure it's a stronger correlation with socioeconomic status instead of "race."