Those are strong opinions coming from someone who's never had to wager anything.
Isn't it strange how that blatant racist hates America and all of its people based on blatantly fallacious and faulty reasoning, yet still thinks they should be unarmed and only America's Enforcers should have access to guns?
It's like hating cops, but also thinking only cops should be allowed to own guns. At the same time. Doublethink. Like someone saying "Fuck America's government, but also America's government should be able to censor and arrest whoever they want".
I'll never understand kids like that who think repeating the "America bad" marxist lies they were taught in high school makes them "Edgy". It makes them ignorant of history. They aren't "Free thinkers", the people who get censored for disagreeing with them are free thinkers. White americans ended the slave trade in Africa that existed for centuries before they showed up, tribes in africa and native american tribes were conquering and enslaving each other and we put a stop to that once we eventually collectively agreed that yes, slavery is bad. If America is bad because it conquered land, guess what? No land originally belonged to anyone, every group conquered their own land at some point and then had it taken by someone else. Bring up anything bad that's ever been done to white Americans now or in the past and ask if they deserve sympathy for that, and the marxist will say "hahaha they deserve that for being weak and letting it happen". Ask if the marxist's Favourite Groups of "Oppwessed People" deserve what happened to them for being weak, and he'll explode. Hatred motivates him, an irrational hatred of white people and their success without any understanding of what made them successful. They're just Useful Idiots who will vote for ANYTHING if they're told it will hurt the people they hate.
By the way, this post (like my previous ones in this thread) exposes obvious hypocrisies in the anti-gunrights mob and their mindset. Hating a government while also thinking it should have absolute power over its people is irrational.
That is relevant to a discussion on whether Liberals should be able to restrict mankind's gun rights a little more this week or not. Nobody cried off-topic when I was insulted for having a brony avatar lmao. (also what's with lefties whining about Fox News sometimes? I don't like fox news either, I'm a Libertarian and fox news is owned by the same megacorps as NBC, CNN, and the rest of them)
Another explanation on why gun rights are good and necessary is also relevant, even though the anti-rights "activists" don't read those. At the best of times, anti-gunrights bans are forced onto countries that don't need them. They barely change anything and can't be proven to improve life in nations that already had declining crime rates. They might even cause a crime rate spike, or contribute to crime rates rising after the ban. On bad days, anti-gunrights bans aid and abet leftyfascist commie tyrants. There is no good reason to ever support gun bans and oppose human rights.
I'm going to bring back an overlooked argument I used a few pages back, I hope that's okay. More people are in this thread, so hopefully someone will be able to say something in response to it instead of simply ignoring it.
If the countries Gun Control Advocates tend to use as examples to promote Gun Control tend to reveal that Gun Control isn't all that effective, what can we learn from the example Gun Control Advocates don't use?
Even if Australia, the UK, and Japan were good examples of gun control laws working (Which they're not), why would that be the end of the story?
Why shouldn't we weigh these examples against National-Socialist Germany, Communist Russia, or Maoist Communist China?
The government banning guns before becoming tyrannical is pretty relevant when you remember that the Constitution was written to guarantee the rights of its citizens, and the second amendment was intended to give people the right to own guns they would need to defend themselves and stop tyrants.
Who would look at history and think their government would do a better job of protecting them if they became MORE weak and helpless? Not someone who should be allowed to make decisions that affect me. If you want to give up your guns, do so. Get a tattoo, try a fad diet, I don't give a shit what you do to yourself. If you want to take my guns, try it yourself and see how well that works out for you, instead of trying to get jackboots to do your oppression for you. The debate over gun laws would be a better and more constructive place without religious nuts whose understanding of the topic begins and ends at "all guns bad. gun bans good. only gun nuts disagree. beep boop calling me a NPC is racist".
Remember, it's not as if there's just a couple of bad governments here and there with strict gun control laws. Literally all of the most horrific and tyrannical governments that have ever existed have had strict gun control laws. Hell, tyrannical governments that existed before guns were invented did the same shit by banning proper weapons! Remember when they had to use nunchuks and other farming tools as weapons in China? You know, because their real weapons had been confiscated by an authoritarian government?
There's a reason why tyrants love ruling over a helpless disarmed populace that can't fight back. You can basically do whatever you want to an unarmed populace.
Venezuela. The country that proved Liberal "utopian" promises only lead to dystopian nightmares. Are you sick of hearing that name yet? It's the country that transformed me from Liberal to Libertarian. Hearing what went on in that country, hearing about the rapefugees in Europe, and the "What emails? I don't know how email servers work! That information doesn't exist and only fucking racists know about it!" Liberal response to Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server, those were what convinced me to leave the left. Now I'm a Libertarian. Free Dread Pirate Roberts!
In 2012, two years before their humanitarian crisis, they banned private gun ownership. As you can probably guess, they didn't get this law passed by saying "We want to make it easier for us to oppress our people". No, they brought out the usual "Muh safety" lie, a lie The BBC helped sell. "We have to improve security!", after all.
Yeah, they improved security. For the politicians! The rich fatcats who eat well while their people starve. They get away with it because they have armed guards and the commoners don't.
The murder rate in Venezuela rose after the gun ban. And because the police are the only ones in Venezuela allowed to own guns, criminals started to target and kill cops to take their guns.
And if it wasn't clear enough that Venezuela's gun control is being weaponized against political opponents of their marxist regime, in April of 2017, Maduro gave 400,000 guns back to private citizens...
But only the ones who pledged their loyalty to him and his commie regime. The ones who "counter-protest" at peaceful protests by throwing rocks and guns at peaceful protestors. The ones who get to ride around with cops and get taken to protests. The ones who get away with shooting at peaceful protestors, while the cops get involved and start breaking limbs if good people fight back and the commies start getting their asses kicked again.
When the Venezuelan Government banned guns, was it because they were secretly planning on oppressing their people?
Honestly? It doesn't matter.
Because it still allowed them to do it.
And that's not just a stain on the credibility of "Gun Control". It's a stain on the credibility of everyone who wants to force it onto others, whether that's bit-by-bit or all at once.
