NationStates

The Emerald Legion wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Trump can't do that either.

The fuck you talking about? Of course he could. He won't, but won't and can't are two different things.

trump: "windmill noises cause cancer! "

Are you so sure he never would authorize a nuclear attack? Does this sound like the workings of a sane mind?

Rastrian wrote:Imagine a Mortal Kombat battle.

PRESIDENT TRUMP

versus

MAN WITH MACHINE GUN

How would that go down?

Now yes, of course, Donald Trump can make some pretty major decisions that affect the world. But no-one is arguing for the right for everyone to own a Donald Trump. Or any president for that matter. Just the ability to help decide who that person is in accordance with their interests.

So, which is more dangerous, the President or the Gun? The President, obviously. But once I have a gun, there's no limit to what I can do. Once I've voted, the person who's been voted in is beholden to laws. Legal justice can't always be effectively carried out on a man with a machine gun before they cause a lot of damage.

Perhaps the President does have access to a Big Red Button. But it should be the right of every person to ensure that someone who'd push that button isn't elected to the most powerful position on Earth.

And 45% of Americans voted for a guy who actually claimed he would use a nuclear bomb in 2016. He said he would nuke ISIS, which while morally on paper sounds great, would cause millions of innocent people to die as well and would spread radiation sickness across Syria and Iraq and probably much of the levant. I genuinely believe the president wouldn't be cold to the idea of "let's just nuke them," considering he has the mind of a 12 year old.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Rastrian wrote:Imagine a Mortal Kombat battle.

PRESIDENT TRUMP

versus

MAN WITH MACHINE GUN

How would that go down?

Now yes, of course, Donald Trump can make some pretty major decisions that affect the world. But no-one is arguing for the right for everyone to own a Donald Trump. Or any president for that matter. Just the ability to help decide who that person is in accordance with their interests.

So, which is more dangerous, the President or the Gun? The President, obviously. But once I have a gun, there's no limit to what I can do. Once I've voted, the person who's been voted in is beholden to laws. Legal justice can't always be effectively carried out on a man with a machine gun before they cause a lot of damage.

Perhaps the President does have access to a Big Red Button. But it should be the right of every person to ensure that someone who'd push that button isn't elected to the most powerful position on Earth.

And 45% of Americans voted for a guy who actually claimed he would use a nuclear bomb in 2016. He said he would nuke ISIS, which while morally on paper sounds great, would cause millions of innocent people to die as well and would spread radiation sickness across Syria and Iraq and probably much of the levant. I genuinely believe the president wouldn't be cold to the idea of "let's just nuke them," considering he has the mind of a 12 year old.

...
Seriously?
America, you fucked up.

Pretty silly false dichotomy. For example, you can restrict a presidents power and influence by checks and balances within the law. You can regulate guns, a perfectly sensible middle ground between banning and letting every Tom, Dick and Harry from walking around with an LSAT.

Also voting is already regulated and no democrat party politician I know of has said anything against that.
We also know that this argument is made in bad faith by republican politicians, as they openly boast in private about how many democrats they will stop from voting with their new restrictions.

And machine guns are very dangerous. A person with a machine gun could wipe out a bus without even needing to reload. The less of them there are in society, the less likely someone will grab one and use it.

It’s pretty funny that pro-gun people always shout “guns aren’t dangerous, people are!” Then support making it very easy for people to get guns.... you know, those people who are the real dangers behind a gun. Which is a bit silly.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
That's my point... Automatic weapons should be legal and unrestricted. It's just as much of a right, as your right to vote. Yet while one is verboten to so much as sneeze in the direction of, the other is increasingly attacked in more and more blatant ways.

Yeah that totally wont end badly at all, absolutely not.

It's doubtful it would have much of an effect on anything. Petty terrorists prefer high powered semiautomatic rifles, ODC's prefer handguns, and domestic abusers use whatever they have to hand. Machineguns are too expensive for anyone except rich eccentrics and large gangs, who already have channels to get them.

Chan Island wrote:Pretty silly false dichotomy. For example, you can restrict a presidents power and influence by checks and balances within the law. You can regulate guns, a perfectly sensible middle ground between banning and letting every Tom, Dick and Harry from walking around with an LSAT.

Also voting is already regulated and no democrat party politician I know of has said anything against that.
We also know that this argument is made in bad faith by republican politicians, as they openly boast in private about how many democrats they will stop from voting with their new restrictions.

And machine guns are very dangerous. A person with a machine gun could wipe out a bus without even needing to reload. The less of them there are in society, the less likely someone will grab one and use it.

It’s pretty funny that pro-gun people always shout “guns aren’t dangerous, people are!” Then support making it very easy for people to get guns.... you know, those people who are the real dangers behind a gun. Which is a bit silly.

Machine guns are NOT dangerous, accuracy degrades firing full auto, not to mention machine guns are used in suppressive fire applications.
I also find it laughable, the place some people automatically go to in regards to private ownership of machine guns, is a machine gun being used to shoot up buses, cars, trucks, planes, trains, into large groups of people, etc, as if that is the only thing owners are going to want to shoot up or would be driven to shoot up, it's fucking stupid and shows ignorance.
I've sat behind the giggle switch many a times, I get better accuracy with my semi-auto rifles.