They make *what* for kids!?

[Farnhamia]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

False equivalence is false. Gun owner arguments sound like this to advocates for sensible controls: "My rights! Cold dead hands! You're illiterate! It's not an assault weapon! Fuck the state! I have to defend myself from the government!" You do not make sense.

[German Shepherds]

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Show me how guns helped citizens protect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and military dictatorships all over the world.

Protip: They didn't.

Yeah, 1 man with a gun can overtake the squad of Nazis or Soviets coming into his home shooting him. And I don't think most of them were allowed guns

[Dulkadar]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

I didn't realize you could kill people from hundreds of feet away with a computer

[The New Sea Territory]

Well, the tool of institutional theft and violence deemed "Federal Government". Others who violate my rights. Anything I need to defend my life against (wild animal, foreign invader).

And don't pull the "we have tanks, you has shoguns" argument.

It would be better to attack with rifles than with stones.

Not really. As is obvious from this post, having guns only gives you the delusion that you could beat the federal government, which means at some point you might try. If you only had rocks, you would realize beforehand that you'd be screwed anyways.

I don't care whether you say I "could beat them". If they go overboard on taking my rights, I have the responsibility to defend them. I will take up arms. I will die, if necessary.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

Thanks, but the minute they come to my door ordering me to hand my gun over well they can pull it from my cold dead hands after I put some rounds down range.

High five?

[Diopolis]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

This^. And because of the threadjack, in b4 the lock.

[The Legion of War]

I'm sure those cheetahs in Kenya would definitely respect your imaginary natural rights.

They are not imaginary. You just have lived without them and dwell in the state's war-mongering arms.

And cheetahs are not humans. They do not apply.

Humans are animals. Therefore animals have rights in nature.

And no predator would respect any of your rights.

Rights wasn't even a concept back when we were wild.

[Hathradic States]

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Who? Who in over 200 years of American history had the Feds not been able to defeat, and rely upon citizen militias?

The Federal Government.

[The New Sea Territory]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

I didn't realize you could kill people from hundreds of feet away with a computer

Well, you can. Actually, you can kill from thousands of miles with a computerized drone.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

Not really. As is obvious from this post, having guns only gives you the delusion that you could beat the federal government, which means at some point you might try. If you only had rocks, you would realize beforehand that you'd be screwed anyways.

I don't care whether you say I "could beat them". If they go overboard on taking my rights, I have the responsibility to defend them. I will take up arms. I will die, if necessary.

Bump it and then high five it! Second amendment all day now and forever!

[German Shepherds]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

False equivalence is false. Gun owner arguments sound like this to advocates for sensible controls: "My rights! Cold dead hands! You're illiterate! It's not an assault weapon! Fuck the state! I have to defend myself from the government!" You do not make sense.

What doesn't make sense is you guys thinking you're doing good when you're infringing my rights that I AM INTITLED TOO and that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[Hathradic States]

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Show me how guns helped citizens protect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and military dictatorships all over the world.

Protip: They didn't.

Protip: Normally their first action is making sure the citizens are unarmed.

[Neo Arcad]

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Who? Who in over 200 years of American history had the Feds not been able to defeat, and rely upon citizen militias?

That just flew right over your head, didn't it?
Hath said that just because there's not a threat now doesn't mean we live in Candyland forevermore, and that there will never again be a threat to public safety that requires large-scale civilian insurrection or militia activity.

[German Shepherds]

High five?

Heck yeah!

[Mavorpen]

Not really. As is obvious from this post, having guns only gives you the delusion that you could beat the federal government, which means at some point you might try. If you only had rocks, you would realize beforehand that you'd be screwed anyways.

I don't care whether you say I "could beat them". If they go overboard on taking my rights, I have the responsibility to defend them. I will take up arms. I will die, if necessary.

And then you hopefully realize real life isn't Call of Duty.

[Dulkadar]

Show me how guns helped citizens protect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and military dictatorships all over the world.

Protip: They didn't.

Yeah, 1 man with a gun can overtake the squad US Marines or M1 Abrams Tanks coming into his home shooting him. And I don't think most of them were allowed guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans#Areas_of_operations

[Seangoli]

What do you need protection from?

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Riiiight.

You tell me how that 9mm handgun is going to protect you from a tank battalion. I'm sure it'll go swimmingly for you. Perhaps when the 2nd amendment was enacted this made some sort of sense. In the modern day, with modern military tech that blows anything civilians can even dream of owning out of the water, even if it were legal, there is little sense to this argument.

[Conserative Morality]

Protip: Normally their first action is making sure the citizens are unarmed.

Right, that's why Hitler loosened Weirmar Republic gun laws.

[The Serbian Empire]

The federal government. An armed populace is the only thing keeping the citizen safe from those who wish to harm the citizen. Just because that now we don't have somebody seeking to harm the people doesn't mean we won't.

Show me how guns helped citizens protect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and military dictatorships all over the world.

Protip: They didn't.

The secret is that most of them banned or heavily restricted guns first.
Fixed for inaccuracy.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

I don't care whether you say I "could beat them". If they go overboard on taking my rights, I have the responsibility to defend them. I will take up arms. I will die, if necessary.

And then you hopefully realize real life isn't Call of Duty.

Because that's every conservatives view on fighting right?

[German Shepherds]

Show me how guns helped citizens protect from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and military dictatorships all over the world.

Protip: They didn't.

Protip: Normally their first action is making sure the citizens are unarmed.

And the populace could definetly take down the squads of Nazis coming into their homes

[The New Sea Territory]

I don't care whether you say I "could beat them". If they go overboard on taking my rights, I have the responsibility to defend them. I will take up arms. I will die, if necessary.

And then you hopefully realize real life isn't Call of Duty.

I do. This isn't constructive at all. You are just trying to incite me.

I will defend my rights, with pen or sword.

[Liriena]

Irresponsible marketing campaign by gun manufacturer and unbelievably stupid parents. Both deserve to be bitchslapped by the Universe and the citizenship.

That's all I can say. I am utterly overwhelmed by the idiocy of this horror.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

High five?

Heck yeah!

Alright hell ya!

[Neo Arcad]

So since this is becoming about gun control, let me just whip out the killer here. It's not mine, but it's perfect.

“Imagine if millions of people in your country wanted to regulate computers. Except, they knew next to nothing about computers. A majority of people that want to regulate computers have never even touched one. They don’t know the difference between RAM and a motherboard. They know computers are used to do things like connect to some internet thing they’ve never been on, and have “word processors and stuff” that they’ve never seen, but they don’t understand what these things are used for. They know there are laws regulating computers and their use to some degree, but they don’t really understand those laws, because they’ve never read them.

What they want is to enact laws that limit the use of computers, but because they know next to nothing about computers, the laws they want to enact don’t make any sense. For example, they want to stop identity theft on this internet thing, so they want to pass a law that only allows you to use computers with 2GB of RAM installed, no more. That will curb identity theft online, they say.

They want to stop software piracy, so they say we should pass a law that says you can only own one computer per household.

When you tell them these things don’t make any sense, they call you a computer nut and tell you that they hope the FBI raids your home for illegal computers and shoots you. They point out that foreign nations have fewer computers than we do, and that they’re doing great because of it. They draw bizarre analogies like suggesting that if you want to own a computer, "does that mean you should get to own mind control devices, too?

This is what gun grabbers sound like to gun owners. They do not know what they’re talking about, because they’re firearms illiterate. They do not make sense."

I didn't realize you could kill people from hundreds of feet away with a computer

You're more liable to miss the point than a Kalashnikov, aren't you?
It's called an analogy. It's meant to help you understand something by giving you a point of view you can comprehend.