The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Alvecia]

None of which has anything to do with guns.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. In the UK, because you failed to recognize gun rights, you have a tyrannical government.

Hardly. We have a government elected by the people. If that is not what the people want, well, we'll see come this next general election won't we.
Don't need guns for that.

[Great Nepal]

Of course not. Enjoy your government-controlled internet, hate speech laws, censorship, and CCTV cameras.

None of which has anything to do with guns.

Unless you subscribe to the naive fantasy that when government starts doing shit things, if you have guns you could shoot the army and take over which will obviously make things better.

[Alvecia]

So?

People in some places have a stronger inclination to crime.

I'm still failing to see your point

[Randsbeik]

None of which has anything to do with guns.

Unless you subscribe to the naive fantasy that when government starts doing shit things, if you have guns you could shoot the army and take over which will obviously make things better.

It seemed to work in 1776 and in 1973.

It isn't exactly taking over, though. It's self-defense.

[Vassenor]

It's pretty much a stock spiel that the best response is more guns and less brown people.

"Brown people" has nothing to do with it. This is ideology. You know, the thing that people choose to follow. If it means closing off borders to countries with high potential for terrorists and watching neighborhoods more prone to terrorist activity, then that is what must be done.

I'd really like to hear your solution, though.

So you'd have been fine kicking out the Irish during the 70s then?

[Randsbeik]

"Brown people" has nothing to do with it. This is ideology. You know, the thing that people choose to follow. If it means closing off borders to countries with high potential for terrorists and watching neighborhoods more prone to terrorist activity, then that is what must be done.

I'd really like to hear your solution, though.

So you'd have been fine kicking out the Irish during the 70s then?

When did I mention deportation?

[Great Nepal]

Unless you subscribe to the naive fantasy that when government starts doing shit things, if you have guns you could shoot the army and take over which will obviously make things better.

It seemed to work in 1776 and in 1973.

With support of the France and when armies didn't have tanks and bombers. When US backed the army into taking over. That's 0/2?

[Randsbeik]

It seemed to work in 1776 and in 1973.

With support of the France and when armies didn't have tanks and bombers. When US backed the army into taking over. That's 0/2?

The French were about on the same level of armaments as the civilian militias. As for the latter, governments can be overthrown; that's the point I'm trying to make.

[Great Nepal]

With support of the France and when armies didn't have tanks and bombers. When US backed the army into taking over. That's 0/2?

The French were about on the same level of armaments as the civilian militias. As for the latter, governments can be overthrown; that's the point I'm trying to make.

Yes because as I pointed out armies in 1776 were far less armed than armies in 2017 and even then overthrowing a government required help of a nationstate. In 1973, army overthrew the government not the people; since British armies still has guns, we're good.

[Eastfield Lodge]

None of which has anything to do with guns.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. In the UK, because you failed to recognize gun rights, you have a tyrannical government.

Are you saying that citizens should be allowed to assassinate politicians with supposedly tyrannical views?

[Vassenor]

None of which has anything to do with guns.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. In the UK, because you failed to recognize gun rights, you have a tyrannical government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not seeing a whole lot about tyranny. Then again everyone seems to ignore the "well regulated militia" bit as well when it's inconvenient for them, so...

[Randsbeik]

The French were about on the same level of armaments as the civilian militias. As for the latter, governments can be overthrown; that's the point I'm trying to make.

Yes because as I pointed out armies in 1776 were far less armed than armies in 2017 and even then overthrowing a government required help of a nationstate. In 1973, army overthrew the government not the people; since British armies still has guns, we're good.

Americans were outnumbered and the French soldiers made it less of a problem. If you want a more even example, take the Mexican Revolution.

[Minzerland II]

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. In the UK, because you failed to recognize gun rights, you have a tyrannical government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not seeing a whole lot about tyranny. Then again everyone seems to ignore the "well regulated militia" bit as well when it's inconvenient for them, so...

[...]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[...]

You, also, seem to have conveniently ignored the derivative that both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were based upon. Well done.

Anyways, this is a threadjack.

[Randsbeik]

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. In the UK, because you failed to recognize gun rights, you have a tyrannical government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not seeing a whole lot about tyranny. Then again everyone seems to ignore the "well regulated militia" bit as well when it's inconvenient for them, so...

"The security of a free state"

As for the "well-regulated militia," all that means is civilians organizing themselves into a fighting force.

[Salandriagado]

Gun crime in the UK is probably at a comfortably negligble level. You can never get rid of it completely. Adding more guns into the equation will probably only cause more problems than it's worth.

Really? Because Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, and somehow, they have very low gun crime rates.

Huh.

Mandatory gun ownership with the ammo for those guns kept in government owned warehouses.

[Ifreann]

Gun control is totally relevant. If only these teenagers had been armed, then they could have shot the bomb, and shot the shrapnel out of the air.

[Great Nepal]

Yes because as I pointed out armies in 1776 were far less armed than armies in 2017 and even then overthrowing a government required help of a nationstate. In 1973, army overthrew the government not the people; since British armies still has guns, we're good.

Americans were outnumbered and the French soldiers made it less of a problem. If you want a more even example, take the Mexican Revolution.

Meaning the French state bailed US out, yes.
Something that resulted in ousting of the existing government followed by a worse government followed by a civil war between the victors... not really a poster child.

[Randsbeik]

Americans were outnumbered and the French soldiers made it less of a problem. If you want a more even example, take the Mexican Revolution.

Meaning the French state bailed US out, yes.
Something that resulted in ousting of the existing government followed by a worse government followed by a civil war between the victors... not really a poster child.

Irrelevant. It was a successful (as in the civilians won) civilian revolt.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Really? Because Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, and somehow, they have very low gun crime rates.

Huh.

Mandatory gun ownership with the ammo for those guns kept in government owned warehouses.

Not to mention that it's mostly illegal to carry.

[Great Nepal]

Meaning the French state bailed US out, yes.
Something that resulted in ousting of the existing government followed by a worse government followed by a civil war between the victors... not really a poster child.

Irrelevant. It was a successful (as in the civilians won) civilian revolt.

If that is what a civilian revolt looks like, I'm gonna pass on the whole people with gunz overthrowing government thing.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Meaning the French state bailed US out, yes.
Something that resulted in ousting of the existing government followed by a worse government followed by a civil war between the victors... not really a poster child.

Irrelevant. It was a successful (as in the civilians won) civilian revolt.

That's like saying that Libya was a successful civilian's revolt.

[Ifreann]

Civilians overthrowing the government? Totally on topic. Because...um...something...

[Randsbeik]

Mandatory gun ownership with the ammo for those guns kept in government owned warehouses.

Not to mention that it's mostly illegal to carry.

If civilians could carry, do you really think it'd become a bloodbath overnight?

Civilians overthrowing the government? Totally on topic. Because...um...something...

You're right; this was a bit of a derail. To give you a quick rundown, it went from "could guns stop this?" to "should civilians be able to own guns?" to "can civilians with guns overthrow the state?"

A bit ridiculous, but as far as the original topic goes, there really isn't much more to talk about.

[Alvecia]

Civilians overthrowing the government? Totally on topic. Because...um...something...

Subliminal messages in Ariana Grande songs encouraging young teenage girls to take up arms against the tyrannical government *nods*

[Eastfield Lodge]

Three more arrests today by police, the first arrest on Tuesday named as the bomber's older brother.