Gun Control

[Gig em Aggies]

No this is Genisys how may I 'help' you?

Well, you can start by making Terminator great again!

Good news I have Linda Hamilton and Arnold are back

[Germanic Templars]

What about completely banning civilian ownership of any firearms altogether? The only persons permitted to carry firearms would be active duty military and police forces. If you’re not on active duty in the police or the military, you will arrested simply for possession of a firearm. All civilian firearms would be confiscated. Those that don’t comply face arrest. Sure, such plans go against all American ideas (2nd Amendment), but these plans are the only solution that works. Rights should not stand in the way of goals (ends>means).

Being an active duty personnel I can safely say that is the most dumbest idea since Swastika shaped wheels on a bike.

[Grinning Dragon]

What about completely banning civilian ownership of any firearms altogether? The only persons permitted to carry firearms would be active duty military and police forces. If you’re not on active duty in the police or the military, you will arrested simply for possession of a firearm. All civilian firearms would be confiscated. Those that don’t comply face arrest. Sure, such plans go against all American ideas (2nd Amendment), but these plans are the only solution that works. Rights should not stand in the way of goals (ends>means).

Hmm, I think I remember something where only the govt possessed arms, I think it was called "Shindler's List"

So, NO, HELL NO!

[Euslavia]

Not a communist (horizontal/egalitarian collectivist). I adhere to the Vysovnik principles of vertical (hierarchical) collectivism. Group>individual.

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

[The of Japan]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Good luck trying to confiscate 300 million plus guns

[Grinning Dragon]

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Good luck trying to confiscate 300 million plus guns

I'd say it is way north of 300+ million.

[Germanic Templars]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Here is a quick, non-rhetorical, question, and you can answer this however you want.. Do you know what a gun is?

[Wysten]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Basically your ingsoc "Without order and control the world would just fall apart."

[Valgora]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Fuck the central authority!

[Valgora]

Not a communist (horizontal/egalitarian collectivist). I adhere to the Vysovnik principles of vertical (hierarchical) collectivism. Group>individual.

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

[Euslavia]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

[Gig em Aggies]

That just sounds like communism with more steps.

Anyway, doesn't matter, not the topic.

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

He took a Russian word meaning high and lofty and ism on the end and made up Vysovnism and acts like its up there with communism or capitalism. It's just a bunch of bs.

[Wysten]

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

Yeah reminds of me of my one friend who ate some mushrooms and told me he met a secret society.

[Gig em Aggies]

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

You know I can make up a fake group as well and say it's real by saying they don't post online at all. You know your ploy to sound smarter would work if the only google search didn't come back to your post and nothing else.

[Thermodolia]

What about completely banning civilian ownership of any firearms altogether?

Ya fuck that.

The only persons permitted to carry firearms would be active duty military and police forces.

Because nothing bad will happen at all. Nope.

If you’re not on active duty in the police or the military, you will arrested simply for possession of a firearm.

How exactly would they know that I have a gun?

All civilian firearms would be confiscated. Those that don’t comply face arrest.

Good luck confiscating 600 million guns. Oh and you're going to have to arrest at least half the nation

Sure, such plans go against all American ideas (2nd Amendment),

Ya think?

but these plans are the only solution that works.

Ya no they aren't.

Rights should not stand in the way of goals (ends>means).

Again fuck that. Rights are paramount, if we don't uphold our rights then we have nothing

[Thermodolia]

Good luck trying to confiscate 300 million plus guns

I'd say it is way north of 300+ million.

Try 600 million

[Grinning Dragon]

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

Yeah reminds of me of my one friend who ate some mushrooms and told me he met a secret society.

I admit, this made me laugh.

[Thermodolia]

Honestly, I don't think Vysovnism even exists.
Because if you Google it, the only thing that comes up are the threads that he's mentioned it on.

Literally, if you search Vysovnism, the only results are the LWDT and this topic.

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

I hear that dragons guard the refrigerators too

[Euslavia]

I won’t deviate any further, and will refer you to this thread to better explain my position: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=427693&start=600

Back to the subject of firearm control. I do believe however, that if one rejects central authority (as the Americans seem keen to do), leaving society as a mass of self-serving individuals, then everyone should own firearms, because no organ of state authority is going to adequately protect the citizenry in such an arrangement. However, if one acknowledges the primacy of state/central authority, there should be no reason for civilians to compete with the enforcement of state authority. This competition is simply a breeding ground for civil unrest and possible (albeit unsuccessful) uprisings if citizens feel 'unhappy’ with the state for whatever reason.

Here is a quick, non-rhetorical, question, and you can answer this however you want.. Do you know what a gun is?

First, there are many types of guns (handguns-revolvers, semi-automatic handguns), carbines (shortened rifles), semi-automatic rifles, etc.). I could go on and on. I will point out that 'gun' is not really a good word, since 'gun', in the traditional sense referred to artillery pieces, not personal weapons.

I define a 'gun’ (although I hate using that inaccurate term) as any device that propels a projectile through a tube using accelerating gas (air, CO2, smoke from gunpowder, etc.), resulting in near-supersonic or higher speeds (245 metres per second). A firearm, specifically, is any of the above defined weapons that exploits the combustion of a solid (or liquid) chemical to achieve the accelerated gas. Moreover, the process is contained in a single object, the round, which contains the bullet (aerodynamic projectile), the casing housing the powder that is attached to the bullet, and the primer (spark generator). Most bullets (centerfire) have a specifically (centrally) located primer that must be struck to ignite the powder.

Anyway, enough technical talk. I hope that I have shown that I know what 'guns’ are (I have even regularly fired 5,5 mm rifles at one point in my life).

[Wysten]

Here is a quick, non-rhetorical, question, and you can answer this however you want.. Do you know what a gun is?

First, there are many types of guns (handguns-revolvers, semi-automatic handguns), carbines (shortened rifles), semi-automatic rifles, etc.). I could go on and on. I will point out that 'gun' is not really a good word, since 'gun', in the traditional sense referred to artillery pieces, not personal weapons.

I define a 'gun’ (although I hate using that inaccurate term) as any device that propels a projectile through a tube using accelerating gas (air, CO2, smoke from gunpowder, etc.), resulting in near-supersonic or higher speeds (245 metres per second). A firearm, specifically, is any of the above defined weapons that exploits the combustion of a solid (or liquid) chemical to achieve the accelerated gas. Moreover, the process is contained in a single object, the round, which contains the bullet (aerodynamic projectile), the casing housing the powder that is attached to the bullet, and the primer (spark generator). Most bullets (centerfire) have a specifically (centrally) located primer that must be struck to ignite the powder.

Anyway, enough technical talk. I hope that I have shown that I know what 'guns’ are (I have even regularly fired 5,5 mm rifles at one point in my life).

Translation
Google
Control C
Control V

[Euslavia]

It’s official membership is quite secretive and they refuse to post online about their activities (at least by name). But believe me, they’re real. One of my friends belongs to the ‚organisation’ and told me about/gave me non-digital copies of their work. Also, they are not an English-language based group, so if they were to have any internet existence, they would probably frequent non-English spheres.

You know I can make up a fake group as well and say it's real by saying they don't post online at all. You know your ploy to sound smarter would work if the only google search didn't come back to your post and nothing else.

Is Google the only search engine? Is English the only possible language to search in? Again, I’m only something of a mouthpiece for my friend, who categorically refuses to use the internet for political purposes.

[Digital Planets]

I sexually identify as a gun.

Pls no controlerino gun activists

[Valgora]

First, there are many types of guns (handguns-revolvers, semi-automatic handguns), carbines (shortened rifles), semi-automatic rifles, etc.). I could go on and on. I will point out that 'gun' is not really a good word, since 'gun', in the traditional sense referred to artillery pieces, not personal weapons.

I define a 'gun’ (although I hate using that inaccurate term) as any device that propels a projectile through a tube using accelerating gas (air, CO2, smoke from gunpowder, etc.), resulting in near-supersonic or higher speeds (245 metres per second). A firearm, specifically, is any of the above defined weapons that exploits the combustion of a solid (or liquid) chemical to achieve the accelerated gas. Moreover, the process is contained in a single object, the round, which contains the bullet (aerodynamic projectile), the casing housing the powder that is attached to the bullet, and the primer (spark generator). Most bullets (centerfire) have a specifically (centrally) located primer that must be struck to ignite the powder.

Anyway, enough technical talk. I hope that I have shown that I know what 'guns’ are (I have even regularly fired 5,5 mm rifles at one point in my life).

Translation
Google
Control C
Control V

Honestly, still better than what some other people would put as an answer.

[Euslavia]

First, there are many types of guns (handguns-revolvers, semi-automatic handguns), carbines (shortened rifles), semi-automatic rifles, etc.). I could go on and on. I will point out that 'gun' is not really a good word, since 'gun', in the traditional sense referred to artillery pieces, not personal weapons.

I define a 'gun’ (although I hate using that inaccurate term) as any device that propels a projectile through a tube using accelerating gas (air, CO2, smoke from gunpowder, etc.), resulting in near-supersonic or higher speeds (245 metres per second). A firearm, specifically, is any of the above defined weapons that exploits the combustion of a solid (or liquid) chemical to achieve the accelerated gas. Moreover, the process is contained in a single object, the round, which contains the bullet (aerodynamic projectile), the casing housing the powder that is attached to the bullet, and the primer (spark generator). Most bullets (centerfire) have a specifically (centrally) located primer that must be struck to ignite the powder.

Anyway, enough technical talk. I hope that I have shown that I know what 'guns’ are (I have even regularly fired 5,5 mm rifles at one point in my life).

Translation
Google
Control C
Control V

Try searching for what I just wrote. I never copied nor pasted anything into this post. I actually wrote it myself.

[Len Hyet]

You know I can make up a fake group as well and say it's real by saying they don't post online at all. You know your ploy to sound smarter would work if the only google search didn't come back to your post and nothing else.

I’m only something of a mouthpiece for my friend, who categorically refuses to use the internet for political purposes.

Well then there's no real point in engaging with you is there?

Formulate your own opinions based on research and evidence, don't just parrot the ones your friend gives you.