Floyd Eye
Well-known member
No this thread is about you trying to make the case they are hypocrites because the SS has rules. Because you’re an idiot.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
The rules are hypocritical
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Gun owners didn’t make the rules.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
But gun owners get mad at some rules and not others.
Doesn’t make sense
Plus the rules are still hypocritical
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Ok let’s try this another way. I feel like we are in a verge of a breakthrough.
Does anyone think Trump is safer in a building with guns or in a building without guns?
Does anyone think Trump is safer in a building with guns or in a building without guns?
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Is there something in place to insure that NOBODY has guns ?
Music&Chaos
Well-known member
@Justin Bailey you have some of the most unproductive, time-wasting conversations on here. It's weird. It's your time, spend it how you'd like, I just wonder how many hours have been wasted. Same goes for several members for sure.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
I’m a people watcher
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Yes. Like the secret service or something
Music&Chaos
Well-known member
I can see how that would make you feel better but a 'people watcher' doesn't constantly interact. It's more like a bird watcher that keeps asking the birds why they are up making noise and chasing them around.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
If it is insured there are no guns, he’s probably safer. Just like the world. If it wasn’t for criminals having guns, the rest of us wouldn’t really need them. Except for hunting or sport usage.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
And they actually watch people and not just text back and forth with unknown, anonymous random people. And can we even be sure they’re actually people anymore ? They could be AI.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
In this scenario the birds come to me, but point completely taken.
I still see it that way though, even if a post of mine is a “catalyst” of sorts, I still like to see how people react to it. I don’t take anything here personally. I don’t think most people really mean the stuff they say either, it’s just their way of working out whatever they have have going on, so I don’t feel bad about more or less manipulating them in a way, because I think they are full of shit anyways.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
So if, hypothetically of course, all guns were removed from the world, would it be safer or not?
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Well, that depends. More people would be hungry and more people would be subjugated by superior numbered forces. More people would be enslaved by their own governments. For example if the German Jews in 1939 had guns they definitely would have been safer. But if we assume mankind has figured out how to feed itself and not try to conquer other people or subjugate it’s citizens then yeah, no guns in the world would make people safer.
It’s kind of a useless point though since that’s never gonna happen.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
A yes or no will suffice
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Well I gave you my opinion. There’s not a yes or no answer. If you leave in the existing variables the answer is no. If you don’t the answer is yes. And in either case it’s a pointless exercise to ruminate on.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Close enough. Gives me the info I was looking for
311boogieman
Well-known member
*anyway
Not to derail the thread but because people kill people lets pretend guns were never a thing. As if a striker/hammer hitting the back of a cartridge primer (bullet) would not even make that bullet fire fast enough to penetrate the skin or some such? It would be primitive but people would just resort to knives, bombs, clubs, poison, whatever. National Bomb Association has a subtle ring to it.
rsm
Well-known member
and government tyranny
Afghan goat herders did ok for not having tanks, heavy artillery, helicopters, missiles, satellite / aerial intel, and advanced fighters and bombers, against the coalition of the western imperialists.
what's funny is the US went into Afghanistan after the Taliban offered up Bin Laden to the US; i.e., the US didn't need to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and could have negotiated with the Taliban to get Bin Laden.
When the US went into Afghanistan to "get Bin Laden" it turned into "overthrow the Taliban, and install a US puppet regime", i.e., the old fabricate a reason to invade, execute a coup, and install a puppet regime (like Ukraine in 2014, Iraq in the 2000s, and Iran in the 1950s,...) which all turn out bad for the US in the long run.
Once the US invaded Afghanistan, Bin Laden fled to Pakistan; and even after the US took out Bin Laden, US forces remained in Afghanistan until the Bozo Biden "runaway" fiasco...
...all to make the Taliban great again, at the cost of trillions of US taxpayer dollars to launder for our ruling parasites
Similar threads
