"Power comes from the barrel of a gun"
voting only gives you power if your in the majority whereas a gun will always empower you
voting only gives you power if your in the majority whereas a gun will always empower you
I'd rather lose the right to vote. When it comes down to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, I don't care who wins nor will my vote make an impact. Gun me.
GregGreen
Golden Member
- Dec 5, 2000
- 1,688
- 5
- 81
QFT.
In our representative democracy, my single vote does not count for much. "My" lawmakers do not create or vote for legislation or issues that I support, they vote for "the majority" wants (which is usually actually a vocal minority, seeing as most citizens are apathetic). In contrast, although I do not have a gun, if I needed to defend myself against other citizens or my government, I can do so. Seeing as American Government is continually moving towards something I may in the future need to defend myself against (even with my right to vote), I would much rather be able to hold some heat.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to take off my tin foil hat at the end of the post.
thirdeye
Platinum Member
Silly theoretical question.
The power to vote can be tightly regulated by a government. The ability of one to obtain an item is not as easily controlled.
I would give up the right to own a gun because people would still own them regardless.
The power to vote can be tightly regulated by a government. The ability of one to obtain an item is not as easily controlled.
I would give up the right to own a gun because people would still own them regardless.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Where are you going with this?
Why not ask which you'd rather give up, your cock or both hands?
What a stupid fscking question...I'm voting to give up the right to vote just to skew your pole.
Why not ask which you'd rather give up, your cock or both hands?
What a stupid fscking question...I'm voting to give up the right to vote just to skew your pole.
adairusmc
Diamond Member
- Jul 24, 2006
- 7,095
- 78
- 91
Originally posted by: loki8481
I would own a gun if I actually knew how to buy and (legally) register one
There are stores for that type of thing. It really is not hard.
Since you live in New Germany, you would be best off going to PA to get one.
Don't register if you don't have to.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I'd give up the right to bear arms.
Outlawing them won't make them vanish completely. I don't think that citizens owning small arms would discourage the government from excessively abusing its power, should it choose to try to subjugate the population. A bunch of handguns and rifles won't do much with a military that could just call in an airstrike.
Set up a resistance movement in a town, with all the legal firearms you can get. Bomber flies over, carpet bombs the whole place, no more resistance movement.
Use your right to vote, and you can make sure that you won't have to use those guns against your own government.
Outlawing them won't make them vanish completely. I don't think that citizens owning small arms would discourage the government from excessively abusing its power, should it choose to try to subjugate the population. A bunch of handguns and rifles won't do much with a military that could just call in an airstrike.
Set up a resistance movement in a town, with all the legal firearms you can get. Bomber flies over, carpet bombs the whole place, no more resistance movement.
Use your right to vote, and you can make sure that you won't have to use those guns against your own government.
Quite simply it wouldn't happen like that.
You honestly think they would blow towns to pieces, especially if you can't tell revolutionary from ordinary citizen?
Hell resistance fighters organizing into towns and groups would make things so much easier for Iraq. I wonder why they're not doing it and sticking to guerilla warfare
The negative backlash they would get from that would inspire millions across the country to raise their arms against the government. If they bombed one town to pieces, are they going to bomb mine next if they think there's resistance fighters here?
On top of that, it's going to be a lot harder to dehumanize enemy combatants. These are not foreigners that they may have a racial prejudice against already, or have a vendetta against. For the soldiers, the people they're fighting would be their neighbors, their family members, and their best friends. Not to mention I'm sure they could enlist the help of illegals, with the revolutionaries guaranteeing citizenship to any person who fights.
Simply put, an armed revolution in this country is not a thought to be taken lightly.
And use your right to vote to make sure that you won't have to use those guns against your own government? What's to stop Congress from passing a national curfew? What is your right to vote going to do if Congress and the President collude to pass any measure that gives them unbelievable amounts of power while vastly restricting the rights of the citizen?
The right to vote doesn't make sure of anything. The right to vote only matters as long as the government decides it matters.
1) I would rather lose the right to vote since it means nothing in our country. I'd feel much safer showing a gun to a chump breaking into my house than a voter registration card (which means less than your credit score in our country).
2) I vote regularly. Though I feel it makes no difference in our bullsh!t, worthless, partisan, racist, sexist, govt. (no chance in hell the dems are going to win now that the front runners are a woman and a minority).
3) NO, I don't own a gun and I am proud to say I don't ****** need to. A gun isn't going to make my neighborhood safer, nor will everyone having one make our country safer. (please look at my first answer to understand why I hate our current voting system.)
...
I live in Fort. Lauderdale and I still don't want a gun.... otherwise I would be like "them.
Guns don't solve problems.... people do.
2) I vote regularly. Though I feel it makes no difference in our bullsh!t, worthless, partisan, racist, sexist, govt. (no chance in hell the dems are going to win now that the front runners are a woman and a minority).
3) NO, I don't own a gun and I am proud to say I don't ****** need to. A gun isn't going to make my neighborhood safer, nor will everyone having one make our country safer. (please look at my first answer to understand why I hate our current voting system.)
...
I live in Fort. Lauderdale and I still don't want a gun.... otherwise I would be like "them.
Guns don't solve problems.... people do.
So you think living under Hitler or any autocratic ruler but having a gun would be cool? Yea. You are a NOBODY with the right to vote.
Democracy = right to vote. Owning weapons is nothing. You could own weapons back in the day too. Was life really good back then? Nah.
Everyone who says having weapons will allow you to get the right to vote back. Really? All you start is bloodshed and watch what civil war brings. You overthrow a government and millions die in the process. You might die. Even if you get to vote in the end, it will be one hell of a recovery. Why not just have the right to vote to begin with? Having a gun makes you feel powerful? You must have some major security issues then (besides the fact that some bum might break into your house).
I live in Berkeley where I have friends who have been mugged at gunpoint, friends who have had cars broken into multiple times, friends who were robbed at gunpoint in their own living room... I've also had my car broken into, etc etc... and you know what? I still don't find the need to own a gun. There are millions of ways to be safe, and while there's always a risk out there that your life might come in danger, the fact that I lock my doors all the time and I have always watched out for my own car and the belongings inside ever since the breakin has not gotten me in trouble for a while.
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
So they take away the right to bear arms. You're left with the right to vote. Congress and the President decide to reform the government to their liking. What are you going to do about it? Throw your ballots at them?
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
many people have claimed that the AWB of 94 cost a lot of dems their seats and that is why gun control is not such a hot topic, especially after you factor in the last decade of fbi statistics. hell, even the fox and cnn analysts say this and the media is usually pretty anti-gun.
there are a couple bans in the works and for the supporters of those, i am sure their time in office will be short because anti-gun people will vote based on emotion and their turnout for their anti-gun politician may not be so good, where as pro-gun people always turn out for their politician. again, these are not my words but of analysts on anti-gun networks, so as much as they want the facts to say otherwise, they don't.
op - why don't you put all of our rights up there? not just 2? what about freedom of speech? freedom of religion? freedom of the press? protection from unreasonable search and seizure? trial by jury? protection from quartering of troops?
there are a couple bans in the works and for the supporters of those, i am sure their time in office will be short because anti-gun people will vote based on emotion and their turnout for their anti-gun politician may not be so good, where as pro-gun people always turn out for their politician. again, these are not my words but of analysts on anti-gun networks, so as much as they want the facts to say otherwise, they don't.
op - why don't you put all of our rights up there? not just 2? what about freedom of speech? freedom of religion? freedom of the press? protection from unreasonable search and seizure? trial by jury? protection from quartering of troops?
But that's not going to happen. You're being unrealistic.
They take away your right to vote. Guess what happens? Everyone who has guns goes out blazing and the military meets them an eye for an eye. Who's going to win? You and your weapons or those Abrams tanks?
Even if you manage to survive, you think this world is going to be anything near alive when there's martial law declared everywhere?
Versus you give up your right to bear arms. Look at the other democracies out there where you can't bear arms. Not too bad is it?
What about the nations where you can't vote? Look at how this forum bashes China all the time for being communist.
I'm being unrealistic?
Have you studied any history whatsoever regarding the first half of the 20th century? Gun control and complete confiscation of firearms, and then they could really do whatever the hell they wanted. An unarmed populace is the easiest to control.
And the war in Iraq is really going swimmingly. Who said anything about meeting the military eye to eye? The US knows what it takes to win a guerilla war. If they're not willing to do it in Iraq, you really think they're going to do it here? You really think that all of the enlisted are actually going to take up arms against their fellow citizens? You think that the military is just going to carpet bomb anywhere they determine might be harboring resistance fighters?
That's just a mere taste of what would happen here. An actual full blown resistance would spell absolute disaster for the government in power. We're not going to even get into it on an economic level, where the value of the dollar would be in very serious jeopardy. And who is going to fund the military fighting its own citizens? Here's a hint, all the tax revenue is going to dry up real quick.
On top of that, we don't even want to begin to delve into what would happen with foreign powers and their involvement in the war. Would China see this as their opportunity to capitalize on the US's problems and proceed to take over massive areas in Eastern Asia, becoming an even larger superpower and gaining more resources for its expanding empire?
And as for other democracies, the US has a very distinct culture. It's the same reason why you can't use Switzerland as an example of arming a population and Japan for disarming a population. With an extremely lax border policy and plenty of coastline to smuggle in weapons, those who want weapons will still have them.
Those of us at home will be left with our knives and our baseball bats to try to defend our private property. Without the protection of private property, our country will collapse. An economy based on any form of capitalism cannot exist without the basic protection of property and the ability to defend said property. Hell, many robbers who hold people up with guns aren't willing to fire a shot, and they realize they're taking a risk every time they confront someone who very well may be armed. That's one of the reasons they pick out easy targets, like tourists and women. If you disarm everyone in the country, essentially everyone becomes an easy target.
As long as there is a possibility of a mass armed resistance, the US government has to tread lightly on what rights they erode. Self-preservation is going to be on the minds of all those in government, and by launching the US into a civil war based on a massive erosion of civil liberties, they're going completely against that. This is not because a bunch of people may get up and protest. It's because a bunch of people may get up and cause absolute hell.
Like I said before, your vote only matters as long as the government says it matters.
Give up the right to vote and using the gun you can get the right back. Give up the gun and they can take away the right to vote whenever they want.
To be honest, I could care less about either one of them. I don't intend to kill anyone nor do I care to vote for any slimeball politician.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,443
- 19,892
- 146
Really?
Tell that to the former USSR. They must have forgot that when they were beat by a bunch of civilians with small arms in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Tell that to the US Armed forces, who won every battle in Vietnam against an army of basically small arms, yet lost the war.
Tell that to the Swiss, who are the only European country to avoid invasion since Napoleon because every man of fighting age is armed.
Tell that to Britain, who was forced to the negotiating table with terrorists in Northern Ireland.
Tell that to General Colin Powell who advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly."
History is full of examples of armed citizens with mostly small arms beating off modern armies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter