This European comedy sketch explains how the world sees America’s gun problem

[Rune]

I'm sure you won't be alone but however many of of you there are, it won't even come close to being enough. You simply do not have the fire power to take on the American govt. Period.

You do realize it is against the law to use the American military against U.S.citizens correct?
And that any military command which contravenes the Constitution is illegal ?

I didn't think so.
Get back to us when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
Thanks

[ThatOwlWoman]

You do realize it is against the law to use the American military against U.S.citizens correct?
And that any military commabd which contravenes the Constitution is illegal ?

I didn't think so.
Get back to us when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
Thanks

It's also against the law to run red lights, take guns into schools and shoot kids, shoot up heroin, poach, walk around naked in public, have sex with underage persons, fire weapons into the air at New Years Eve (in most cities anyways), jaywalk, not wear a seatbelt, urinate outside, write bad checks, cheat on your taxes, sell illegal stuff, and so on -- yet these things are done every single day. Often by politicians -- the government!

You all are fond of saying that "A piece of paper" isn't going to stop ppl from doing/owning something. If it applies to civilians, it also applies to the government. As was pointed out by someone else in a different discussion, we just have to recall Waco, Ruby Ridge, Shays Rebellion.

[SmarterthanYou]

Ah, we finally found an honest gun-hugger. So you'd like to see citizens own fully-operational tanks, missile launchers (and missiles to go with them), incapacitating gases of various types and strengths, bombers, armed helicopters, etc. etc.?

if you are of the belief that the government will use those against us (we the people) then hell yes. it's the ONLY way to guarantee a free state.

[SmarterthanYou]

Who gets to define "react badly"? How bad is bad? I think Trump is a clear and present danger to our country. Does that give me the right to go to DC and eliminate the perceived threat, according to your lights?

I've thought that every president since Ford is a clear and present danger, so who do you think you're trying to impress? you might think trump is a C and P danger, but so far he hasn't sent FBI agents armed with tanks and incendiary devices against a group of religious morons to murder them, so maybe you should think about what YOU constitute clear and present dangers.

[Gotcha68]

You do realize it is against the law to use the American military against U.S.citizens correct?
And that any military command which contravenes the Constitution is illegal ?

I didn't think so.
Get back to us when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
Thanks

Against the law? You do know that the American govt pretty much does what it wants here and around the world with little concern about laws?

You have more faith in our govt than I do. That's fine.

[Rune]

Against the law? You do know that the American govt pretty much does what it wants here and around the world with little concern about laws?

You have more faith in our govt than I do. That's fine.

Read about Posse Comitatus, idiot.
If they violate Posse Comitatus and the The US constitution then they are no longer our legal government.
I believe that with the same faith that you accept your pay in Federal Reserve Notes...blind faith. Like it or leave I don't give a flying fuck about ignorant people.

[Gotcha68]

Read about Posse Comitatus, idiot.
If they violate Posse Comitatus and the The US constitution then they are no longer our legal government.
I believe that with the same faith that you accept your pay in Federal Reserve Notes...blind faith. Like it or leave I don't give a flying fuck about ignorant people.

Then they are no longer our legal govt. And then what? Any govt that takes that step isn't too concerned with being a legal govt. are they? Seriously? A whole bunch of you on here constantly kick the ass of Liberals who "depend on the govt for everything" but then also want to get pissy over those who are skeptical of our govt's potential to ignore the Constitution when it suits them.

[Rune]

Then they are no longer our legal govt. And then what? Any govt that takes that step isn't too concerned with being a legal govt. are they? Seriously? A whole bunch of you on here constantly kick the ass of Liberals who "depend on the govt for everything" but then also want to get pissy over those who are skeptical of our govt's potential to ignore the Constitution when it suits them.

What?
I am a liberal, fool.

[ThatOwlWoman]

If they violate Posse Comitatus and the The US constitution then they are no longer our legal government.

If things got to the point where they violated that law and were no longer considered the "legal government," I'm pretty sure that they would not disband the military and tell everyone to go home and live long and prosper.

At any rate, you guys got your popguns and that's fine. Hopefully things will never get to the point where you're hiding out in the hills waging guerilla warfare against the Powers That Be.

[Rune]

If things got to the point where they violated that law and were no longer considered the "legal government," I'm pretty sure that they would not disband the military and tell everyone to go home and live long and prosper.

At any rate, you guys got your popguns and that's fine. Hopefully things will never get to the point where you're hiding out in the hills waging guerilla warfare against the Powers That Be.

You do realize that the military takes an oath not to violate the US Constitution right?
I didn't think so.

[CFM]

You mean like some on here who feel it's up to them to determine that a woman who finds herself pregnant should be forced to carry it cause you all know better than her what's good for her?

I in no way indicated I want guns taken away. I said I do not understand why a civilian needs a gun that can shoot a whole lot of people in a short space of time. Why? What's your answer to that question?

As long as abortion is legal, and it is, no woman can be forced to carry that unborn child. To use that argument is disingenuous, at best.

There are many on here that believe the woman should be the sole decision maker of what goes on with her body. They claim that it's no one else's business and other people should butt out of what is her decision. The problem with that is those same people support taxpayers, meaning those that were told to butt out of the decision, being forced to provide financial assistance in various stages of the process including, but not limited to, funding contraceptives and supporting the woman/child when she can't afford the results of HER decision.

Why should taxpayers that are told to butt out be forced to pay for things you say are totally a woman's decision? I haven't forced a single woman that has a child she can't afford to support to have that child. However, many believe it's OK to force me as a taxpayer to help support it for her.

I thought you opposed people being forced to do thing with what it theirs. Guess that only applies when it comes to a woman that CHOSE to spread her legs and now doesn't like the results of having done so. I don't care how many men she screws or how many kids she has as long as if she demands to be left alone she leaves that taxpayers alone with the costs.

[ThatOwlWoman]

You do realize that the military takes an oath not to violate the US Constitution right?
I didn't think so.

You'd be wrong; I think most of us know that. So does the POTUS, yet how many times have we seen that turd stepping over the line?

So can you answer this? You (group you) claim that the 2nd Amendment is about the right to have weapons to keep a tyrannical government at bay. What sorts of weapons would this tyrannical government have, and who would be wielding them? Those pudgy bunch of fat-asses congress critters? A gang of aging balding bureaucrats? Or would it be the military which is the policing arm of the government? If it's the military and they've all sworn an oath that they will never ever break, to uphold the Constitution and not attack U.S. citizens -- what's the point of having your (group your) weapons then? Obviously by this logic there will never be a tyrannical govt. able to do anything against us because the military ppl all swore an oath not to follow unlawful orders, like attacking civilians.

[Rune]

You'd be wrong; I think most of us know that. So does the POTUS, yet how many times have we seen that turd stepping over the line?

So can you answer this? You (group you) claim that the 2nd Amendment is about the right to have weapons to keep a tyrannical government at bay. What sorts of weapons would this tyrannical government have, and who would be wielding them? Those pudgy bunch of fat-asses congress critters? A gang of aging balding bureaucrats? Or would it be the military which is the policing arm of the government? If it's the military and they've all sworn an oath that they will never ever break, to uphold the Constitution and not attack U.S. citizens -- what's the point of having your (group your) weapons then? Obviously by this logic there will never be a tyrannical govt. able to do anything against us because the military ppl all swore an oath not to follow unlawful orders, like attacking civilians.

The Military is Specifically Not the policing arm of the Gov.

Where on earth did you get the idea that the Dept. Defense is about policing the US?

Do you have any idea how many armed Federal agencies there are?

Even the Dept of Education has armanents...and billions of bullets.

Need I go on or can you think or research for yourself?

[Nordberg]

Most of us liked cartoons as a kid, then we matured and became Republicans. Maybe someday you'll be a mature adult and not a Democrat.

Many of us realize political cartooning has a long and important history. They have even won Pulitzers. Almost all newspapers have good political cartoonists. They are in almost every country in the world. Here for example. https://www.cagle.com/cartoons/ yes, you are absoiutely wrong.

[ThatOwlWoman]

The Military is Specifically Not the policing arm of the Gov.
Where on earth did you get the idea that the Dept. Defense is about policing the US?
Do you have any idea how many armed Federal agencies there are?
Even the Dept of Education has armanents...and billions of bullets.
Need I go on or can you think or research for yourself?

So when worrying incessantly over the possibility of government tyranny, just what form will that take that will require you all to have massive amounts of firepower to defend? You're claiming that the military isn't part of the govt., or that's what I'm picking up anyways, and that even if they were they have an oath not to go after American citizens. Assuming that's true, just how is this tyranny going to happen? Are you worried about some rogue Federal agency deciding to take over? What if we elected some future POTUS who really is in enthrall to the Kremlin and he orders the Natl. Guard to start rounding up "dissidents"? (Trump isn't enthrall to anything but his mirror.) That would be a great question to ask one of our resident conservaturd gun-huggers here.

How about it, RW gun-lovers.... If the govt. ordered all left-leaning citizens detained and arrested and imprisoned, would you stand up for them with your bang-bangs?