Also, there were legitamite reasons for bombing Serbia (human rights violations) and maybe some for Afghanistan (radical Islamic group took control, although that is quite shaky),

There was no ethnic cleansing in Serbia before the bombings, the Serb military was fighting the KLA not Albanian Kosovars in general.

The current Afghan government is not better than the Taliban by much, a bit like Saudi Arabia. Does not justify invading and occupying a place.

On the German case, the woman was homeschooling the children. The government decided they own children so they kidnapped them from her and raided her house.

No it is not , it is Al-Qaeda aka the CIA.

Sweden has been doing awful things against the Sami for a long time.

https://www.laits.utexas.edu/sami/dieda/hist/race.htm

Assault rifles can be used for self-defense, sport and hunting. Very legitimate use.

The minimum wage keeps unskilled folk from working, no one would pay them more than they're worth.

Public School is about creating a loyal citizenship , not education. Folk were educated more cheaply before public education and better than now.

Teamguns it simply is not harder enough to warrant stripping folk of their freedom. And you can't use information from Britain , they falsify their data way too much. They have to find someone guilty of murder for a death to be recorded as a murder, instead of in the US where most deaths if not obviously suicide or accident are counted as a murder.

Sweden has been doing awful things against the Sami for a long time

Every country have oppressed some group of people, Sweden are no different.

they falsify their data way too much

How are you not sure everyone falsifies their data? What makes Britain different? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. You are incorrect sometimes, Butler, face it. Guns do not give you any more freedom, just a tool to kill loads of people with more efficient than any other tool.

Edited 4/18/2016 22:20:39

I could have used any other data from a country with strict gun laws and lower gun murder rate then no gun murder rate. I took Britain because it was the first I found, I could take France and Germany and have very similar results...

Darkness will prevail whilst humanity will fall!

Why normal citizens shouldn't be armed (you'll probably ask me)? Because a normal citizen is doomed to live like any other. One day that person can be reasonable and the other day it's husband/wife cheats and then we have someone that dies.

What if the government wants to prevent a citizen from living his life like any other? If they force them to eat or not eat something, or make other personal decisions for the people, what do the normal citizens do? Voting can easily be made fraudulent. Rebellions are needed in order to keep the ruling class on their toes.

Darkness will prevail anyway, no use in smashing up your small intelligence about topics which you actually have no clue about.

@GeneralPE

Are you now saying that mass shootings are needed in order to prevent government to take over your freedom? That's a new low from you...

Not mass shootings, just a rebellion. No targeting of innocents.

A gun is different then a knife, killing becomes too easy.


I strongly disagree, especially depending on the situation. If you're in a crowd, than a knife can kill people much faster and easier than a pistol. If you are trying to kill armed people than it's difficult either way.

Not mass shootings, just a rebellion. No targeting of innocents.

Then exemplify, you're defending violence to keep politicians at bay? Like a terrorist attack on the capitol for example?

I strongly disagree, especially depending on the situation. If you're in a crowd, than a knife can kill people much faster and easier than a pistol. If you are trying to kill armed people than it's difficult either way.

Now, I strongly disagree. Try pulling a knife in a crowd, you have no space to use properly your knife, there's no room and no margin of move for you. Having a knife is a bad weapon when you're surrounded. Having an uzi in a crowd is way better then a knife, a grenade is even better. I can go even further and say that a gas attack would kill more!

Specific examples to specific situations can't overtake a rule. The easier way to kill people is by using a gun, not a knife,...

Then exemplify, you're defending violence to keep politicians at bay? Like a terrorist attack on the capitol for example?

No, more like an armed march with loaded AK's right into the chamber. Tell them to get their shit together. If they shoot, shoot back. And surround the Pentagon, a few other bases, maybe bring some artillery/mortars...you get the picture.

Edited 4/19/2016 00:02:10

Ethnic violence was boiling over. The west needed to act fast.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/27/balkans17
The Taliban was an unethical country that needed to be removed.
According to Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), "no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment from showing their faces, seeking medical care without a male escort, or attending school."
Just because the CIA aided the mujahideen, the precursor to Al-Qaedia, does not mean the CIA is Al-Qaedia.
Conditions are improving for the Saami.
Assault rifles can be used for self-defense, sport and hunting. Very legitimate use.
Who uses an assault rifle for hunting? Seems like overkill. For self-defense, any other gun should do you enough justice. Sport seems like a legitamite use, so a loophole could be made for gun lodges to own them IF it were used for sport or education. Also, if people are commenting that the gun's use is for armed rebellion, then there is a pretty sensible reason for banning (revolution is not good for stability).
The minimum wage keeps unskilled folk from working, no one would pay them more than they're worth.
The minimum wage keeps the unskilled, those learning important skills or those with some skill from living homeless in most cases.
Public School is about creating a loyal citizenship , not education. Folk were educated more cheaply before public education and better than now.
What public school were you at? At our school, opinions flow freely and education is a big point. Also, with public education, parents don't have to spend time at home teaching their child and can spend much more time working. Also, if an idea worked in the past doesn't mean it will work in the future in the same way.

Even though the idea might seem pleasant, I wouldn't support such a thing against those fuc*ers. People would die in vain. Gvt wouldn't let you march to the capitol and a blood bath would occur, be certain of it.

Also, if people are commenting that the gun's use is for armed rebellion, then there is a pretty sensible reason for banning (revolution is not good for stability).

Stability is not good for freedom.

Letting people massaracre will lead to civil war.
Civil war is not good for living in general.

Also, just because you don't agree with someone's policy doesn't mean you go slaughter the leadership.

Would the world have been better if people had rebelled against Hitler, or Mao? Sometimes rebellion saves lives. however, that isn't the point. In the words of Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

1) "Would the world have been better if people had rebelled against Hitler, or Mao? Sometimes rebellion saves lives." Sometimes rebellions cost lives and lead to more oppressive regimes than before. Just because some examples are true doesn't mean all are true.
2) "No, more like an armed march with loaded AK's right into the chamber. Tell them to get their shit together. If they shoot, shoot back. And surround the Pentagon, a few other bases, maybe bring some artillery/mortars...you get the picture." A horrible idea, since many far right and left groups would take the initiative to either help or hurt your movement, and after fighting begins, let the bloodbath commence. Don't think that this would help your liberties, as both fronts would trample on the freedom of the other groups in order to establish their ideology. Does this sound like freedom?

^People rebelled against both lol. They've got all merciless slaughtered and chased down.

No room to use a knife in a crowd? I don't know how to argue against that without sounding like a psychopath, congratulations, you used a good arguing strategy as opposed to a good argument.

Anyways, Guns are the right of the people. Now I don't care what the founding fathers said, even me being an American, I think Switzerland is the perfect example of how guns can both be a part of a countries culture, as well as reduce crime.

Switzerland had 14 gun-related homicides in 2014, giving it a gun-related homicide rate of 0.23 per 100,000.

Let's take for example your country, Brazil. It has very, very strict gun laws, a 30 second research says no having guns outside a house or something, yet it has gun homicide rates almost 5 times as high as the United States. Most of the gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.

tl;dr what you hear on the media and what you hear from people on this forum (including me), are nowhere near the truth.