Assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment, court rules

[ill]

The ban is dumb, it doesn't help very much, there are other types of gun control which are far more meaningful that will result in a lot fewer dead people without inconviencing law-abiding gun owners much at all.

But both the right and the left are so stupid on the issue, they fight in unproductive, meaningless ways, and 30,000+ people a year keep dying.







Oh, hell no, who the fukk wants to be fukking Afghanistan.

Who the hell cares if "Russia lost"? Or "America lost"? What actually matters is that AFGHANISTAN LOST. The 40 consecutive years of fighting have made them just about the worst hellhole in the world. You want THAT kind of resistance?

100,000 Mujaheddin died killing 15,000 Russians. War killed 1-2 million civilians, injured 3 million more, led to 7 million refugees (5 million left the country and 2 million internal), opened it up to the takeover by warlords followed by the takeover by insane Islamic militants followed by the takeover by violent Americans, and destroyed any semblance of civilization in most of the country. So pretty much half the population of the country had their lives completely fukked, and the ones that survived without becoming refugees didn't have much going for them either.

"Let's adopt a strategy that will completely destroy our own civilization, so we can have the satisfaction of saying that the other guy 'didn't win'!"

On top of that, @Sukairain is right, they won because of American military assistance, anti-aircraft weapons and such, not assault weapons. RPGs, Redeyes, Stingers, Chinese heavy machine guns, etc.

On top of that, American population centers are FAR larger than Afghanistan's, and the % of Americans who are familiar with and could utilize them from a fighting standpoint is minuscule compared to those who had the capability in Afghanistan. We're domesticated people, not an affiliation of warlords.

Trying to say, "We should cape for this shyt so we can be like Afghanistan!" is some of the most misguided logic I've ever heard.

I fully agree there are heavy losses and I stated as such. Afghani's would be speaking Russians or English right now if they "lost". Their natural resources would be plundered by one of those nations. Its not. They are still their own society. Yes, the society is a hell hole because of the wars but its still THEIR society. Like I said earlier, guns are not the end all. They are a form of resistance which is more powerful than the weapon itself. Also, guns against tyranny is just one aspect of why we need ownership. There's obviously many more reasons such as self-defense and sport hunting etc. I strongly disagree with the bolded. We are an armed nation with many people having done military service. Our general population, as a whole, is better equipped than Afghanis.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Assault weapons are not protected, but nuclear/biological weapons are......under a different part of the Constitution, though.

The 'White' part.

​

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I fully agree there are heavy losses and I stated as such. Afghani's would be speaking Russians or English right now if they "lost". Their natural resources would be plundered by one of those nations. Its not. They are still their own society. Yes, the society is a hell hole because of the wars but its still THEIR society.

You talk about war like it's a sports match. You probably have a list of win-loss records somewhere and keep stats. The shyt ain't like that. If you go to war, and you are worse off than you would have been otherwise, then you definitely HAVE lost. There are lots of wars where both sides lost - hell, most of them. Your way of looking at it is meaningless in the real world. We sure as hell lost Vietnam, and we ain't speaking Vietnamese. The Japanese lost WW2, and they ain't speaking English as a result. But a heck of a lot of other countries lost WW2 as well.

As far as the average Afghan goes, it's not "their" society, the vast majority of Afghanis have very little access to power at all. Especially during the 1990s but even today, a large proportion of the land is controlled by warlords who do the people even worse than any foreign occupiers were. And many of them ARE foreign - the Taliban itself was a Pakistan-originated movement, not an Afghan-originated one, and the growing ISIS movement is run out of Iraq. Sure, some Afghans locally are doing their bidding, but that's little different than the Soviet-sponsored Afghans who ran it for them or the American-sponsored Afghans who run it with our blessing.

Does the average Afghan have more control over their own society right now than, say, the average Pole had in 1985, or the average Indian in 1935?

I always ask, would you rather be India or Vietnam over the last 70 years? Would you rather have been in Poland or Afghanistan over the last 40?

There are a lot of ways to "win" a war and still lose, and if you're smart about it there are some ways to "lose" and war and end up winning.

Like I said earlier, guns are not the end all. They are a form of resistance which is more powerful than the weapon itself. Also, guns against tyranny is just one aspect of why we need ownership. There's obviously many more reasons such as self-defense and sport hunting etc. I strongly disagree with the bolded. We are an armed nation with many people having done military service. Our general population, as a whole, is better equipped than Afghanis.

I'm not anti-gun - I'm a gun owner myself, and I know how to target shoot and I know how to hunt. (Though I think self-defense aspect is a bit dumb - every bit of evidence out there suggests that ownership is more dangerous than non-ownership. I own guns despite the risk, not in order to naively think I'm lessening it.) But I'm honest about what guns are and are not good at, and the real facts about the results when they are used.

Our population is not "better equipped" than Afghanis. This has nothing to do with weaponry or military experience, it's psychological. Slowly over the industrial age, but very especially over the last 30-35 years, Americans have become extraordinarily settled, safety-conscious, weak. Over half of college students experience "overwhelming anxiety" over the course of a school year, and a good third of our young ones in the inner cities show symptoms of PTSD. Like 1/4 people show some form of depression that requires psychological help at some point. And yet we keep getting more materialistic, more settled, more safety-conscious, more obsessed with security. Even those soldiers are coming back as psychologically damaged as ever - the reports I'm hearing from my friends and the data both are disturbing. (I have one ex-military friend who is disabled with PTSD right now and he never even went to war, it was a damn vehicular accident/close call where he wasn't even injured.)

It doesn't matter how many soldiers we have, their families wouldn't make it, society wouldn't make it. Most Afghans were already accustomed to going through hellish shyt in life, they stumbled on, even as things got worse and worse. We ain't built like that. 99.9% of Americans couldn't survive five years in a third-world slum or village even in peacetime before jetting, let alone know what it's like to go through war. They wouldn't stay and fight, they would flee or break down, no matter how many of the good 'ol boys were fighting in on in the mountains with their little AR-15s and grenade launchers while the unmanned drones picked them off a dozen at a time.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

We'll make a deal. You turn in your AR-15, and you can have a random weapon from an old Afghani stockpile.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Everyone who has pointed out how dictators always go after the media should also know they also take away 'the peoples' ability to readily defend themselves.

Tired talking point, source?

 

[Type Username Here]

I think the idea is to disarm "the other side."

Good luck.

You know the police force and military leans conservative. They'll still be armed.

This is a dumb strategy.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Good luck.

You know the police force and military leans conservative. They'll still be armed.

This is a dumb strategy.

Perhaps we should consider mandatory .50 caliber machine gun ownership.

 

[Type Username Here]

Perhaps we should consider mandatory .50 caliber machine gun ownership.

Now you're talking.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Perhaps we should consider mandatory .50 caliber machine gun ownership.

Fukk Dat. Gimme a M-249 SAW and I'm straight......

Spoiler

(as long as someone else cleans it......)