Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's an "IT" nonetheless, not an actual human being or person.

Are they "Useless Eaters" or perhaps "Jews" Comrade Nazi?

Yeah sure.


That's their hypocrisy. They claim to be for freedom, but love tyranny.

Sounds like you.

 

[BackAgain]

It's an "IT" nonetheless, not an actual human being or

No “it” is a human being in an early stage of development. Smarten up. Now if two giraffes do a little mambo and the female giraffe happens to get pregnant, that little zygote will be another giraffe. True story!

 

[theHawk]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Having the guns isn’t necessarily to protect us from police, SWAT, or military.

They are to be used on the politicians that command them should they become so corrupt and tyrannical that they need to be overthrown.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's their hypocrisy. They claim to be for freedom, but love tyranny.

True.

But, to be fair, Clayton claims all sorts of shit, but he is every bit the motherfucking tyrant you would expect.

 

[Red Front]

No “it” is a human being in an early stage of development. Smarten up. Now if two giraffes do a little mambo and the female giraffe happens to get pregnant, that little zygote will be another giraffe. True story!

It's not a human being in the earliest stages of development before it actualizes itself into a human being. You assume that the human medium through which the zygote or embryo is developing, namely an actual human being (i.e. the woman), is morally obligated to bear the physical burden and monetary expense of at least, nine months of pregnancy (she might lose her health, job..etc) and childbirth. That seems logical to you, but not to me and many other people who share my sentiments.

At best, we can say that a fetus in the later stages of development is a pre-natal human being, with a brain, and perhaps the ability to feel pain and suffering. Nonetheless, in the early stages of pregnancy, women should be afforded the right to end their pregnancies. They're the ones pregnant and as a man, I really feel uncomfortable telling women they have to remain pregnant. What do I know about being pregnant? My conscience informs me that women should have the right to decide, not me or anyone else, including the government.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not a human being in the earliest stages of development before it actualizes itself into a human being. You assume that the human medium through which the zygote or embryo is developing, namely an actual human being (i.e. the woman), is morally obligated to bear the physical burden and monetary expense of at least, nine months of pregnancy (she might lose her health, job..etc) and childbirth. That seems logical to you, but not to me and many other people who share my sentiments.

At best, we can say that a fetus in the later stages of development is a pre-natal human being, with a brain, and perhaps the ability to feel pain and suffering. Nonetheless, in the early stages of pregnancy, women should be afforded the right to end their pregnancies. They're the ones pregnant and as a man, I really feel uncomfortable telling women they have to remain pregnant. What do I know about being pregnant? My conscience informs me that women should have the right to decide, not me or anyone else, including the government.

Actualizes itself. Bwahahahaha!

I am quite sure you don’t know what that word means.

 

[Red Front]

Actualizes itself. Bwahahahaha!

I am quite sure you don’t know what that word means.

View attachment 669442

It doesn't actualize itself, it requires a woman (i.e. an actual human being with rights). The gestation process is the woman. Her body, her life, her hormones, her health, her sustenance, finances..etc, everything. Nothing or no one has the right to force her to remain pregnant, especially in the early stages of gestation.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Men and women, actual human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say anything there about zygotes and embryos attached to a woman's uterus.

 

[BackAgain]

It doesn't actualize itself, it requires a woman (i.e. an actual human being with rights). The gestation process is the woman. Her body, her life, her hormones, her health, her sustenance, finances..etc, everything. Nothing or no one has the right to force her to remain pregnant, especially in the early stages of gestation.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Men and women, actual human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say anything there about zygotes and embryos attached to a woman's uterus.

Actualize! Lol.

 

[Red Front]

Actualize! Lol.

View attachment 669454

For your education:


Definitions from Oxford Languages

actualized; actualizing

Definition of actualize​

transitive verb
: to make actual : REALIZE
intransitive verb
: to become actual

· Learn more
Search for a word
ac·tu·al·ize
/ˈak(t)SH(o͞o)əˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: actualize; 3rd person present: actualizes; past tense: actualized; past participle: actualized; gerund or present participle: actualizing; verb: actualise; 3rd person present: actualises; past tense: actualised; past participle: actualised; gerund or present participle: actualising
make a reality of.
"he had actualized his dream and achieved the world record"

A potential is "actualized" into reality.

 

[BackAgain]

A little off topic:

Imma gonna now help out commie with the term he doesn’t comprehend.

 

[BackAgain]

And a preborn human being is a person in an early stage of development. It doesn’t actualize itself.

Silly commie.

 

[Red Front]

A little off topic:

Imma gonna now help out commie with the term he doesn’t comprehend.



View attachment 669458

The meaning of the word is in the dictionary, read it.

 

[Red Front]

And a preborn human being is a person in an early stage of development. It doesn’t actualize itself.

Silly commie.

The personhood of that thing doesn't exist until it is actualized. For example, if you're a child, you're not an adult until you become one. You're a potential adult. The zygote and embryo is a potential human being and person, not an actual one. The woman is the actual human being, with rights. She shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant to actualize a thing into a human being. Her interests and needs should take precedence over the non-existent prerogatives or will of a zygote or embryo attached to her uterus.

 

[marvin martian]

Ending the life of a zygote or embryo is not a baby or human being.

That's a backwards, anti-science justification for killing babies.

 

[Red Front]

That's a backwards, anti-science justification for killing babies.

Zygotes and embryos aren't babies, they're potential babies, not actual ones.

 

[marvin martian]

Zygotes and embryos aren't babies, they're potential babies, not actual ones.

Like I said, science has disproved your backwards misinformed voodoo beliefs. Pull yourself into the 21st century.

 

[beautress]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Nothin' doin'. After people we don't even see make decisions for this faux president, and the way the Democrats went after Trump with a pack of lies, we're not going to be tred on by creepy deep staters much longer.

 

[Red Front]

Like I said, science has disproved your backwards misinformed voodoo beliefs. Pull yourself into the 21st century.

Science doesn't answer the question of when a fetus becomes a human person.

 

[BackAgain]

The meaning of the word is in the dictionary, read it.

I shared it with you, stupid. And again, the preborn person doesn’t actualize itself. Smarten up.