Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[KickFlow]

I do, and I think they should be illegal

why

[Ad Bot]

[ßlöükfáce]

cloudovpein stole an ak47 so yes

[Kansas]

it's a good thing you can't enforce this dumb idea, then

That's a good one, Kish.

I do, and I think they should be illegal

Just illegal altogether?

[Col. Derontchi]

I do, and I think they should be illegal

predicted

[Kansas]

predicted

No, no, let him say why.

[Xalos]

Making guns illegal won't magically cause guns to disappear.  It would simply make guns inaccessible to law-abiding citizens, meaning that only the army, police, or criminals could get guns.  Then, the criminal knows they're the only one in the area who's going to have a gun, so they have no reason not to steal from whomsoever they please.

Furthermore, the right to bear arms isn't some bizarro cultural artifact from the past - it's one of the checks against the government turning against its citizens.  Making guns illegal won't actually make tearing down corrupt governments impossible, but it'll definitely make the body count much higher.

[IkeTheGeneric]

I do, and I think they should be illegal

hey, currency inflation is deadlier on a wider scale than legal firearms

[comr4de]

>> nuke threat

God this is literally the stupidest loving argument I hear all the time?

"Daugh da gubmint has tanks an drons an nukes we can't beat them!"

Yes, because in the event of an insurgency the government is just going to carpet bomb/nuke/roll tanks through cities and alienate swathes of american suburbia to kill some rednecks, because that won't alienate the population and ultimately work against them! It's not like they've already learned this lesson from the wars in bumforgetistan!

[General]

...

>> nuke threat


In all seriousness though, government has much more powerful weapons than just guns nowadays to make the population conform IF theoretically they were to go against the demographic.

[·::Kishgal::·]

...
>> nuke threat

I'd like to imagine that he didn't clear the quote, that he actually saw nothing in Comrade's post. It's far preferable to the more likely "idiot" explanation.

[General]

No I just have different views than you do, it's something you have to deal with.

[·::Kishgal::·]

No I just have different views than you do, it's something you have to deal with.

Okay. Your view was eloquently picked apart by someone vastly more informed than you.
I might "deal" with it, but I will make fun of you for it.

[General]

You see, I'm more informed than you.

At a subject, that we can only PREDICT the outcome for.

Does this make sense to you or are you too daft to understand?

[Frankie²]

would the world be better off without them? probably
is that feasible? not really

[Nonnel]

No I just have different views than you do, it's something you have to deal with.

>> nuke threat

this is not something you can have a different view for
this would not happen