Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Ideally we go with facts and data, but the problem is we don't have conclusive facts or data on this topic so we have no choice but to venture into theoretical arguments. There are facts that support both sides, but none of them definitively prove one side or the other. The answer to your other questions is that we don't really know how many lives would be saved if we implement those laws. It could be 0 or it could be a lot more. When it comes to mass shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a couple extra seconds during a reload could be enough time for someone to escape.



You say "they" but I don't know who "they" is. If "they" are the government, then I would say that many people in government do not want those things you listed. What is a reasonable amount of ammo for homeland security to purchase? What is strange about American troops training on American soil? Isn't that where most soldiers have always been trained? Of course, they are training in "urban environments". That's the environment where pretty much all the fighting has been since WW2. As far as shooting American citizens, it depends on the context. I would expect a soldier to shoot an American citizen if they were a terrorist sympathizer in the midst of carrying out an attack. None of these things lead me to believe we are in imminent danger of being subjugated.

We dont need facts or data on what would happen if we ban guns because its never going to happen. It would be like me saying "lets collect data and see if re-enslaving black people would have a positive effect on america's crime rate" Whether it would or wouldnt is of no concern because its something we're not gonna stand for. The problem with the left is that they dont seem to understand that owning a weapon is a right they acknowledged that i already had, they didnt give it to me and theyre not going to take it from me unless they literally come take it. The left ignores the facts and data we do have and they campaign for public opinion supporting their agenda regardless of what the facts say or would say. They already lie about guns every opportunity they get. If we banned guns tomorrow and crime shot up 200% because of it.... democrats would still be happy that they accomplished their goal.


They can simulate an "urban environment", these tests are specifically based on the interaction with or presence of american citizens. They're not borrowing the city block of miami to simulate a city block, they training to simulate a city block filled with civilians.

[bu villain]

We dont need facts or data on what would happen if we ban guns because its never going to happen. It would be like me saying "lets collect data and see if re-enslaving black people would have a positive effect on america's crime rate" Whether it would or wouldnt is of no concern because its something we're not gonna stand for. The problem with the left is that they dont seem to understand that owning a weapon is a right they acknowledged that i already had, they didnt give it to me and theyre not going to take it from me unless they literally come take it. The left ignores the facts and data we do have and they campaign for public opinion supporting their agenda regardless of what the facts say or would say. They already lie about guns every opportunity they get. If we banned guns tomorrow and crime shot up 200% because of it.... democrats would still be happy that they accomplished their goal.

Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed.

They can simulate an "urban environment", these tests are specifically based on the interaction with or presence of american citizens. They're not borrowing the city block of miami to simulate a city block, they training to simulate a city block filled with civilians.

So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed.

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.

So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?

What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

[bu villain]

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.

The government didn't create slavery and it only ended it with the support of the people.

What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

[Sinfix_15]

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?

By what means is the constitution enforced? literally.... what do we use to enforce any law, any where?

I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

I made a link between their actions. That link was that theyre all "strategical advantages" in a theoretical "military vs civilian" conflict. It wasnt a part of my core argument, it was simply a "this looks fishy" comment.