I don't get it
I mean, American taxpayer dont even pay that much compared with other countries
>>84078816
no but our country actively uses our money to make our lives worse
>>84078816
A lot of other countries actually use that tax money for things though. Add the cost of health insurance and college to American taxes and you get a much steeper number than countries where tax money covers those.
>>84079631
But anon, we need a big military, because we're totally at risk of being invaded at any time by every country ever. Just look at the looming superpowers across our northern and southern borders.
>>84078790
Are you autistic?
>>84079631
I hear that the American Military has these big ass warehouses full of supplies that often wind up being unused and are simply replaced every few years, is this true?
>>84079672
For real. I wish we would either take over the world or stop building shit.
>>84079631
>>84079672
Don't you know how many (high paying skilled labor) jobs defense contractors provide?
>>84079687
Nah, just eurotrash.
>>84079701
i wouldn't be surprised tho I would expect we'd sell them to someone for $$$$
>>84079718
>tfw no one will go Eisenhower and just build roads and bridges again
>>84079672
The moment you become complacent is the moment things go sour, sir. The USA's big defense budget is largely a deterrent as well as being used for interventional purposes.
And fuck, it ain't just us. Do you realize how many countries relies on the US for defense? We've got so many tiny shit countries with piss-ass defense budgets who depend on the US for alliance and protection.
Not to mention our military is a huge boon to our economy. Military contracts are a huge fucking business.
Much better idea to slash money from useless social programs that don't work because of unnecessary bureaucracy, just let that money stay with the taxpayer. Like, 30% of everything we make is taxed away and we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
>>84079768
>tfw no one will go Eisenhower and just build roads and bridges again
You do know he built the interstate system for strategic/defense reasons.
>>84079872
>useless social programs that don't work because of unnecessary bureaucracy
OR start working to fix the bureaucracy
or a little of both. there are plenty of problems to go around
>>84079631
That would be nice, but the military presence we have is obligated in some places by treaty, and we provide the muscle for situations where the other countries involved cant/don't want to. It's one of those weird balancing acts.
Hadn't you known how much technology used in everyday life was made possible by the defense sector?
>>84078842
Except that isn't true.
>>84079872
I don't really buy that argument. Yes, the US has a global presence, but our spending isn't primarily on that global presence. It's increasingly R&D, money going directly to private contractors to develop new weapons and vehicles, rather than to interventions. It's not about interventionism, it's a low-key arms race with China and Russia.
"The United States is a truly lucky nation. She is bounded to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish."
-- Otto von Bismarck
Oh hey guys lets talk about cartoo... wait I seem to have wondered into /pol/ somehow...
>>84079718
I'm pretty sure this is a broken window fallacy.
Jobs for jobs sake is just busywork. Instead of spending on the military spend it on infrastructure and fucking rockets to Mars.
>>84080126
>it's a low-key arms race with China and Russia
>Russia
Is this 1985? They're still relying on...1985 technology.
>>84080145
>Instead of spending on the military spend it on infrastructure and fucking rockets to Mars
How do you think we got the interstate system and the moon landings in the first place? One, because WWII brought about a quantum leap in technology, two because of the strategic rivalry of the Cold War.
I mean, who was flying those spacecraft but trained military test pilots?
>>84080105
Except it absolutely is. Certainly not for the betterment of anyones lives, but for definitely for themselves.
>>84080208
Give some examples, plox.
>>84080205
>spend $1 trillion on military R&D
>some useful stuff comes from it
>claim the military is necessary for technological advancment
>spend $1 trillion on R&D while building a giant dick statue in the middle of the Pacific Ocean
>claim building a giant dick statue is necessary for technological advancement
See the problem? You can achieve technological advancements from any field if you put the money into it. It doesn't have to technology for finding newer and better ways of blowing up other people's R&D projects on the other side of the world.
>>84079980
>OR start working to fix the bureaucracy
Better to limit the bureaucracy at every opportunity by not funding it. If you can't afford to, say, feed people then you surely can't afford a system to feed people and a bureaucratic authority to run it. Better to put money directly in the hands of those who need than to have it managed beforehand.
You can't fix bureaucracy. Fundamentally broken concept. It's a system that only complicates and, even in its least offensive form, is still a waste of money.
>>84080205
That only works because there's a war on, and they're solving a problem. Modern defense contractors are on an endless R&D spree, starting with solutions and looking for problems.
We've already spent billions on the F-35, how useful is that to a single person in the US? And don't say that it makes jobs, if we spent those billions on digging holes, that would make jobs too.
>>84080327
Military R&D is an incredibly diverse field. Only a small portion of it is for the research and development of weapons. It's a department of development centered in absolute practicality and efficiency with real-world applications. Hard to think of a worthier cause that would spawn so many advancements.
>>84079701
Honestly, if my unit and all the units I've ever seen are a factor, I doubt those warehouses exist. The standard soldier and unit are severely underfunded and missing many key items. Hey, if you live in garden grove, don't expect your local bases to be able to defend you if there's an actual attack.
Most of the military budget goes to R&D for the big toys like, jets, missles, and other shit.
>>84079631
>be in Arizona
>see youtube ads from Republican "grassroot" groups that literally claim that a democrat candidate pushing for a reduced military budget will bring ISIS to the USA
>>84080364
>if we spent those billions on digging holes, that would make jobs too.
But we don't. We spend it on increasingly more advanced aircrafts that serve necessary, practical purposes, lead to greater technological breakthroughs, and employ highly skilled engineers.
Planes are useful. We should always be looking for ways to improve them. Digging a hole is hardly comparable to complexity and range of uses that aircraft technology stands to offer.
And it has the added benefit of actively improving our airforce (the best in the world) and increasing our national security.
>>84078816
depends where you live in america. californians pay federal and state income tax which is supposed to fund schools and shit but our schools are shit with the third lowest graduation rate. our taxpayer-funded sports stadiums are pretty nice, though.
>>84078790
Ehhh America is weird. While we don't pay as much taxes as other countries all of our infrastructor is built on the dollar of the middle class which is virtually non existent today. It's a pretty messed up system where you have the poor feeding the poor and the rich just laugh at all of them while they buy expensive stuff they dont need.
>>84080428
They're not wrong.
>>84080428
Decreased military budget would make us more vulnerable to foreign threats, yes. This is common sense.
Just like halting research of disease would make us more susceptible to mutations of bacteria and viruses in the future. It's not something you can say 'Well, that's good enough' with. Because the world is a constantly changing place. Threats to security aren't complacent, they're constantly looking for ways to improve, subvert, and infiltrate.
>>84080364
>We've already spent billions on the F-35, how useful is that to a single person in the US?
Once all the technology created for the F-35 filters down to civilian aircraft, you'll be thankful the next time you take the morning flight to LA.
>>84080463
Kek ISIS is a tiny little baby group getting its shit pushed in my rebels. If Bush hadn't shoved us into and Iraqi war we would have already crushed them. They are not a threat at all from a military standpoint. Sure they can individually blow things up but anyone can do that.
>>84080440
>you have the poor feeding the poor and the rich just laugh at all of them while they buy expensive stuff they dont need.
Except the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes in the USA and give the most to charitable causes in the USA. Most poor people pay no income tax whatsoever.
>>84080428
One of the funniest political cartoons I ever saw was one from the 2004 election with Dick Cheney holding a dog in his lap and saying "If you make the wrong choice in November, terrorists will attack this puppy."
>>84080503
>Kek ISIS is a tiny little baby group getting its shit pushed in my rebels
Tell that to the people suffering in the middle east. ISIS is the greatest current threat to international security and it's stupid to underestimate them.
Lives matter. Trivializing it down to 'individually blow things up' is incredibly naive and disrespectful.
>>84080482
Are you seriously claiming that ISIS will build a fucking supercarrier fleet and invade the USA?
>>84080527
not far from the Checkers speech
>>84080527
Yeah, he should've been holding a gay club.
>>84080507
Kek I see you are an idiot that has never looked at a tax bracket or your parents are well off. Sure the wealthy pay a higher percent but it is a lower percentile increase than the jump from lower to middle income. They only see a 3-5% increase while from a lower to middle income shift, you see a wooping 10% income increase and are trapped in that bracket until you double your income. They have people making 40k a year paying the same amount of taxes as someone making 80k a year.
>>84078790 I think the pose suggest submission to an abusive power.
>>84080538
Lives don't matter though outside of the US. That is the middle east problem not ours. Isis will never get large enough to be an actual threat to any country outside its own and to be frank this kind of thing is very common. The same thing has happened time and time again in Africa.
>>84080205
>One, because WWII brought about a quantum leap in technology
I love this meme.
In truth WW1 set technological progress back 50 years. We'd be colonizing mars a this point if it wasn't for the collective suicide of european hegemony, the useless deaths of millions of the best and brightest of their generation, complete collapse of the country that was leading scientific research in 1910's and a gave a backwards ex-colony that was originally used as a dumping ground for miscontents and poor people the keys to the world and 50 years to play catch up for free.
Best example being einsteins theories on special and relative relativity which were published in 1905 and 1915 respectably but which took 40 years to be put into practical use with massive government backing.
Peace out, if you want to keep spouting memes like a parrot then feel free, I can't stop you, but take a minute to be critical about things once in a while
>>84080556
I'm saying that a major attack on US soil is always a possibility and it's irresponsible to write that off as irrelevant.
It's always in a country's best interest to be well-armed.
We live in a world where countries like Iran has a nuclear program. That whole dismissive 'that would never happen' mentality is ridiculous and unsafe.
You always prepare for the worst. Always. Hope for sunshine but carry an umbrella.
>>84080435
>advanced aircrafts that serve necessary, practical purposes
Lmfao. VTOL is necessary and practical? Boiling down air superiority, bombing, stealth, and close air support into a single frame is necessary and practical?
The F-35 is a hilarious moneysink that defies both engineering practicality and military wisdom. It's a blank check written to Lockheed Martin, and it's funded by mothballing practical, reliable existing craft.
Did you know that there's a "minor glitch" with the F-35 ejection seat that causes it to snap the pilot's neck? 10 years into development, and it's still unflyable because of the ridiculous promises made by the MIC, and the ridiculous demands of the military.
>>84080507
In the US, you actually pay less the more you earn up to a point. It's a weird inverse bell curve thing.
>>84080626
Don't be dense, a large scale battle will never break out between any military ever again. China's biggest exporter is America. America's biggest exporter is Russia. Britain trades with everyone. You are buying into fear propaganda.
>>84080615
>Lives don't matter though outside of the US
All lives matter. Problems in the middle east, if left unchecked, will inevitably end up here. The Nazi party began with a failed coup in a beer hall.
>>84080615
>tfw Saddam Hussein being alive means ISIS and Al Queda wouldn't dominate Iraq
Even if he gassed Kurds a secular dictatorship is better than these fanatics.
>>84080626
>I'm saying that a major attack on US soil is always a possibility and it's irresponsible to write that off as irrelevant.
So yes, you are indeed claiming that ISIS will build a fucking supercarrier fleet and invade the continental United States of America. Good to know.
The USA was built on complaining about taxes
>>84080375
Alright, then why spend that money through the military? Why not give the money that's being spent on civilian applications to civilian institutions? American universities and corporations already lead the world imagine what they could do with even a fraction of that sweet sweet death ray money.
>>84080676
No they won't. It's a 3rd world rebellion group whos leaders lack the resources and ability to unite and take over and ever launch any kind of military attack. Not to mention most armies are 10x more powerful than they were during WWII and Isis is still operating barely outside of that.
>>84080666
That's not necessarily the only reason the military is useful. Threats and posturing achieve things that pure diplomacy doesn't. If you have the biggest, strongest dad in the room, you don't have to use it.
>>84080666
>Don't be dense, a large scale battle will never break out between any military ever again.
That is shortsighted arrogance. Things change. The world changes. A week ago if someone told me that Britain would leave the European Union I would've said that was bullshit. Major political shifts happen all the time and they can happen very fast.
Preparedness is not fear. It's preparedness. It's a willingness to weather the storm no matter how bad it may get.
>>84080252
military/defense budget
nuff said
put the US military on the shelf for a couple years and you could easily have the money to fix education, infrastructure, and health care
>>84080683
>they're constantly looking for ways to improve, subvert, and infiltrate.
Not a direct attack, but more like more organized terrorist cells so that the USA experiences stuff like the Orlando shootings at a more organized level.
Note, I'm not saying the Orlando fag killer was ISIS organized. He was just a lone wolf that decided to give ISIS credit for his attack.
>>84080666
Until the oil runs out, in which case the country that has held off pumping it's reserves dry will be in the best position and may avoid war. The rest of the world will nuke itself and global civilization as we know it will end, never to return to the current scale.
Humanity's only real long term hope for survival as a species is to establish a permanent industrial foothold in space NOW while cheaply accessible oil is still a thing. If we don't do it now then we will never do it, because future generations will use the excuse "well if your grandparents couldn't do it before the bombs fell and when there was fucking pure liquid energy bubbling up from the ground then how the hell are we supposed to do it?".
>>84080722
>It's a 3rd world rebellion group whos leaders lack the resources and ability to unite and take over and ever launch any kind of military attack.
Not now, no. Which is why it's important to intervene now and make certain that they never acquire those resources.
>>84080753
>Not a [conventional] attack
I'm glad we agree that we should cut spending on the military then.
>>84080338
And paying the military complex does not involve bureaucracy?
Have you ever looked into how research is funded?
>>84080789
Why don't we keep military spending the same but focus those resources on R&D that better prepares our military to handle unconventional attacks?
>>84080746
Oh please, stop bleating your obnoxious sayings. You're more invested in your terrible metaphors than actually knowing what you're talking about. We don't need nuclear subs to obliterate technicals being driven by illiterate, starving Allah fanboys. The MIC is more bloated than Ben Affleck, and you know it.
>>84080773
Kek no, you let it self implode. Again ISIS isn't some big world shaking group. Groups like this have rose up throughout history time and time again and they self implode.
>>84080789
Wasn't really the guy you were in discussion with, but I just wanted to nip the idea of ISIS attacking us in a conventional way in the bud.
I agree that it'd do the US good to reduce our military budget.
>Americans unironically believe that reducing their military budget will lead to Isis invading the usa
>>84080836
Some of us are just super paranoid retards brainwashed by propaganda. That one idiot said our only hope was to flee to space.
>>84080836
>Non-Americans unironically reducing all arguments for maintaining the current military budget into a strawman.
>>84079899
actually had no idea. i've got a blind spot between FDR and the 60s, I just know the crazy conversations pretty much turned on him by 64
>>84080836
To be fair, they also think stricter background checks or banning a single gun style would have stopped the guy who had done nothing illegal in his life from murdering gays with a semi-automatic weapon.
In general, a lot of united statians are very very dumb. Particularly those in power.
>>84080890
Kek fuck off you Repub you are who hes talking about. No one needs a weapon that can fire more than 6 shots before you reload. End of fucking story.
>>84080884
Ike was not ever popular with the right wing of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater called him "a dime store New Dealer".
>>84080914
No more than anyone needs a car that goes at 200 MPH.
>>84080914
No civilian needs a car that can go 120mph. End of fucking story.
>>84080929
Goldwater is exactly who i'm talking about.
>>84080939
>>84080945
hey so how come gun licences aren't a thing?
>>84080939
>>84080945
And you think I'd disagree with that? This idea that Americans need everything in excess cause of MUH FREEDOM is retarded. Also most cars cant get over that speed regardless of what is on the dash.
>>84080945
>>84080939
not that guy, but car analogies are always retarded. car crashes are accidents.
>>84080822
>Groups like this have rose up throughout history time and time again and they self implode.
Name some that have self-imploded without owing that destruction to resistance or interventionism. Your relying purely on the problem taking care of itself. Okay? Fine. If the problem takes care of itself? Great. Then what if it doesn't? What's your backup plan then? Do you have one? Or are you just deadset on your original judgment being correct? No matter what you must always recognize the possibility that you are wrong. That's not being paranoid, that's being smart.
>>84080818
>We don't need nuclear subs to obliterate technicals being driven by illiterate, starving Allah fanboys
Not at the moment, no. But preparedness for any potential security risk is nothing but smart.
>>84080789
Indeed the USS Ronald Reagan is very impressive and no doubt scares the shit out of the Chinese but didn't do those guys in Florida much good
>>84080968
>hey so how come gun licences aren't a thing?
Because gun ownership is a basic human right and all attempts to infringe upon that right should be resisted, potentially with force.
>>84080810
The fuck do you think DARPA is?
>>84080983
The "back up plan" is that if they ever became an actual threat and creating a standing army and started invading civilized countries you deal with it then but the chance of that is like 3% especially with a religious cult known for infighting who most of their own general populace completely disagrees with.
Gee I wonder what gave rise to ISIS.
Ehhhh, nevermind. Momentary pause, let's just invade again like we did the first time. Third times the charm.
>>84080749
It's really weird seeing an anon on here that understands politics
>>84080994
Oh well, at least that's 50 less Democrat voters next fall.
>>84080994
Funny you should mention the Chinese, who stole the plans for the F-35 and built their own, meaning the USA now has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new plane. If the USA had just opted for a cheaper design or just sticking with the old ones we'd be in exactly the same position but with millions of dollars to spend on actually useful things.
The only people who benefit from the USA taking up HALF OF THE HUMANITIES MILITARY EXPENDITURES, FUCKING HALF, are the execs of the military industrial complex.
>>84081047
>The "back up plan" is that if they ever became an actual threat and creating a standing army and started invading civilized countries you deal with it then
Crossing that bridge only when you come to it usually leads to falling in a river. We can't act on the spur of the moment or on impulse. We need preparation.
>but the chance of that is like 3%
I consider a 3% chance of a genocidal, militaristic religious group with a standing army to be significant enough to warrant preparation.
>>84080914
>Pistols are limited to six rounds before reload.
>Guy who shot the gays just brings extra magazines
Hell, the weapon he used could load a lot less bullets per magazine than the amount he killed. He had committed no crimes before, so no background checks would have stopped him either. If there were no guns, he would have brought two pressure cookers.
The issue was that nobody was there to stop him. Whether that means that all gun free zones need armed security or that concealed carry should be more prevalent is another thing. It does, however, mean that no limitations would have stopped this.
>>84081113
Kek you are seriously saying you don't think his kill count would be lower if he had to reload and use a pistol? Have you ever fired a real gun? Cause you sound like some fucking idiot that has only ever played COD.
>>84079872
>Do you realize how many countries relies on the US for defense?
Then maybe they should PAY for it. Just like with the billion dollar industries that don't pay taxes but need our super carriers to contain the disasters caused by their overseas crimes.
>>84081113
there was an armed guard at the club
>>84081096
it's seriously insane just HOW MUCH MONEY is spent on military
>>84081113
You're right, if we can't stop every single violent crime ever, there's no point in restricting access to deadly weapons in any way.
>>84081169
>Then maybe they should PAY for it.
Wasn't Trump suggesting something of that nature?
>>84080968
Depending on your definition and location, there are.
Though you don't NEED a license to own an overpowered sportscar. You need one to drive it around legally.
>>84080968
Gun licences are a thing in puerto rico. You have to have never been arrested, have three people recommend you with letters, take various safety courses, endure various investigations by the police and a whole bunch of shit that ends up costing like 1k$. I know ONE person who owns a gun legally here, yet:
>Puerto Rico tops the world’s table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%
Gun crime is related to culture, crime rates and mores. Many of the countries with strict gun laws would probably have the same crime rate if the gun laws were relaxed.
>>84081185
I just don't see the point in infringing upon the rights of the overwhelming majority because of the actions of an overwhelming minority.
>>84081183
The armed Guard was outside the club. I don't know if he was being negligent or just looking for trouble in the parking lot though.
>>84081183
>there was an armed guard at the club
One armed guard who traded shots with Omar.
And then no one else was armed because it was a retarded death-magnet gun-free zone. The fact that the security was granted rights the patrons weren't is criminal and it made us lose lives.
And yet people keep attempting to stigmatize gun ownership. Your putting people's lives at risk.
>>84081079
>>84080749
Samefag.
>>84081236
>MUH RIGHTS
You sound beyond retarded when you say that. Its not infringing on anything. It's literally just more paperwork.
>>84081275
>MUH RIGHTS
You sound beyond retarded when you say that.
>>84081163
No it would not have been lower. Switching a magazine is a process that takes less than a second if you've had any amount of practice and he was figuratively shooting fish in a barrel.
>>84081209
> Trump
> Suggesting the rich pay anything at all
I don't have an anime girl smug enough for this.
>>84081054
>Gee I wonder what gave rise to ISIS.
LOLI dunno.
>>84081289
Cause screaming about your rights! Is so god damn dumb when it's literally just you having to get a gun license. Its not taking MUH GUNS away or even impeding you getting a gun unless you are a fucking psycho.
>>84081185
Honey child, it didn't work for alcohol. It didn't work for drugs. It won't work for guns.
I can build a fully functional submachine gun in my fucking garage.
3D printers are making acquiring guns easier than it's ever been in history.
Omar Mateen got a gun because he passed a background check and committed no crimes. You're going to deny gun ownership to someone who had been found not guilty of anything?
Gun control is an exercise in futility in a progressively advancing world of technology. Best get with the times, you're on the wrong side of history.
>>84081302
No, I mean for real though.
>>84081236
Laws aren't made for the people who would ordinarily follow them. And frankly, owning a weapon shouldn't be a right. Nobody actually needs a gun. If they're actually in a situation where they need to defend themselves, there are less overkill methods.
>>84081236
Gee maybe because unlimited access allows that "overwhelming minority" to kill people in the hundreds if they wanted too?
>>84081301
Not true at all. I've fired guns at least 5 times and I can't quickly reload in 1 second. Also the kickback from pistols makes accuracy a much bigger precedent that just blindly firing a semi auto weapon into a crowd. Is your dick really that small that shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles aren't enough?
>>84081320
>hurr if we stayed in Iraq an extra 10 years maybe ISIS wouldn't have formed
>>84081323
>Cause screaming about your rights! Is so god damn dumb when it's literally just you having to get a gun license
You already have to pass an NICS background check. You're talking about completely unnecessary bullshit that will solve nothing and save no one. Licensing gun rights won't prevent any shootings any more than requiring background checks prevented Omar from legally getting guns.
>>84081330
>Omar Mateen got a gun because he passed a background check and committed no crimes. You're going to deny gun ownership to someone who had been found not guilty of anything?
This is the biggest issue. A lot of the gun laws that are being proposed essentially go "MOAR BACKGROUND CHECKZ!" This would do nothing to have prevented the thing they are saying sparked the law being proposed.
>>84081375
People that complain about background checks are most likely people with mental issues. Who fucking cares about more paperwork and waiting a little longer if itll catch Johnny with 5 assault charges cause he likes to get drunk and fight at bars. Giving a weapon to someone like that is pure stupidity.
>>84081270
To be fair this is a whole lot of monday morning quarterbacking, which is generally ALL gun debates ever end up being. Some Designated Gunholder policy at the club could have stopped Omar, but it could've also done NOTHING.
>>84081274
Don't acknowledge it.
>>84081275
If it's just paperwork then what's the point?
>Whoa TWO types of forms? I signed up for a suicide mission NOT TORTURE.
>>84081362
What kind of gun were you shooting?!? Kickback in most modern guns is negligible if you actually know how to hold them.
Besides, civilian AR-15s ARE hunting rifles.
>>84081323
Gun licenses are discriminatory against blacks.
>>84081335
>And frankly, owning a weapon shouldn't be a right. Nobody actually needs a gun.
You do in a world where guns exist.
>If they're actually in a situation where they need to defend themselves, there are less overkill methods.
All of these "less overkill methods" are less reliable than a gun when it comes to matters of self-defense. This becomes increasingly true if the person in question is physically weaker than the average assailant, such as in the case of women, the elderly, and the disabled. Guns are a force equalizer that allow the weak a far better chance of defending themselves against the strong than any other method available to them.
i enjoyed the thread yesterday that turned into gun debate where the Pro side were arguing both they had the right to a gun in case of government take-over (basically the argument of the founders) next to people arguing they needed guns because of how inept the government is.
it was great.
>>84081334
It makes perfect sense if you assume
> Trump lying
because every suggestion he made cuts The 1% taxes by a hilariously huge amount.
>>84081330
>Honey child, it didn't work for alcohol. It didn't work for drugs. It won't work for guns.
Except for all the countries where it did work for guns. Maybe comparing weapons with substances that people of all social strata develop physical dependencies on doesn't make the most sense.
>3D printers are making acquiring guns easier than it's ever been in history.
Yeah because everyone has a 3D printer these days.
>>84080500
Sooo...why not research it directly for civilian aircraft?
>>84081362
Oh. Wow. You've fired guns five whole times. What an expert. You're such a practiced reloader.
>Is your dick really that small that shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles aren't enough?
My dick will never be so big that I wouldn't want the most effective, efficient, and practical gun available to me.
>>84081335
If gun ownership isn't a right then neither is self defense.
>>84080338
>Better to put money directly in the hands of those who need than to have it managed beforehand.
This is 100% bullshit
Your $5 doesn't mean anything to a business. They'll fuck you over with a smile because if you don't like it you have very little options elsewhere. But collectively our $5 turns into hundreds of millions of dollars, and companies will fight and provide benefits they would never provide otherwise to compete for that size of a contract.
Also, individually we are uninformed and unorganized. When we go to a farmer or insurance company we have no idea the real costs they face and can't really negotiate a fair price. WE could learn it, but we don't have time to learn everything about agriculture, and insurance, and education, etc. But they do. Because that's their life. Collectively we can hire people on an equal educational footing as them and negotiate with a lot of money from an educated position.
That's the cornerstone concept of society. That we are stronger as a collective than as individuals.
>>84081371
>>84081320
this shit literally goes back to the fuck up that was the Treaty of Versailles
>large corporate powers exempt from taxes and selective budget spending
>lesser institutions and classes are left bleeding dry
>"What are you guys complaining about?"
I want the bootlickers to leave.
>>84081169
The reason they don't pay for your defense is because your defense is YOUR payment for your ability to influence those countries.
>>84081505
>Except for all the countries where it did work for guns
maybe because they have different cultures than the US
>>84081447
Technically they didn't contradict themselves.
The government's ineptitude doesn't make them not a threat.
Especially if they meant it in the sense that the Government constantly fails to protect its people. That doesn't exempt them from the ability to be very adept at harming their people.
>>84081505
>Except for all the countries where it did work for guns.
Those countries are not the United States. And there are also countries where gun control measures failed miserably.
>>84081526
If you want to trace it all the way back to the British-Arab alliance in WWI, you could. But that would be pointless.
>>84081510
Why do you need the most practical and efficient killing machine? You liking it isn't a good answer and don't use any other consumer product as an example because they don't take lives. Also don't use to "defend yourself" cause the government would slaughter everyone wholesale if they wanted to with chemical weapons and there is nothing your guns could do about it.
>>84081505
What countries did it work for?
>>84081419
Background checks are already a thing in every state. And gay killer passed his.
Making more laws to do what is already done is just redundant. The law books would probably look something like this by the time this shit is over:
Law #273283467 Buying a gun needs a background check.
Addendum 123: Buying a gun needs a background check.
Addendum 987: Buying a gun needs a background check.
Addendum 986789: buying a gun needs a background check.
>>84081548
the best point was that if the government did wanna kill civilians your gun ain't gonna stop a drone
>>84081096
>Funny you should mention the Chinese, who stole the plans for the F-35 and built their own
They don't have the technology to actually clone it anyway.
>>84081576
Well if everyone wasn't so gungho on privacy in America they could actually look at the medical records and see that most of these people were seeking help and were diagnosed with mental illnesses and have no business owning a weapon.
>>84081505
>
>>84081235
Also include various of the latin american countries were citizens aren't allowed to own guns legally at all and their primary cause of death is bullet.
>>84081545
>>84081551
That's a retarded argument. Countries with gun control accomplish two things: less gun violence, and less gun theft so that there would be less gun violence made with stolen guns. What makes America so different? Just saying it's different isn't enough. It's not like those other countries don't have gangs and crimes and scary violent minorities.
>>84081505
>Except for all the countries where it did work for guns.
Which is exactly none. Violence in places like Australia was already on the fall before the new gun laws. Gun violence in the US has been decreasing every year for the past two decades despite increasingly more lax open and concealed carry laws. The UK, despite its gun laws, has an 4% increased rate of gun violence compared to last year. Some of the violent places on the planet with the highest ratio of gun deaths have the strictest gun control laws.
In 2010 the the US government conducted a study that found that there is absolutely no link between gun ownership and violent crime. Naturally, gun control advocates threw a fit and now have to resort to crying and holding their breath since they can't use facts.
>Maybe comparing weapons with substances that people of all social strata develop physical dependencies on doesn't make the most sense.
Human beings will always do things advantageous to themselves. Owning a gun is nothing but a plus. If people can get a gun, they will. And anyone can get a gun.
>because everyone has a 3D printer these days
Give it time, friend. VCRs used to be a luxury. 3D printers will only decrease in price and increase in availability and you can do nothing to stop it. Anyone with a 3D printer is going to be able to manufacture guns for cheap.
>>84081513
it's weird how they managed to demonize unions in the US over the Cold War. shit fucked up bad for a while.
>>84081568
>Also don't use to "defend yourself" cause the government would slaughter everyone wholesale if they wanted to with chemical weapons and there is nothing your guns could do about it
>slightly under 1 million US military personnel
>in a country of 300 million people with 10 million+ guns
Uh...
>>84081610
Then you would get people who wouldn't seek help and get worse.
>>84081633
>it's weird how they managed to demonize unions
Unions fucked themselves though with their greed and ties to organized crime.
>>84081335
>And frankly, owning a weapon shouldn't be a right
Jesus wept. Anything is a weapon you fucking moron, you have a kitchen full of weapons right now.
>>84081644
what are drones. What is better equipment. What are jets. What are chemical weapons?
You are a dumbass if you think the population could ever stand up to the current technology and advances of the US military.
>>84081335
>If they're actually in a situation where they need to defend themselves, there are less overkill methods.
Such as?
>>84081630
>Violence in places like Australia was already on the fall before the new gun laws
Don't talk smack. It dropped with the gun law alongside a drop in gun theft.
> The UK, despite its gun laws, has an 4% increased rate of gun violence compared to last year.
So? That is not an impressive number.
>>84081568
>Also don't use to "defend yourself" cause the government would slaughter everyone wholesale if they wanted to with chemical weapons and there is nothing your guns could do about it.
This is the most batshit loony argument for gun control / civilian disarmament that always inevitably comes up, and it never fails to baffle me how little thought is actually put into it.
Is the government capable of such a thing? Technically, yes. But, generally speaking, governments like to rule over a nation of living human beings, not a mountain of corpses, demolished infrastructure, and a justifiably paranoid and heavily armed surviving civilian populace. And this isn't even getting into the PR problem and how the rest of the world would view the United States government declaring war on and slaughtering millions of its own people wholesale. The government doesn't want to turn its own country into another Vietnam.
And, even disregarding all that, "you should give up your guns because your own elected officials would just have you killed anyway!" is not a persuasive argument for giving up guns.
>>84081665
oh yeah I didn't wanna imply they were spotless or anything.
>>84081727
I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job.
>>84081699
This is why the second amendment needs to be expanded to include all military hardware and not just guns. When it was made, anyone could own a boat or horse which were the primary vehicles of war.
Things have changed and so should the constitution.
>>84081274
>someone agrees with someone else on 4chan
>samefag
this meme is old
>>84081750
Great non-rebuttal.
>>84081623
>. Countries with gun control accomplish two things: less gun violence, and less gun theft so that there would be less gun violence made with stolen guns.
Wrong. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world but not the highest rate of gun deaths. Jamaica beats us. Honduras beats us. Panama beats us. Swaziland beats us. All countries with less guns per person and stricter gun laws. It don't work.
>>84081568
>Why do you need the most practical and efficient killing machine?
Why wouldn't I? It only gives me an advantage. There are no downsides to owning a powerful gun.
>cause the government would slaughter everyone wholesale if they wanted to with chemical weapons and there is nothing your guns could do about it.
Pic related, give it a good read.
Anyway, I'll break this down for ya. Guns exist. You can't make them not exist. Even if you destroyed all guns you'd have to make sure it was impossible to manufacture anymore, which you'll never do. If someone owns a gun and I don't? That means that person has power over me. That's unacceptable in a democratic society of equality. Therefore, I must own a gun. If I have a gun and another civilian has a more powerful gun than me? Then they still have power over me. Therefore, I must own a powerful gun.
I want the most efficient gun. I want high ammo capacity. I want it to be lightweight. I want it to be ergonomic. I want it to be useful in as many situations as possible. That's all there is to it.
>>84081750
9/11 would have been stopped if there were armed passengers to stop the armed terrorists.
>>84081727
>>84081750
You guys aren't even pretending this conversation is /co/ related. Take it to another board.
>>84081727
because eventually the debate gets around to "What did the founders intend" and people generally land on Guns and a well regulated Militia were in there because of the threat of British or government uprising and hurting the people. we didn't even have a standing army.
so people try to bring that to modern day and it becomes what this thread is
$85,000 per hour to operate
>>84081813
and then they figured out how to properly build one of these
>>84081813
man the X-Men are loaded
>>84081718
>Don't talk smack. It dropped with the gun law alongside a drop in gun theft.
It was already dropping consistently beforehand.
Oh, and guess what? Australia has more guns than ever. Australian gun ownership has significantly decreased since your little confiscation programs.
More guns and yet you insist that the country is safer than ever before. Aussie gun control is a failure.
You are a dumbass if you think you can run a police state with jets, drones, and chemical weapons. Eventually you're going to need boots on the ground, and that is when having a heavily armed populace makes things tricky. This isn't even getting into the fact that you're also assuming 100% of the military would simply go along with this plan, especially considering the overlap between gun owning families and the armed forces.
>>84081840
I love the new plan for the airforce. They are going to remove all planes other than air-to-ground drones. The plan is going to be to shoot enemy planes on their hangars so they don't have to dogfight.
It's amazing.
>>84081859
*significantly increased, I mean
>>84081699
>You are a dumbass if you think the population could ever stand up to the current technology and advances of the US military.
Pay careful attention.
There's about 700,000 people in the US military
There's 300 million total people in the country
With tens of millions of firearms
In a country 2.9 million square miles in area
>>84081869
that's a great idea
>>84078816
>I mean, American taxpayer dont even pay that much compared with other countries
European countries would be wearing full gimp suits and ball gags.
>>84081589
Does it need to? I'm sure the massive fallout from All of America and most the world against the Government for drone bombing its own civilians on its own soil would probably stop the drone. Even if they could argue they were fighting domestic terrorists, they'd probably be stupid enough to have innocents killed as collateral. Also it seems pretty revealing. Gun nuts get labelled as paranoid idiots who think the Government will declare open war on its people, then Gun Grabbers show they believe that guns are pointless because their Government would absolutely declare open war on its people and escalate to drone warfare on day 1 so there's no point in fighting it.
Hey, you can spend all that money on illegal immigrant health care or legalized pot programs or transgender education n schools. Just don't complain when ISIS or the Chinese or North Korea shows up in your neighborhood.
>>84081939
>>84082020
>legalized pot programs
Nigga, what? Just make that shit 'not illegal', put some restrictions on it similar to what we have with alcohol, and then tax it. That won't lose money, it'll make money.
>>84079726
Are you acoustic
>>84082020
>THERE IS NO MIDDLEGROUND ITS EITHER FULL ALT-RIGHT OR FULL PROGRESSIVE LEFT
>>84082077
tax the HELL out of it. and i'm a giant pothead
>>84081718
>So? That is not an impressive number.
Bitch it means that gun control did nothing if not making the situation worse.
And yet now Britain is clamoring to take away knives now as well since thugs and criminals will always find a way.
>>84081608
Anon, they already have the fighter built and operational.
>>84079701
Yes, but we sell it to others or sell back. Almost always at a loss though.
>Be a moderate conservative surrounded by very liberal friends
>Get into disagreements with them all the time when the subject is politics
>Except when it's about guns in which case we pool our fuckin' spirit bomb energy together
It's funny. Gun control in the US is pushed so damn hard by politicians and celebrities and yet even the average liberal Democrat here knows it's bullshit. Guns are magical.
>>84080435
>Planes are useful. We should always be looking for ways to improve them
Then you should instead of trying to improve military aircrafts
>>84082077
>>84082115
We need to keep prices competitive with street dealers though. Selling without a license is a no go.
>>84082061
>If this episode was made today the moral would be strictly Anti-gun
>>84082128
Yeah anyone can take the chassis of a 1970s fighter jet and slap a F-35 style body on it.
The entire country of China is a cardboard prop.
>>84082256
Military aircrafts are planes, anon. Improvements upon the designs of military aircrafts are also improvements upon any flight technology we may have.
>>84080640
Wile we throw money @ that we retire Aircraft that has proven it's self time & time again. Why not upgrade this beast? Also the sounds of it flying & shooting givemes A war boner.#SaveTheWarthog
>>84078842
>what is the EU
>>84082478
Forgot pic
>>84082487
I wouldn't know.
>>84080749
Not really. So much of the defense budget goes to employing soldiers. If you cut it all you'd have hundreds of thousands of people without a job flooding the country (that number is over 1 million but I assume some percentage of them would have job skills that the market could take in, but the majority would be fucked). Good luck with your enormous new poverty and disenfranchised vet problem.
The Military for the US has long been a government controlled welfare system for many, many folks.
>>84082189
I'm A left leaning person & I'm pro 5th amendment if they take peoples guns people will still kill people & how are the people posts to protect them self & other in time of need.The problem is Stupid people That don't know gun safety & let there kids shoot them self or others & people that have guns that have shit control of the actions that shoots people over road rage A petty argument & bully etc.
>>84082927
Yeah but we'd throw that money at schools, which always work, so they can get a new education and new jobs.
Problems solved.
>>84083113
Always works? We spend more on public education per capita than all other countries and achieve below mediocre results. In healthcare we call this a colossal failure.
>>84083364
>RaynerWolfcastleholdingamicrophoneinfrontofabrickwall.png
To answer your question, it's basically saying taxpayers get fucked in the ass.
>>84081899
>700,000 organized people with proper military training, at peak age and fitness, staying in fortified structures, with shit like bombers, battleships, tanks, CDC, and nukes.
>300 million, but you are including literal babies, handicapped (mental and physical), senior citizens, NEET, and land whales. Little to no training, uneven distribution of weapons, no organization.
I mean, it won't be a shutout. Some preppers and militia types will get some small wins to be sure. But there is no contest. Especially if other countries stepped in.
>>84080640
F-35 is the living example of something my grandpa told me once: "Trying to go in every single direction at the same time will leave you exactly in the same starting position"
>>84084051
>other countries step in
Yeah I'm sure nobody would be on the side of the American Rebels.
But seriously the whole scenario is being put forth too simplistically.
If there was an actual civil war, there's ZERO chance the Military would be 100% loyal and ZERO chance that there wouldn't be Tories among the American populace. And it's being posited as ALL OF AMERICA vs ALL THE MILITARY which obviously wouldn't be the case either. We don't even know what this hypothetical Civil War is about.
Of course there would be contest in a realistic scenario, in your hypothetical there's no contest because if literally ALL of America revolted the military would be completely overwhelmed and every asset on American soil would be taken by the rebels very quickly because even just including abled body men and women that's 186 million individuals give or take the able bodied elderly or handicapped.
Again that's completely unrealistic but a force that large inside your country even if poorly organized isn't a joke.
>>84078790
schwartzwelder snuck in a right-wing joke, though it was delivered with all the care and propriety you'd expect of the modern show
