>>8490 >Your stance on this crisis should be completely related to your race, sex, religion, and political affiliations. Did you mean "unrelated?"

>they're takin ur gunz thread #43123 spoiler: they never take your guns

>>8493 mostly cos they don't need to they just fuck every other element of your lives while you focus on that

Hot take: incremental disarmament over generations is a winning strategy and will succeed in two or three decades, the only sliver of hope left is to push them towards mass confiscation this decade in order to trigger widespread instability

>>8498 I pray for a massive solar flare or magnetic asteroid to knock out the entire grid. They won't give us our fair share equally so fuck it all.

>>8498 this. This is how the biggest reforms and decisions were implemented in literally all of humanity. Humans can't think in terms of centuries or decades, they tend to forget all is thought to be old, and one major factor that contributes to spreading this mindset to the plebs is the consumer mindset, being used to change thinks every two years or even less etc.

>>8501 *things

>>8490 Kill them, and problem solved. Don't kill them, and you lose. Get it over you heads already.

I can never figure out why people think that they want to "take away the guns" so they can take over the country. They already took over the country you dumb nigger fuck! You already have no healthcare, no employee rights, and an increasing number of voting restrictions. You ALMOST had a point when you talked about billionaires and the Panama Papers. But instead of, oh I dunno, talking about abolishing billionaires, you're bitching about muh guns. Great! I'm so glad you have guns that you never use because you're a cucked coward who SUPPORTS the rulers instead of deposing them. Sitting in your shitty apartment paying your life to some investment banker, clinging to your shitty pistol hoping you don't get an infected motherfucking toenail because going to a hospital will cost you $20,000. I hope you can learn to digest brass and gunpowder, because pretty soon you won't be able to afford actual food. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL HAVE YOUR GUNS!

>>8956 >how did Vietnam defeat the USA? By convincing the American public that it was a pointless war that was causing death on both sides. That was, of course, the last time the rulers every bothered listening to their constituents on whether or not to go to or maintain a war effort. Hence, America has been at war literally constantly since then.

>>8527 You're a fucking moron. There's a reason that all armed control forces have ARMS.

>>8527 >health care It's Rockefeller allopathic sick care. I don't want it and don't pay for it. >worker's rights only natural rights exist >increasing number of voting restrictions Should be one vote per land owning family >billionaires Nobody cares about your choice of which number is a bad number >Panama Papers Fabricated. cf. The Secret Team by Col L. Fletcher Prouty (ret) >never used my guns I do use them, but I guess I'm not clear on what you think I should have done with you >shitty apartment My landlord is a jew, but he's pretty cool for a jew. I'm happy with it for the time being, although it's true I should have bought a house and built equity. I just didn't think I'd be here this long >some investment banker I suppose the same one(s) managing my 401(k) although I really only have one because my evil corporation I work for donates things to it. I invest in other things on my own >infected toenail I had one of those once. I ordered some gentian violet from the interent and that fixed it up for all of about $6 or something like that. I don't know what's wrong with your life. Mine's not perfect but then again I'm part of the 1%, globally, just like you.

>>8988 Believing that you're some kind of exception to the rule, and will never going to need healthcare in any shape or form (including that you can get by with "natural" methods like smoking weed for a broken leg) is a conceit that you'll lose by your middle 30s when your body starts to regularly betray you. >one vote per land owning family All semantics on how, exactly, one would define a "family" aside, I'm curious what your plan was after willfully disenfranchising your own vote, you apartment-dwelling loser. That's right. You don't own your own house/land, which is clearly entirely your fault and means you're a useless loser and always will be. In case you don't get the sarcasm, that was the conservative talking point, not me.

>>8991 I never said anything about believing myself to be exceptional. I'm just yet another dork on the internet, and I'm a lot older than 30. Now, as for the "family," it's not like I believe it's still the 1700s where your birth certificate was when your mother wrote your name in the family bible. I don't have a problem with people who prefer to live that way, but if you want to participate in the government to the point of voting then you're going to need some sort of government registration, and at that point it's reasonably easy to define who "owns" land. If you don't own the land, then you're living under somebody else's roof. Ergo, owning land translates for the most part into a single family. Exceptions would obviously include those families who put different plots of land in different peoples' names, but we can work on that with state marriage records and so-forth. I don't really care about what "conservative" means or what their talking points are supposed to be.

>>8490 >Your elected officials are lying through their teeth when they tell you the push for disarmament is to protect the public from gun violence. Of course they are. But the reason why the elite wants to disarm the populace is actually even more bleak than that. Do they want to prevent an armed rebellion? Well yes, but they don't actually fear the threat of insurrection. They were perfectly happy to encourage the great BLM chimpout, remember? In fact, you've already mentioned what they really *do* fear - the voting public. Specifically, the notion of the voting public turning against them and putting uncooperative outsiders into office. That's why they collectively screamed and shat themselves when Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump became the major contenders in the 2016 primaries. The fact that even *those two* - a commie millionaire senator and a business mogul billionaire - were already deemed unacceptable outsiders in spite of both being deeply embedded in the US elite, well, that really shows you just how fucked the whole situation is. So what's the point of gun grabbing when you want to defang the voting public? Is it about preventing an armed uprising, or domestic terrorism? You know, like what CNN and all the other pozzed outlets were saying when they were scaremongering about alt-right (Hello, I just arrived from Leddit, please bully me) terrorism? No anon, think a step further. Be even more cynical. Yes, gun crime overwhelmingly comes from gangs and streetcrime. I.e. from people who overwhelmingly use illegally acquired weapons. Clamping down on legal gun ownership isn't going to do shit against that - and here's the fun part: the elites actually know this. They know very well that banning guns and defunding the police is going to make crime skyrocket. They know very well that this will screw over law-abiding citizens who actually have something to defend. And that's exactly what they want. They want a dysfunctional, miserable nation where the majority is far too busy with scapegoating the usual acceptable targets in order to take note of who's really fucking them over. And banning guns and taking away people's right to defend themselves is vital to that. They want you scared, alone, isolated and utterly dependent. >>8498 >>8501 Spot-on. It's called shifting baseline syndrome, and it works terrifyingly well. America has gone from "lol you don't need the permission of Congress to have your own personal warship" to banning or restricting many kinds of small arms.

>>8498 Boiling frog is a winning strategy in general, even if it says more about humans than it does of frogs. The world will slowly shift into an authoritarian shithole over the years and I doubt there is much one can do about it. It seems to be the natural progression of humanity. Humans simply DO NOT want to be free. It's saddening.

>>8994 >They want a dysfunctional, miserable nation where the majority is far too busy with scapegoating the usual acceptable targets in order to take note of who's really fucking them over In which case they need to do precisely nothing, because we're already at that point and have been since Reagan. Taking away guns, along with abortion and conflating gays with pedos has always been Conservative boogymen. It's never anything that's going to happen, but the threat of those things happening keeps scared helpless Americans running to the polls and voting red. >>8997 >It seems to be the natural progression of humanity Something I brought up once was that it's probably erroneous to believe that humanity is going to trend to some kind of collectivist utopia, where all countries are united together. The cold reality is that, with the exception of the last hundred years or so and a few experiments here and there, pure democracy and freedom are completely absent. For the grand majority of ~10,000 years of human civilizations, the masses have been ruled by absolute dictators. Kings, emperors, tsars, etc.. So when a lot of people, right now, see an increasing amount of authoritarianism as some kind of slide backwards from what should be "progress" towards that utopia, I see it merely as a regression to the mean. Most likely, this little century and change of "freedom" is a small, temporary blip between vast periods of emperors and serfs. Whatever vestiges of civilization are left by the end of the century, they'll probably be living under an absolute ruler of some kind. Albeit more like a chief or village elder, seeing how there likely won't be any communities of more than a few hundred left, scattered about the places that are still cool and not hot from climate change or sizzling from the nukes.

>>8999 I was never advocating for a collectivist utopia. I agree with you, that an authoritarian state is the natural state of humanity, but I do not believe it is a good state for humanity to be in. Authoritarian states usually leave most of the people living in them quite miserable. Democracies aren't good at this, they're simply slightly better in my mind. The thing is, although I do believe they can work, they aren't a natural development for humanity, or maybe it doesn't even have to do so much with human traits as much as it does with the traits of the world itself. Authoritarian regimes aren't more effective than free societies but... they definitely are easier to create than them. They constitute a simpler and stabler solution, while not being good places to live in. Perhaps it is simply in our fates to suffer from the hands of tyrants.You either get in the game yourself and try to gain power for your own selfish reasons, or you stay a slave.

Elitists don't want their chattel armed.

>>8994 > They were perfectly happy to encourage the great BLM chimpout, remember? BLM are 'their' guys. If you are reading this, you are not. Look at Jan 6. Mostly fake, but They are sparing no expense to make the show trials real.

>>8490 >The Bourgeoisie fuck off commie cuck