[ D a i l y B i k e T h r e a d ] - /dbt/
Dirt bike edition
>Motorcycle Routes & Meetups
>Motorcycle Gear & Accessories
>Motorcycle Adventures & Greentext
>Motorcycle Questions & Answers
>Motorcycle Pictures & Webms
>Motorcycle maymays & shitposting
See if it fits:
New here? read this
>>10361928 → (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread)
>Webms with sound:
Previously on deebeetee:
FIRST FOR FUCK U PLASTIC SHITBIKE LOVING WEEBS
>vrod supposed to be fast
>twice the displacement but makes the same power as a 600
>weighs 50% more
>version called the "night rod" to remove any doubt that the bikes are meant specifically for homosexuals.
>buying a KTM
Post ur cheap ass rice bike nigger
I think the 500 is a better dirt bike, 690 is a better dual sport for sure.
Now post your lelnobike
why are people who like harleys always stereo types?
a race bike isnt much good for trail riding, this is coming from first hand experience.
and what race bikes are 160lbs?
The Freeride is like a crossover trials/dirt bike, I don't think you could really compare that to a 500EXC
you dont need to tell me that, but its still 30+lbs heavier than the freerides
but not having ridden a freeride i have no idea if their ergos or power delivery is any good
Once again you are posting more fucking harley pictures than people are posting in general.
Why do you come on dbt to spam harley pictures for 3 hours until the thread hits the image limit at 200 posts?
Your life must be bloody pathetic if this is how you get your kicks.
Go outside you miserable cunt, it is 2:30 in the afternoon on school holidays, do you have no fucking friends at all?
Is that why you shitpost on dbt like an autistic jizz sock?
Yes i mad.
as a fatty i can agree there, but having ridden mtb for years i notice the lighter weight and really like light bikes.
>tfw can barely ride mtb anymore because i overpump and preload everything
>if you don't respect all bikes, get the fuck out
>all discussions about cruisers, not shitty jap rice rockets
Shut the fuck up or i will delete this thread and stop posting them in the future i am over seeing your shit in every second thread i post.
Stop shitposting the Harleys? I think everyone would be ok with that
he is just a shit stirring little cunt on school holidays with nothing better to do.
He doesn't even like harleys but these threads have become a place for him to be an autistic wanker because he knows a lot of people do dislike them.
do you understand that the problem here is you are an autistic stay at home who finds entertainment in spamming 150 images of things you do not even like to try and rustle peoples jimmies?
I just can not understand how someone so pathetic even wakes up in the morning.
how do you guys not get pinched by the cops?
in Australia a bike like that (if ridden on the road) is technically unregistered, uninsured, fail to display plates, unroadworthy and if they wanted to they could stich you up.
You can get conditional rego in some states but. Usually I see those sorts of bikes on trailers going to the trails. If they're on the road they're usually just hiding/running from the cops.
But considering America's police pursuit policy (i'm assuming you're american) that might be dangerous..
>I wanted to do this
>couldn't find a KDX cheap enough
Freeride is meant to cross train as >>14181260 said. I suppose it would be easy to ride but it wouldn't be fast by any means.
>tfw I think I'm going to buy a 450EXC
Don't fucking tempt me, man
Well in my area, they just don't give a fuck. Lots of public land to legally ride on right outside of my neighborhood so I rarely, if ever, run into a cop on the way to the trail. Alamoanon and I have ridden past cops stopped for speed traps and they never followed us.
Well in America it looks like they smash the offenders leading the pursuit physically, criminally and civilly later.
But cops in Australia are much more risk averse as a result of feedback from the Coroner. So they don't usually pursue. Especially for traffic matters.
Everyone sues the cops it seems because at least they have the money. And the courts are alot more critical of the cops for pursuing the offenders if it goes bad and a bystander gets hurt.
Have you never come across the police on dirt bikes?
They are keen cunts, they try to get up beside you and kick you off your bike.
Running from them is like 70% of the reason you go up bush.
we can start dbt smokers lounge
You're lucky. It's gotten harder and harder to find off road places around here. One of my favorite spots was near a river, but some duochebag strung wire across places on the trail and a rider got decapitated.
yeh from where I am it seems you can either get a trailer and drive out to the trails or get a dual sport and ride the hour to the trails. But then you need some sort of puncture repair options.
Good bike choice, most reliable dirt bike i ever owned is a 450exc, managed to get 300 hours of trail riding out of it before doing an engine rebuild
Des the one I posted look like a KX250 with a headlight? The plastics just look wrong to me for a KDX
It's happening here too. One of the best riding areas is currently in limbo because some dickhead rancher whose land it runs through gated up the trail illegally, but he's funding the county government so they don't want to do anything about it. He's trying to get it closed for good.
In the U.S. cops aren't allows to use contact or violence unless you are endangering peoples lives or being excessively reckless. Otherwise they just pursue you and call in an air unit until you stop.
how do you know when a 450 needs a rebuild?
Yeah. I'm looking at a 2004. My brother has a 2005 and I've ridden it and really like it. The main thing making me skeptical and reluctant to buy it is the odometer/hour meter has been taken out. Looks like the last owner took care of it fairly well though.
I normally do oil changes every second ride, if i do over 100km of single trail riding i will do it every ride. They are race bikes, the engines don't hold much oil to save weight so it gets nasty quick if you are riding them hard.
yeh, technically they have a similar policy here. But the reality of the situation is that they don't generally pursue unless you're endangering the public AND pursuit is the best way to get it to stop.
The only recent example I can think of is someone driving on the wrong side of the road after an armed robbery and continuing to do so after police discontinued the pursuit. Clearly he's driving that way irrespective of police involvement and the public expect police to step in.
The concern is that it might look like police caused or contributed to the subsequent fatal crash.
It isn't. It's a public trail running through his property. Similar to multi thousand acre ranches with an asphault highway running through them. The rancher owns everything on either side of the highway but the highway is public.
Probably gonna try and look at it this weekend.
>The concern is that it might look like police caused or contributed to the subsequent fatal crash.
Yea, American police definitely don't care about that. They just blame it on whoever was being pursued.
we would love to do that here. But the courts and the coroner hold a different opinion. The relevant police comissioners/ministers won't stand up to the courts and so our states have very risk averse policies.
ie. not supposed to get into a foot chase or taser someone that's been consuming paint/glue because they can die.
How the fuck is that the police's fault? ultimately it's very rare you know that before hand.
The Coroner and lawyers trying to make a buck would suggest that any aboriginal is likely to be in that category...
>Implying Australian police do
The only cops that are going to stop chasing you at 140kmh are the ones in divvy vans, Highway patrol doesnt give a fuck mate.
>Brake pads all over the front rims
It is to be treated as a public road. In fact it is a named public road.
>Probably gonna try and look at it this weekend.
buy something off me so i can afford more bikes m8
I spy a 2008 ktm125 exc for ants
Varies states to state; Victoria, SA and NT are the only police that might consider pursuing for anything not life imprisonment related.
QLD has no balls.
Basically if you pursue and it goes bad. Ya gonna have a bad time.
Potentially misconduct charges and getting sued civilly. The Police force won't back you, that's why you pay union fees.
I'll give you $900 for your KDX, bring it to Moab kek
Well I think the Aussie policy makes more sense. In the U.S. police will escalate things till their ultimate conclusion, whatever that may be. Even if it starts as something ridiculous like an argument with no crime committed. It could escalate to the police shooting or tazing someone.
I think the main issue with American police is the lack of a "call it off" atitude wherein they don't escalate past a certain point if the initial issue was minor or inconsequential.
But the American police military industrial complex in the U.S. won't allow such things. They want maximum power and maximum authority to do what they want. And they have the prosecutors, the crime/prison lobbyists, and legislature on their side.
oh no, forks, thats a 2009 and its an SX.
no way, im still trying to talk my dad into selling it to me so i can plate it.
are you jelly of our little slice of freedom?
We have gated public dirt roads like that on cattle stations here in Australia. Its perfectly legal to go through the gates, its just expected that you close them once you have gone through, plus its courteous.
Yeh there is a very different attitude towards policing.
In Australia police seem to be glorified social workers. Or they give up on fighting crime and just focus on traffic enforcement because it's easy and black/white.
If you try a pursuit here you take your career in your hands.
There is alot more training here and alot more oversight. Once again, the courts (judges) are all from civil liberties brigade and background. So they have a completely different opinion. Always taking the criminals side.
America's police seem almost paramilitary. They seem like they don't get much legislation training. I'm confident they get paid less and have shorter training/supervision phases.
Part of the problem is he is threatening to shoot any "trespassers" that go through the illegal gates. Amazing how a little money in the government forgives you threatening the lives of people wanting to use public land eh?
you americans are crazy with your stand your ground laws and the authorisation of lethal force against trespassers.
Jesus christ, imagine if you shot a trespasser and it was someone trying to get donations or sell girlscouts cookies? or someone just making a legitimate enquiry? or your kid's mate that you falsely identified?
>are you jelly of our little slice of freedom?
Kek. I own 2 pistols and 3 rifles.
In fact I am more proficient in shooting a handgun than the majority of the australian police force.
They only shoot once a year and thats just to pass the handgun test.
Having a pistol licence means I need to shoot at least 6 times a year and compete in 1 comp a year.
yeh but can't randomly ride around with guns in the top box.
Probably a good thing looking at the way alot of people drive.
Road rage incidents would become murders...
Imagine Aboriginal people with guns?
This is a different situation. Most public/BLM land here is like that. Just close the gate if it was closed when you rode up on it and you're good to ride and camp wherever. This guy is just trying to drive up the property value by privatizing a super popular canyon.
I don't really have use for your YZ. If I get a KDX or similar it'd be a replacement for the KLX.
sorry lad I didn't know.. and the bike is heavy and would be pretty difficult to "run" and hold a 400lb+ bike if im not even on it to balance it from falling over to the other side
sounds like your police is about as good as ours
and your pistol lic rules are fucking retarded, does it at least grant you an unlimited number of pistols you can own?
ill sell you a gun or two?
NM does not have stand your ground law. What he is threatening is 100% illegal.
Or, y'know, die. This is in the middle of nowhere NM not middle of Albuquerque or something.
we have the same legislation here in QLD Australia; We just don't usually have guns lying around, they're usually in safes unless in use.
272 Self-defence against provoked assault
(1) When a person has unlawfully assaulted another or has provoked an assault from another, and that other assaults the person with such violence as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and to induce the person to believe, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary for the person's preservation from death or grievous bodily harm to use force in self-defence, the person is not criminally responsible for using any such force as is reasonably necessary for such preservation, although such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.
I do it on 400+lb street bikes all the time.
Are you not comfortable walking a bike around form the side without your leg swung over? If not, get used to it first.
Once the bike is moving you can steer it like you would while riding while running along side it to maintain balance. It's not hard.
yeh I was just saying, fortunately with our current rules no aboriginal is going to go thorugh the training course, background checks, waiting period and be sobre enough to get a gun.
Imagine if we had america's rules and aboriginals could pick up a gun for $100 just vising a store. Society would crumble.
I'm not any expert, I don't live in America. But I did watch a documentary taking place in some American state and they legally purchase a gun in a carpark, like off Craigslist and they meet the guy and hand over cash.
No paperwork changes hands, no proof of licence?
If that's legit that's a pretty interesting situation...
That's worded much more conservatively than what we have in the U.S
This is one of the most liberal gun hating states in the country, California:
>§ Penal Code 198.5
>"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
Basically, if someone who you don't know is in your house or is forcing their way into your house, you have the right to kill them where they stand. That's American Castle Doctrine.
I like the American version better.
you think criminals buy guns at public shows?
also at least here in WA all the gun shows are run by clubs which you need to be a member of to buy a gun at and to be a member you need to pass a background check anyways.
any fuckwad can buy a car and run people down without a license check.
laws dont stop criminals
The ability to buy guns at gun shows or in person privately without background checks in some states is real. It's not a "loophole". It is an explicit allowance to allow the sale of guns without burdening private citizens with excessive regulation.
technically enthusiast to enthusiast. I just don't get why their is no attempt to solve the problems.
>grant you an unlimited number of pistols you can own?
Not really. As you need a reason for owning each handgun. So you need to have different caliber pistols and then claim they are for diferent competitions.
I was thinking about selling my pistols and just letting my H licence expire. Its too much fucking around. Plus the cops can just rick up to my house and demand to see my pistols and inspect the gun safe
No, possession of a firearm is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Driving a car is not.
Licensing gun owners in order to posses guns is a power not given to the government. The government has no authority to do so.
You're right, Our trespassing defence only extends to using bodily harm (bruises?) to evict a trespasser.
In that scenario you can usually identify the intruder and confirm they're not a 10 year old or something innocent.
Then if the situation escalates you have that protection, if they present a threat of grevious bodily harm or death you can reply in kind.
I think it's more specific but the protection is still there.
The only difference is we don't have easy access to guns. They have to be safely stored when not in use. Ammunition seperate.
and thats the way it should be.
move to America and enjoy an unlimited number of guns without the LEO barging in on your shit and not have to justify shit
>this guy gets it
Because statistically the amount of firearms bought through the so called "loophole" that are used by prohibited persons is so small that there is no problem.
The millions of $$$ used to promote and lobby for the closing of the "loophole" could be used a to much much much greater benefit getting the fucking ATF and local prosecutors to actually pursue those who violate existing gunlaws.
you can grantee a right and still provide reasonable restriction.
If everyone can have guns, provided they pass a 2 day course and have some checks done and a bit of a waiting period pass, I don't see how any rights are being infringed.
You can still have the guns at the end of the day.
We still have guns here.
Similarily in America that right to possess guns CAN be infringed if you're a felon. So there your government accepts some infringment because you don't want felons having guns.
Just something a little less recoil so the wife can shoot it too. She shot my old 20 gauge at my parents' place and that was plenty for her.
She also shot my dad's .44, that was too much for her kek.
The problem of some people being retarded apparently.
the constitution can be amended. and no one is saying anything about
a lack of a national database of who has a gun for one. any cop can look up your drivers license from any police cruiser to verify the owner of the vehicle, why can't you do that with gun ownership.
or that no education is required to wield or purchase a weapon. why? it is as dangerous as a car, why not teach people proper ownership of this.
the government doesn't "accept" some infringement
they are the infringement.
the 2nd amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed" which is exactly what those laws are aiming to do by adding additional cost and restrictions on people owning guns
who pays for drivers ed, private government approved individuals run drivers ed, and those without am impairing disability are allowed. how should that be different.
a 12 with a good recoil pad and light loads is pretty reasonable, plus ammo is dirt cheap.
i had a 16ga bolt gun and it kicked like a mule compared to my pump and bolt 12ga guns.
aguila makes mini shells too which are awesome for new shooters if you can find them
>Who pays for the class,
obviously the people taking it
>who runs the class
an educated, licensed instructor
>who dictated who can even take the class?
Same people who dictate who can legally buy a gun now.
>you can grantee a right and still provide reasonable restriction.
The law of the constitution explicitly states that the right "shall not be infringed" by the government.
>f everyone can have guns, provided they pass a 2 day course and have some checks done and a bit of a waiting period pass, I don't see how any rights are being infringed.
Because if someone doesn't pass said requirements their rights WILL be infringed. And that infringement is beyond the authority of the government.
>You can still have the guns at the end of the day.
Unless you don't jump through the necessary hoops, then your rights are infringed. That's the part that's illegal.
>Similarly in America that right to possess guns CAN be infringed if you're a felon. So there your government accepts some infringement because you don't want felons having guns.
Current infringement of rights doesn't qualify further infringement. There is legal battles in the U.S. right now over the rights of felons and those who have been illegally disarmed.
you pay for it because its not a fucking right genius.
adding mandatory classes and expenses only sees to price lower income people out of guns, and they tend to be the people who would need them the most
>move to America
I would, But for the average person with no desirable skills, family connections of considerable cash to invest in America it will be a long and frustrating process to get a permanent resident visa.
i use all types of paper targets when i go for a range day, not once has this led me to devalue any human life and think of them as a potential target.
the mentally unsound might, but i cant really speak for them.
but all those gun control dollars might actually do some real good if they got invested in mental health instead of harassing law abiding citizens constantly
Because when you do need to defend yourself with a gun, usually its against human shaped targets.
>the constitution can be amended. and no one is saying anything about
I never said it couldn't be. Good luck with that constitutional amendment removing one of america's core rights. It would never even make it to state ratification, even if you could get it through congress.
>any cop can look up your drivers license from any police cruiser to verify the owner of the vehicle, why can't you do that with gun ownership.
Because we have constitutionally protected rights and natural rights. The right to privacy being one of them.
I don't want to government to have the private data on my private firearms so they can look up my private residence whenever they want.
>no education is required to wield or purchase a weapon. why?
Because that is an infringement and an authority that the government DOES NOT HAVE. The government cannot legally do something that is beyond their outlined authority. The ultimate outline of that authority being the Constitution.
>it is as dangerous as a car
>why not teach people proper ownership of this.
People are free to seek and learn by their own free will. Not by any government mandate.
>tend to be the people who would need them the most
no one NEEDS a gun. they might want a gun, but you don't need a gun. further, you have to pay for identification, registration for your gun, taxes and everything else you do. it's not like you buy a gun (which you have to pay for, it isn't guaranteed and given to you as a natural right) and that is that.
australia did it right with the buybacks and all. didn't gun violence drop a shitload?
1) Creates pay barrier to exercised an enumerated Right.
2)Creates a government monopoly and bureaucracy as to whom can teach the classes which means you have politicians who know fuckall about firearms and their safety dictating their proper usages and giving their cronies new job openings.
3)Yay, lets give political fuckheads even more control of what we can and can't do!
Lets be honest. If you are not a racial minority engaged in illegal activities and from a low socio-economic background or if you're not suicidal, THERE IS NO 'GUN PROBLEM'.
tl;dr: Don't be poor, black, or suicidal and guns are A'ok!
Driving a car on a public road is not the same as private ownership of a firearm.
One is a constitutionally protected right. The other isn't.
Your attempts to draw parallels between are ill informed.
The government doesn't have the authority do with firearms what they do with vehicles. Plain and simple.
>australia did it right with the buybacks and all
The only reason it worked so well here is the fact we are isolated and don't share any borders.
Something like that would never work in USA, look at mexico, doesn't it have a nogunz policy?
>l;dr: Don't be poor, black, or suicidal and guns are A'ok!
Except when uneducated or insane people around you use them.
>no one NEEDS a gun. they might want a gun, but you don't need a gun.
Wanting or needing a gun is of no consequence. It doesn't matter if you think I need it or not. I have the RIGHT to have it. And I have the RIGHT to use it to defend myself against person, government, or foreign invader..
>further, you have to pay for identification, registration for your gun, taxes and everything else you do.
You don't have to pay for any of that necessarily to buy a gun.
>t's not like you buy a gun (which you have to pay for, it isn't guaranteed and given to you as a natural right) and that is that.
The right to life and to feed yourself is a natural right, but you are not just given food. That's not how rights work.
The right to own a firearm and protect yourself is a right. That means if you so choose you have the right to go and buy (or make) said firearm for that purpose.
>no one NEEDS a gun
bloomberg pls go
how do you know what anyone needs? do you know them better than they know themselves?
would you walk up to someone who lives in a shitty area because they cant afford a nicer place and say that they dont need a gun?
those are gangs and criminals, who just get illicit guns anyways
but it didnt work, it had no measurable effect on overall violent crime, it just brought gun related violent crime down and still didnt alter the over all crime decline AUS was already experiencing.
the US has been in a crime decline for 30 years, but people think its more dangerous than it ever has been because of the media throwing everything at us all the time
>but it didnt work, it had no measurable effect on overall violent crime, it just brought gun related violent crime down and still didnt alter the over all crime decline AUS was already experiencing
The fact that mass shootings happen doesn't mean they are a huge problem.
They are sensationalized by the media to the extreme but realistically amount to an insignificant amount of deaths.
Mass shootings are not the problem they are made out to be. Significantly more people die from fistfights in a month than people die from "mass shootings" in a year.
>but it didnt work, it had no measurable effect on overall violent crime
I was referring to the buyback scheme and how it removed those guns, of course non gun related crime rose as now those previous crimes were not committed with guns, instead they used knifes/bats/other objects as weapons.
>In a world with so many people why would it matter if just a few die from unfit people getting guns
In a world with so many rights, why would it matter if just 1 right would get taken away?
Statistically insignificant. Tragic, horrendous, terrible. But in the grand scheme of things insignificant. One of the most devastating attack against a school for the longest time was by a whackjob with dynamite. Spend 5 minutes onlien and you can make a bomb from shit at your local hardware store.
KKK, I'm not going to mock you and call you ignorant about the 2a/anti-2a issue. Just do this: Look up the # of firearm homicides in the USA vs # of firearms OWNED. Now look at the # of motorcycle deaths vs # of motorcycles in the USA. Now give some heavy thought as to if the same people who are trying to kill the 2nd amendment wouldn't be some of the same people who would eventually try in install Aussie/euro regulations on motorcycles or outright banning them.
That's an unfit analogy. Gun regulations are to protect bystanders from being hurt by the people who buy guns. Any regulations on motorcycles would merely protect the riders from themselves.
>but it didnt work, it had no measurable effect on overall violent crime
The same thing happened with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S.
In the 1990's "scary" and "dangerous" "assault weapons" were banned. It had no appreciable impact on the already steady downturn of violent crime.
Then in the 2000's when the FAWB expired, there was no uptick or appreciable increase in violent crime.
In fact now, there are more "assault weapons" in American circulation than ever and violent crime is STILL going down.
Gun grabbers don't like this fact though and choose to ignore it.
Because it is a fucking RIGHT. The right to defend yourself (and the means to do so) is a fundamental natural right.
You don't just disregard rights all willy nilly, even if peoples lives are lost. Entire wars have been fought and millions of lives have been lost in the protection of mans rights and ability to live free.
i'm sorry that you're such a ckuck that you are willing to just abandon your own rights. But everyone is not so worthless.
If you don't like guns then good for you. You don't have to like them, you don't have to buy/use/learn-about them. Just leave those of us who do like them the hell alone. You put yourself through more danger walking out the door on an icy morning, taking a bath, or RIDING YOUR FUCKING MOTORCYCLE then you will ever statistically face from firearms unless you are a soldier, cop, or gangbanger.
>The gubmint is too big! It's only out to get us! Not to protect its citizens but to destroy them!
Even at this point, our citizens would stand no chance if the federal government got the military to try to sweep the country and reign supreme over the citizens.
The total firearms death rate in 1995 - the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation
>what is the atf, the largest illegal arms supplier
a buyback wont do shit for us, too many shit countries connected to us with naught but a fence to slow them down.
yeah, thats bullshit.
Most vets are pro-2a and more then willing to start shit with our government if need be. Most active duty are unwilling to follow orders that would have them attack US citizens within the homeland. I'm too fucking tired to look it up but the pentagon has actually done readiness studies on the possibility of deploying troops within the US and they were not pleased by the study's answers.
Wisconsins licensed hunting population outnumbers our standing army m8
plus the army has about 80% of its soldiers who flat out state they would defy orders to march on the American people.
and the UN is a bunch of pussbags
>life and safety isn't a right
This shit started because one of the gun owners went all defensive about MUH RIGHTS when some anon brought up a crazy guy threatening to shoot trail riders.
There is at least one shooting a day here, statistically here I am highly likely to be injured by a firearm, plus then add the mortality rate for mototcyclists.
I am the man of steel
Whats your town's population? Do you engage in illegal activities sponsored by criminal syndicates?
1) If you care so much about life and safety and are so concerned about being the victim of violence then why would you rely on the state to secure your safety when federal courts of ruled that law-enforcement, that almost always gets there after the fact, is under no legal obligation to secure your safety?
>>life and safety isn't a right
Safety is not a right. The ability to defend yourself is. Your safety is YOUR responsibility, not the governments.
Life is a right, thus it cannot be infringed by the government. Meaning the government cannot just come and take your life. But life is not and cannot be guaranteed by the government either. The right to life does not mean the government makes a magic safety bubble around you making sure no harm ever comes to you.
Stop being dumb.
>implying even 20% of people would fight back instead of immediately obeying orders
>implying the government would even have to take over anything. They already run the place.
What would our government have to benefit from waging a war on its people? More respectful citizens?
I'm not even saying we should ban guns or anything. I just don't believe we need a right to own guns to defend ourselves from the government.
>I want to shoot at uncle sam
>too bad its illegal to buy a gun
ask the millions who died under stalin and mao about why an armed populace would be a good idea.
the fact we have the guns is the reason the government cant just run us over and implement whatever they want.
all at once at least, they just lower the bar slowly nd wait till no one notices before edging it lower again
I'm not going to contribute to this shitstorm in the next thread.
It's not about disarming the public though.
Even if they tried to disarm the public, that wouldn't stop the rebels anyway because they're disobeying the law by fighting the government.