Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If someone wants to obtain nuclear weapons...

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If someone wants to obtain nuclear weapons, they will do so legally or illegally. Putting restrictions on nukes will only increase black market activity and nuclear bombings as a whole. The solution is to arm every US citizen with a nuclear bomb, so they are capable of defending themselves in the event of a nuclear attack.

Other urls found in this thread:

theintercept.com/2016/12/18/how-many-children-were-shot-dead-today-an-interview-with-gary-younge/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Reddit is that way

This argument is dead.
False equivalency.

Back to tumblr

>implying Republicunts understand logic and/or human emotions
They're retarded, don't bother. They really need to be purged.

How is it a false equivalency? I'm not sure you know what that is

>I'm not sure you know what that is meme

>that'll turn the tides

>that'll make my argument good

>False equivalency.
But it's not. It's Reductio ad absurdum.

False equivalency. Also there are black market nukes. Dumbass. They have done documentaries on this. Nukes are missing. This could actually happen. Just no one is insane enough to do it or has the funds to pay for these things.

>Nukes don't kill people

time to stop worrying about this guy then

>implying your own argument was good to begin with

I'm asking you to explain how it's a false equivalency, not trying to make an argument against what you said.

it's satire you momentous faggot

>False equivalency.
Again, it's not false equivalence, it's the stand "guns don't kill people" argument taken to it's logical extreme.

Cause nukes are practical in a Civil War.

>t's the stand "guns don't kill people" argument
1. pick an idiotic argument
2. refute it
boyhowdy
get fucked lmao

...

You make it sound like the NRA (and other pro-gun nuts) don't make that argument.

Does being pro-gun automatically make you a pro-gun nut? Can you not be pro-2nd Amendment and also support background checks, like 90% of Americans? The only reason you wouldn't support a background check is if you have a criminal history and are worried it could prevent you from getting a firearm.

>Does being pro-gun automatically make you a pro-gun nut?
No. You can be pro-gun but not be a nut, I didn't mean to make it sound like you couldn't.

I can't wait for them dumb liberuls to make nuke free zones. All you're doing is getting rid of the good guy with a nuke in that area.

>Device that destroys entire cities

Or

>Device that shoots metal pieces at people

Most retarded shit I've seen, are you a fan of Colbert and Trevor Noah?

The point is that the "guns don't kill people" argument is flawed. Guns are made for a singular purpose, to kill living things. Yes, you can have them for "target practice", but it doesn't change the fact that they are designed to shoot and kill the target. Nuclear weapons are designed to kill living things.

Giving the public the means to cause mass casualties is a disaster waiting to happen. It's not if, it's when, and how frequently it will occur. I'm not saying guns should be banned. But is it too much to ask for common sense legislation, such as universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and restrictions on military-grade firearms?

If you leave a gun on the ground, no wind, no people, no animals, with a clip. It won't kill anyone. Prove me wrong.

Nukes would eventually leak and radiate shit around it. You think criminals follow gun bans?

Only to keep the tyranny of governments from threatening the rights of individuals of course.

if you know what false equivalency - he shouldn't have to explain it, idiot.

Criminals dont follow nuke bans either.

I think almost everything he said went right over your head.

>(of a decision, event, or change) of great importance or significance, especially in its bearing on the future.
you don't actually know what "momentous" means, do you?

are you retarded?
Nukes and guns are very different things and good luck making nuke, smart ass

Wrong. Guns have other uses that don'r include killing people, target practice, hunting, clay pigeons, shooting experiences (yes people shoot guns for fun because shooting a gun is fun, virgin faggot).

Nuclear weapons serve no other purpose than to destroy. You press the button and what follows is an explosion so totally massive that it can destroy the City of London in its entirety.

You cannot compare the two.

>explosion in one direction legal
>explosion in all directions illegal

What if jamal has you totally surrounded?

>implying guns were invented for shooting for fun

"nuke' = "car"
print

Why do conservatives pretend like nobody has even considered using a gun to kill someone before?

>Wait you mean guns can be used to kill people? This is news to me! I didn't know that!

Cars are designed to transport people from one place to another. Nukes are designed for mass killings. Guns are designed to kill people.

It's not that either. You fucking morons.

We once built a lake with a nuke, and we're trying to perfect it for space travel. Iran even wants to use it for energy.

What right do you have to take energy away from me? Why is it alright to infringe on my rights?

Imagine someone went into /r9k/ and started randomly shooting bullets into /soc/ from a window above.

How long before they banned keyboard bullets?

The shooter is Canadian.

Would you ban Canada from buying keyboard bullets?

Neither were cars user, driving is my favourite pastime

>comparing nuclear power to atomic bombs
why does everyone keep comparing apples to buttholes?

I would ban Canadia 100%
Fucking leaves need to be raked

... but cars weren't invented solely to kill people. Unlike guns, which were solely invented to kill people. Are you made out of idiots?

>Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. If someone wants to obtain nuclear weapons, they will do so legally or illegally. Putting restrictions on nukes will only increase black market activity and nuclear bombings as a whole.
I understand that this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it isn't wrong. See: North Korea.

Energy is even worse in some cases. Breeder reactors exist too.

Guns weren't invented to solely kill people, they were invented to hunt animals also . Yummy tasty animals, the original fast food

Cars are designed for running people over. Nukes are designed to produce cheap, clean power for the world. Guns are designed for making metal targets go PTEEEEEEEENG!

Guns weren't originally invented to kill people. Colonial America actually used firearms to practice eye coordination and rarely used guns to fight other humans.

>If someone wants to obtain nuclear weapons, they will do so legally or illegally.
nope
> The solution is to arm every US citizen with a nuclear bomb, so they are capable of defending themselves in the event of a nuclear attack.
how do you defend yourself with a nuclear bomb? you play MAD with your neighbors?

anyway buddy, we dont care how many people have to die for the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEARS ARMS NOT TO BE INFRINGED
you know why, commie pinky rotten kikerat?
BECAUSE FREEDOM ISNT FREE

Implying the only purpose of either guns or nukes is to kill and/or destroy.

When you consider how successful nuclear weapons have been at their actual job (preventing all out war between 2 nuclear equipped nations), then a more accurate take from the equivalence would be that every sane person should not only be armed but prepared to use that gun if someone else turns their gun against them.

>Cars are designed for running people over.

No, they were designed for transportation. Running people over is something you can do with a car, but it's not its intended purpose.

Guns were designed to shoot and kill the target. You can do other things with them, but that is their intended purpose.

>Colonial America actually used firearms to practice eye coordination and rarely used guns to fight other humans
They also put a spring loaded, ivory toothed denture system into George Washington's mouth. That doesn't change two things:
>1. Guns are a tool invented for killing and nothing but
>2. 18th century remedies for just about god damned ANYTHING are outdated

Boy howdy, I sure would love to be completely defenseless during the next inevitable and illegal mass shooting carried out by a criminal with illegally obtained firearms! Where does my wife sign me up to get me cucked like that!?

Background checks would not have prevented Stephen Paddock from obtaining his guns.

Background checks are grossly insufficient to curb the annual mass slaughter of American civilians (every single day 7 children are killed by guns in the US - every, single, fucking day).

>theintercept.com/2016/12/18/how-many-children-were-shot-dead-today-an-interview-with-gary-younge/

You rednecks need to ban civilians from having guns already. Fuck the gun industry.

Some guns were. The m16 and ak47 were designed by militaries entirely to kill people.

Not to say they dont have other purposes, just commenting on what they were designed for.

What happened in Vegas killed this argument.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a problem with society, and the actions being carried out whether they be done with a gun, truck, bomb, knives, machetes, or what ever weapons zed mechanism of choosing is going to get worse til the underlying problems with society are dealt with. Banning guns is not the answer, it only slows down the process of obtaining them to carry out the end game.

>Background checks would not have prevented Stephen Paddock from obtaining his guns.

OK, but perhaps they would prevent someone with a criminal history from obtaining a gun and using it to commit murder.

>Background checks are grossly insufficient to curb the annual mass slaughter of American civilians

Then I assume you would be in favor of additional restrictions, such as limits on high capacity magazines and sale of military grade firearms?

>You rednecks need to ban civilians from having guns already.

You're trolling, but i responded anyway. So there.

Oh yea we've done great work stopping the government from spying on us. I cant wait for net neutrality to be axed and Sup Forums gets shut down.

Hope your guns work out for you.

It's also a lot easier to protect masses from weaponized cars (building anti-ram barriers between roads and sidewalks for instance), than it is to protect masses from a lunatic with a fully automatic combat rifle.

Shut the fuck up, how so?

I would love to see your stupid ass get shot by the cops because like an idiot - you started firing your gun DURING a shooting. The cops will TOTALLY know by default that you're the good guy shooting your gun in a crowd during a shooting.

>Banning guns is not the answer
Good thing nobody is trying to ban all guns. I support universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and military grade firearms.

It's literally the intended purpose.

KEEP THE GUBMINT OUTTA MY CARS!

you didnt just ask that, you also implied he didnt know what it means, thus implying that your equivalency is sound when it isnt as anybody with decent logic skills can spot several fallacies in it

Very true.

No one wants to test a guy with a nuke. Its the ultimate deterrent.

Imagine suddenly finding out the guy you are mugging has a suicide vest.

>But is it too much to ask for common sense legislation, such as universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and restrictions on military-grade firearms?

SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

fuck off pink

Very true

You don't power a nuclear plant with a nuclear bomb though. What are some other uses for nuclear bombs other than detonating them and killing people?

Yeah, and what exactly is that going to do in an attempt to deal with the problems in society today that create these tragedies

Yes goy keep pushing for tighter gun control, we will keep supplying weapons that are illegal anyway to mkultra victims so they can murder kids to further the gun control agenda. If we have no moral qualms about slaughtering kids imagine how fun it will be to slaughter all of you once everyone who could of defended you has lost their guns or been killed!

how new are you?
is it the first time you see a word being weirdly misused on the chans?
doesnt that remind you of anything?

No is addressing the root of the problem. People kill people. Therefore, ban the existence of the scourge that is humanity

>implying nukes are even real
top kek, do the maths yourself, it'll ignite the earths atmosphere if an area the size of half a mile reaches temperatures hotter than that of the surface of the sun.
faggot.

Nobody's infringing your right to own firearms. Placing reasonable restrictions is not the same as doing an all-out ban. Get some better reading comprehension.

>what is hunting?

>but perhaps they would prevent someone with a criminal history from obtaining a gun

Perhaps. Still insufficient.

>I assume you would be in favor of additional restrictions

Absolutely. Like a complete ban on private ownership of guns for instance.

...

>what is hunting?

Will it solve all gun violence? No. Will it maybe stop some gun violence? Sure. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Other nations don't have constant mass shootings.

Except this isnt a libertarian society.

This a democratic republic and your rights are subject to it's whims. We alter the constitution quite a lot.

oh yeah you totally did that on purpose :)

Do libtards really not understand how retarded this argument makes them look?

There are no laws against owning a nuclear weapon. They aren't necessary because there is no point in owning one. Entire nation states can't afford to build and maintain them.

>object X dose not kill people
>people kill people

we can say the same with cars, beer, drugs, baseball bats, hammers, ect ect ect.

...
..........and what exactly are your restrictions going to accomplish other than a foot in the door for more restrictions that do not work

>hunting
>hunting was ALWAYS done for fun, and not something done out of necessity.

You can make a gun in your garage, entirely, literally the entire thing, including ammo.
Most entire countries cannot make a nuke, even given explicit step by step instructions on how to do so.

Ok, let me rephrase. Guns are designed to kill people or other living things. There, better?

Paddock fired on a crowd of 22 THOUSAND people. Not one even tried (let alone succeeded) defending themselves with their own weapon. It took SWAT, a group of highly trained, heavily armed police over an hour to get to the shooter. The second amendment didn't do shit for those people.

nope
rights are god-given and protected by the constitution
you're confusing godgiven rights with state-granted privileges, commie pinko
also this isnt a democratic republic, go to north korea to see what that is
this is a representative, constitutional republic

Democratic Republic of North Korea
Democratic Republic of China
etc
cancerous places where you should move, pinko

FULLY. AUTOMATIC. HIGH. CALIBER. COMBAT.

Try putting those words in front of "hammer". You fucking moronic nimwit.

oh thats fucking bullshit, just look at stats the death rate at countries without guns / gun control have a very less percent of death by guns

Read what i said, the purpose of nukes is as a deterrent, they are not meant to be used.

What was the primary reason the cold war remained cold?

Have some respect!! Now is not the time to talk about gun control.

How do you know they wont work? Why do other nations not have constant mass shootings and also have stricter regulation than we do?

The point is, ideally, the shooter would be dead before anyone even needs to call the cops and if they did show up I'd have living people to back me up, not a pile of silent corpses. Not everyone is as incompetent with a gun as you gun controlfags. Even if I did get shot by the cops, the shooter would hopefully still be dead before doing any real damage. I'd gladly make that sacrifice but you seem to just want this trend of higher and higher body counts to happen again and again.

But the difference is the objects you named aren't designed solely for the killing of living things. Guns and nukes are.

Glad you brought other nations up, now won't you please quote us all some reliable credible facts and not the made up bullshit be spewed by the leftist gun grabbin Dick heads in an attempt to not waste a crisis

i didnt type that
i didnt see this meme used before but it looks like one
it's 2017, even you facebook-tier redditors have heard of memes by now
you should keep up if you wanna operate propaganda anywhere on the web nowadays, much more here

Prove god exists and said you could have a gun.

See

>If someone wants to obtain nuclear weapons, they will do so legally or illegally.
Little Rocket Man actually proves this point.