Gun enthusiasts move their videos to Porn Hub.

[Okjoek]

5 minutes ago, JuNex03 said:

And don't forget the more brutal exit wounds an arrow can cause

Honestly I've never fired an arrow at a living being before so I will just take your word for it. I only use my skills as a sport, and I don't consider harming or taking life as being a sport.

[JuNex03]

20 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Given enough time and effort, any object that currently exists could be used as weapon.

Exactly.

[Doobeedoo]

Hmm, I ain't even mad...

[Shreyas1]

4 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

don't stop there, what happened?! o_o

He was in possession of illegal drugs 

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

 

Yeah. Knives are very effective amongst an unarmed incapable population. Sorry.

This story about a group of 10 attackers using long-knives and machetes does not change my point.

I didn't say that knives weren't effective. I was countering the claim that they are as effective as guns.

 

I am not from the US so don't really understand your gun issues. I do know that guns are part of your culture more than other countries and I was not making case for banning all or any types of guns. Just replying to a particular point...
 

[Techicolors]

1 hour ago, JAKEBAB said:

No more demolitionranch or iraqveteran?

 

Meh. Car guys already moving to build their own platforms, no doubt the gun guys will follow suit. 

 

YT just taking advantage of a really shitty time.

demolitionranch just uploaded a video of a credit card gun 

 

meanwhile i thought car channels will move to Drivetribe

[Jito463]

On the topic of the thread, I don't ever go to PH; and even if every gun video moved there, I still wouldn't go.  They'd have to make a spin-off site without any porn on it, for me to even consider going there.

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

our gun problem has mostly 0% to do with the sale of guns legally and currently close to 100% to do with the fact that US government agencies sold a bunch of guns to cartels

Believe me when I say, that we Americans are just as angry at Obama and Holder for that fiasco (Bush gets a little bit of anger for that, too).  Those same guns are also used on American citizens, when the cartels cross the border illegally.

24 minutes ago, Humbug said:

I am not from the US so don't really understand your gun issues.

The primary reason behind the 2nd amendment (which does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, but simply secures the right from being taken away), is to ensure that we citizens will never become servants to an overbearing, tyrannical government like the one that the founders just fought a war against.  That's why there's such a push back against those who wish to pass laws on gun ownership.

[AshleyAshes]

9 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

those numbers dont include grandfathered guns. I'm trying to find the source but it's from when the conservatives were in power talking about abolishing the registry.

...Yeah... Definately sounds like a real number now...

[Humbug]

15 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The primary reason behind the 2nd amendment (which does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, but simply secures the right from being taken away), is to ensure that we citizens will never become servants to an overbearing, tyrannical government like the one that the founders just fought a war against.  That's why there's such a push back against those who wish to pass laws on gun ownership.

I think I have heard Ben Shapiro on YouTube talk about this.

 

The idea is that citizens should be well armed so that they can overthrow the govt in the event the govt becomes too tyrannical? The 'need to have a well armed militia', Correct me if I am wrong.

[Jito463]

Just now, Humbug said:

I think I have heard Ben Shapiro on YouTube talk about this.

 

The idea is that citizens should be well armed so that they can overthrow the govt in the event the govt becomes too tyrannical? The 'need to have a well armed militia' Correct me of I am wrong.

I'm sure he has.  I'd be more surprised if he hadn't addressed the topic at some point.

 

And yes, that's effectively the long and short of the subject.  While guns are useful for self-defense and for hunting (and I personally think everyone should have one, just so they can become comfortable with them), the ultimate purpose behind enshrining that right within the BoR was to ensure the government was afraid of its citizens, instead of the other way around.

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Humbug said:

I think I have heard Ben Shapiro on YouTube talk about this.

 

The idea is that citizens should be well armed so that they can overthrow the govt in the event the govt becomes too tyrannical? The 'need to have a well armed militia', Correct me if I am wrong.

Except that the laws in the United States have ensured that only the government is actually 'well armed' and that the civilian population is not and everyone is PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.  You don't see anyone going 'Why does only the GOVERNMENT get to own surface to air missile launchers?  What if we need to defend ourselves from a tyranical government's airstrikes'.  ...Also only the government gets to own the kind of attack aircraft that can carry out air strikes.  ...Or cruise missiles... Or artillary... Or fully operational tanks... Or... Yeah, semiautomatic small arms vs US Armed Forces, anyone want to take bets on who wins that fight?

[Ryujin2003]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

I think I have heard Ben Shapiro on YouTube talk about this.

 

The idea is that citizens should be well armed so that they can overthrow the govt in the event the govt becomes too tyrannical? The 'need to have a well armed militia', Correct me if I am wrong.

The term militia doesn't have the same connotation now that it did then... But yes, that's the general idea.

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Except that the laws in the United States have ensured that only the government is actually 'well armed' and that the civilian population is not and everyone is PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.  You don't see anyone going 'Why does only the GOVERNMENT get to own surface to air missile launchers?  What if we need to defend ourselves from a tyranical government's airstrikes'.  ...Also only the government gets to own the kind of attack aircraft that can carry out air strikes.  ...Or cruise missiles... Or artillary... Or fully operational tanks... Or... Yeah, semiautomatic small arms vs US Armed Forces, anyone want to take bets on who wins that fight?

The other thing that many people don't seem to mention is that the US military is run by a bunch of individuals. Despite what you see in video games and movies, the US military fights for it's civilian population, NOT necessarily for the government. Or military wouldn't go through knocking down doors of citizens for any reason. Remember, the individuals that would be doing that.. they have civilian families, and wouldn't be keen on doing any such thing.

 

Politicians and corporations are more to fear that the military. The military isn't run by a civilian politician.

 

With that aside, still not a reason for government using media panic tactics to control it's population through fear.

[Ryujin2003]

32 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

On the topic of the thread, I don't ever go to PH; and even if every gun video moved there, I still wouldn't go.  They'd have to make a spin-off site without any porn on it, for me to even consider going there

 

Completely agree with this. I'm sure they will, because there is money in doing so

 

[Tieox]

How long before someone makes an RGB fleshlight which has a gun handle at this rate... 

 

In all seriousness however, this is leaving the doors wide open for a NSFW type non pornographic content delivery site.

 

 

 

[JAKEBAB]

48 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

demolitionranch just uploaded a video of a credit card gun 

 

meanwhile i thought car channels will move to Drivetribe

Idk specifically what they're doing I've just heard Salmondrin talk about channels starting their own thing.

5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Except that the laws in the United States have ensured that only the government is actually 'well armed' and that the civilian population is not and everyone is PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.  You don't see anyone going 'Why does only the GOVERNMENT get to own surface to air missile launchers?  What if we need to defend ourselves from a tyranical government's airstrikes'.  ...Also only the government gets to own the kind of attack aircraft that can carry out air strikes.  ...Or cruise missiles... Or artillary... Or fully operational tanks... Or... Yeah, semiautomatic small arms vs US Armed Forces, anyone want to take bets on who wins that fight?

Look how long the war in the middle east has gone on for.....

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

The other thing that many people don't seem to mention is that the US military is run by a bunch of individuals. Despite what you see in video games and movies, the US military fights for it's civilian population, NOT necessarily for the government. Or military wouldn't go through knocking down doors of citizens for any reason. Remember, the individuals that would be doing that.. they have civilian families, and wouldn't be keen on doing any such thing.

Oh for sure.  While the Rambo libertarian prepper fantasy is that the United States Armored Forces are 'Killbots' who follow orders without questions, they are infact an all volentary force comprised mostly of US Citizens.  When given orders for 'Operation Fuck It Let's Just Arrest Everyone In Iowa And Put Them In Prison Camps' it'll be major swats of the US Armed Forces, who will go 'So, like, we had kinda a huddle.  Just a chit chat you know?  And we're pretty sure your oders are illegal.  I mean, not illegal per SAY since you actually passed a bill called 'The It's Okay To Just Arrest Everyone In Iowa And Put Them In Prison Camps Act' but we've decided we're gonna arrest you instead.  As it turns out WE know how to fly the Apache helicopters and YOU don't so it'd be avisable for you to surrender peacefully.'

[Humbug]

12 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm sure he has.  I'd be more surprised if he hadn't addressed the topic at some point.

 

And yes, that's effectively the long and short of the subject.  While guns are useful for self-defense and for hunting (and I personally think everyone should have one, just so they can become comfortable with them), the ultimate purpose behind enshrining that right within the BoR was to ensure the government was afraid of its citizens, instead of the other way around.

Thing is it seems to be that in almost any country in the world (and definitely in the US) the only way you can overthrow the government is if you have the military on your side.

 

If it comes down to the people vs the govt; the deciding factor would be what the military generals decide to do, who they decide to side with.

 

No amount of armed civilians with handguns is going to challenge them.

[Jito463]

20 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Except that the laws in the United States have ensured that only the government is actually 'well armed' and that the civilian population is not and everyone is PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.  You don't see anyone going 'Why does only the GOVERNMENT get to own surface to air missile launchers?  What if we need to defend ourselves from a tyranical government's airstrikes'.  ...Also only the government gets to own the kind of attack aircraft that can carry out air strikes.  ...Or cruise missiles... Or artillary... Or fully operational tanks... Or... Yeah, semiautomatic small arms vs US Armed Forces, anyone want to take bets on who wins that fight?

That's not how it was originally.  There was even a privately owned warship shortly after they won independence, fully loaded with cannons.  You do have a point, though.

12 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

The military isn't run by a civilian politician.

Technically, it is.  The President is the Commander-In-Chief, after all.  

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

Idk specifically what they're doing I've just heard Salmondrin talk about channels starting their own thing.

Look how long the war in the middle east has gone on for.....

Look at the Kill to Death ratios.  The number of US service members lost compared to combtants killed is STAGGERING.  You could also go into asymetrical warfware arguement but the real key is that the United States doesn't stomach losses very well, even when it's own losses are exceptionally low.  The citizens at home in the United States do not like seeing their soldiers come back dead.  They also don't well stomach crushing brutality carried out by their own troops.  In short, while I don't mean to downplay the painfully long middle eastern conflict, but it is not been drawn out because small arms are able to match the full might of the United States Armed Forces, it's because the full might of the United States Armed Forces has never been deployed.  ...Mostly because it would be a very expensive, nightmareish hellscape genocide which would make even the holocaust of World War II look 'not so bad'.  Thankfully just going 'full hog' with everything the United States posses is has massive moral and public image complications that keep it frmo happening.

 

Rest assured, if the United States Armed Forces WANTED TO, they could crush any resistance force with the most brutal and distrubing levels of force.

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Rest assured, if the United States Armed Forces WANTED TO, they could crush any resistance force with the most brutal and distrubing levels of force.

The 1998 movie The Siege was - in many, many respects - a really dumb movie.  There was one great line by Bruce Willis though, when they were discussing deploying troops into Manhattan.

Quote

General William Devereaux: The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel.

You don't send in the army to carefully cut out a disease, you send them in to crush the enemy.

[JAKEBAB]

18 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Look at the Kill to Death ratios.  The number of US service members lost compared to combtants killed is STAGGERING.  You could also go into asymetrical warfware arguement but the real key is that the United States doesn't stomach losses very well, even when it's own losses are exceptionally low.  The citizens at home in the United States do not like seeing their soldiers come back dead.  They also don't well stomach crushing brutality carried out by their own troops.  In short, while I don't mean to downplay the painfully long middle eastern conflict, but it is not been drawn out because small arms are able to match the full might of the United States Armed Forces, it's because the full might of the United States Armed Forces has never been deployed.  ...Mostly because it would be a very expensive, nightmareish hellscape genocide which would make even the holocaust of World War II look 'not so bad'.  Thankfully just going 'full hog' with everything the United States posses is has massive moral and public image complications that keep it frmo happening.

 

Rest assured, if the United States Armed Forces WANTED TO, they could crush any resistance force with the most brutal and distrubing levels of force.

My point was don't be so quick to underestimate a militia. Who knows what would happen in a situation like that, would there be guys on the inside working with the militia etc? I just don't think it's fair to play it off like giving civilians guns in a situation like that would do nothing.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, JAKEBAB said:

My point was don't be so quick to underestimate a militia. Who knows what would happen in a situation like that, would there be guys on the inside working with the militia etc? I just don't think it's fair to play it off like giving civilians guns in a situation like that would do nothing.

Cool, so when you're facing off the United States Armed Forces and they opt to escalate from 'M-16' to 'F-16', you tell me how fending off that F-16 goes for you.

[Selah]

3 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

He was in possession of illegal drugs 

**"he was in possession of about an ounce of cannabis"**

 

 

get it right. victimless "crime"

[TopHatProductions115]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

Cool, so when you're facing off the United States Armed Forces and they opt to escalate from 'M-16' to 'F-16', you tell me how fending off that F-16 goes for you.

It's actually not as difficult as you think. Combatants in other countries do it to U.S. aircraft at times (unfortunately)...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/02/diy-weapons-of-the-syrian-rebels/100461/

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

It's actually not as difficult as you think. Combatants in other countries do it to U.S. aircraft at times (unfortunately)...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/02/diy-weapons-of-the-syrian-rebels/100461/

And this is why the US should stick with the Warthog there...