Like this?

Exactly. Even in countries where they're not available legally and they're too expensive to smuggle in, people just make guns.

Author Harlan Ellison describes the zip guns used by gangs in 1950s New York City as being made from tubing used in coffee percolators or automobile radio antennas, strapped to a block of wood to serve as a handle. A rubber band provided the power for the firing pin, which is pulled back and released to fire.

Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

Don't have to.

About point 4: When are you ever going to see someone who would say, "Yeah, I'm going to disrespectfully rape you, which, in fact, is illegal, but I'm not going to have a gun, because I respect the law and guns are illegal."

Not happening.

Typical excuse to avoid considering that there are other valid viewpoints: "anyone not agreeing with the narrative is a paid shill." That got old real fast. Come up with something new.

You're an idiot and a liar. I might not agree completely with OP, but I'm not about to start attacking him simply because of my own aggressive bias, like you seem to want to be doing.

Member for: 4 hours (joined on: 11/27/2016)

OK then, if account age is an issue, let me repost their comment from a 1.4 years old account:

ITT: The tolerant right showing their superior intelligence by calling OP a fag, homo, and other derogatory terms with no substance to prove OP wrong.

That's also a very good point actually.

i didn't say it would be a good plan.

Very true!

@adsnell2004, sorry I am late.

@donarty, Stay on Reddit. We left because assholes like you made Reddit as shithole for libtard ideals like yours.

1. Conceal Carry permits save lives on a daily basis whether you like it or not. Armor and shields do not. Sure you can say that they save politician or soldiers lives, but they are not the majority of the public. Today's body armor is still useless against high powered weaponry or even knives.

2. Sourcing a libtard organization for you "evidence" does not make your wild accusations true. Criminals are not going to get guns legally. They will rob and steal them from legal citizens. Gun violence declines by number of guns per citizens. Just look at other countries, ie. Switzerland.

3. So by un-arming yourself, you expect us to believe that you trust the government more? Have you ever seen the movie, Red Dawn. Guerilla warfare, asshole. Vietnam war, Korean war ring a bell. Resistance by guerilla warfare tactics can draw out a war indefinitely.

4. U wot m8? This is the flimsiest excuse I have ever heard. So instead of stopping/injurying/killing the rapist, you are suggesting the rapist continues on his path and rapes a woman. "There are alternative ways to deal with rapists which are final, much safer, and do not end in loss of life." There comes a point in life where you need to buck up and realize that life is not a bunch of sunshine and rainbows. You cannot talk down rapists. For instance, try talking down an "African migrant"/rapefugee. They will either not understand a single fucking thing you are saying, scream "Allahu Akhbar" continuing his warpath, or kill you for being an infidel. 99.9999999999% of the time, rapists do not give a flying fuck.

5. No fucking shit people kill people. By removing guns, all you are doing is increasing the likelihood that the murders by other means, knives, cars, or any other "destructive device", will increase dramatically. "...trying to make fucking sure." You mean like beheading with an axe or like the rapefugees I mentioned earlier, slit their throats.

Now step up your game, or get the fly fuck out.

One last thing.

Please don't ever procreate you worthless genetic defect. Kill yourself.

...Did you even read what I said? You're really treating Voat like your safe space, telling me to go back to reddit and all.

1) Guns are a form of protection. Shields, armour and helmets protect you. Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people.

And nukes only bake your opponents into radioactive dust while their house falls on them, yet the US and Europe arguably exist in their present form because we had enough nukes to make the USSR avoid direct conflict. Guns raise the stakes to death, and by doing so they deter assault.

2) Guns are a form of self-defence. They can be, sure. However, statistically speaking, more guns are used in crimes than are used in self-defence. A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.

Your link is not to his study. Let me guess, he defined "use" as actually shooting someone? Astonishingly, brandishing a firearm can make a potential assailant flee, your study actively sought to come up with numbers to justify its conclusion, thats shitty research present in most gun studies.

3) I don't trust the government. If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.

Common leftist trope. My rifle will not protect me from the government, which has a large and mobile force that they will move around to outnumber any given individual. However, it will:

1. Enable me to join a lessor force that fights a long slow guerrilla war in an effort to change the governments activities.
2. Enable me to take a couple of the agents sent to unjustifiably attack me, with me, thus preventing mass incidents of similar actions through attrition of government forces. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in Gulag Archipelago.

What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand?

Authority abuses power, and armed populace is a limit to that abuse. This is why grandfathering in previously owned guns during bans does not mollify gun owners, we are not here to protect OUR guns, we are here to protect the right as a limitation on government power.

I would add that guns will enable to 3. Do ANYTHING more useful than throwing rocks at tanks.

4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist.

But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist. So, instead of a rape occurring, which is consequently then investigated by the people whose job it is to investigate rapes, you have a bloodbath. Maybe the rapist gets killed, maybe the victim gets killed, maybe they both get killed, or maybe innocent bystanders get killed.

And every woman gets to decide for herself if she would rather run the risk of being attacked by a casual rapist who will let her live instead of one who will kill her after raping her, or take the risk of meeting an armed rapist and losing the fight.

More importantly, why do you assume a gunfight? When a criminal sees a gun, they regularly flee, they know civilians cannot legally shoot them in the back but will shoot them in the face. They usually run away and try to find a different victim, this one is too prepared for them.

There are alternative ways to deal with rapists which are final, much safer, and do not end in loss of life.

Hrm, like blowing a whistle?

5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Then it is a stupid idea to give them guns then, isn't it? Unless you are trying to make fucking sure.

It is a rather silly slogan with nuanced meaning. It means that guns are tools, responsibility for and causes of violence are human. Nobody sane picks up a gun and says "Welp, I have a gun, guess I should go kill someone" Stop crime by trying to locate the causes of crime, rather than merely disarm people.

I have the post saved, and in a few weeks if it does not respond to a pm message, i will notify the admins of possible bot.

Look at my comment and look for the words "censorship". Opps, it isn't fucking there. I don't think I ever said I was looking for that, which is why I'm on Voat. I don't care if he called OP is a fag, or ever said that I agreed with OP's opinions on the second amendment. However, just like I'd defend the right for the parent comment to say "op is a faggot", I'd definitely say OP had the right to tell his opinions.

Also, telling me to go back to reddit, huh? Hmm... Lol I bet you tell that to all the people you don't like on Voat. There goes having my say. :O

Wew man, who knew 4 words could trigger the fuck out of people like you :D

I hope you need weapon for personal defense, and don't have one.

Faggot

Whoever posted this is likely manipulating votes. There's no way an anti-gunner could get this many upvoats fair and square.

Wall of text = many valid points by founding fathers on the nature of the 2nd amendment and basically end almost all discussion on it's opposition, and it's intent as the 2nd, leading the first.

I for one will not live in a safe but tyrannical society.

1) Then armor up m'lady. I prefer something that can be easily concealed.

2) Quick question on this - is this by legally owned guns or by illegally owned guns. If the latter - what is your point. Even pessimistic estimates of defensive gun use puts it at a minimum of double the gun death rate in the US - with the true number likely even higher. That seems like a net win to me.

3) Maybe your value judgments differ from other people? You'll need to come up with something better than that to infringe on a constitutionally protected right.

4) I honestly am not sure what you're trying to say here. Equalizing the ability to use force between a victim and an attacker is a net negative? Trying real hard not to strawman here, but it sounds like you're saying ' a rape occurring, which is consequently then investigated by the people whose job it is to investigate rapes, you have a bloodbath' is preferable to the opportunity for a woman to prevent a rape from happening in the first place. In which case - you're wrong.

5) Killing only happens with guns. Cool.

Thoughts? Why are you so afraid of such simple mechanical devices?

Lot's of thoughts but you don't seem capable of actually thinking so I'll pass.

Keep tossing that propaganda out about guns, your only projecting your globalist desires

At first, mr bones 2016 ride was a real rollercoaster, I didn't like it it at first

Mr bones wild ride 2020!

Dumbest shit I've ever seen on voat. And that's saying alot.

380 million civilians vs 1.4 million troops. it's not even a contest unless they start dropping nukes.

Think Force multipliers

nifty list here

http://listverse.com/2016/01/22/10-shocking-and-bizarre-riot-control-weapons-from-around-the-world/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI

among other things which should give you pause.

Well, in fairness, you can't prove a negative. Anyhow, here's the best I could find. Most sites were just saying "it's fake," which doesn't prove much.

And yet another bogus Washington quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

The actual quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

sauce

It seems to be more mercantilist than anti-government. Assuming that's the actual origin and he didn't say the original somewhere.

Imagine a world without guns, violence or rape. Then realize how fast I could overtake that place and rule it with an iron fist. Your ideas are stupid. The left's inherent lack of planning for man's tendencies to favor some over others is what makes it so shitty.

Also, criminals generally steal guns rather than buy them

The obvious counterpoint is that if there's no guns to steal, criminals will be unarmed. A stronger point is "criminals generally buy guns on the black market." Probably more accurate too.

1) So we're all supposed to go around wearing full body armour and carrying shields in case someone pulls a gun? Why didn't I see this before, it's so obvious, such false logic that people can use a gun to shoot a shooter.

2) Yes, more guns are probably used in crimes for the simple reason that most people aren't armed so most criminals can count on no resistance when they pull a gun. This does not establish that, in cases where the victim is armed, it cannot be used in self defence. Plus, criminals aren't exactly known for using legally sourced guns.

3) Bundy ranch proved you wrong. Along with many many many other situations. Without guns, no knock police raids would have nothing to fear.

4) The rapist will probably be armed anyway. Plus, guns are only good if you want to hold someone at bay, if you need to approach them then they're not much good.

5) People will kill people irrespective of whether they have guns or not.

Any thoughts?

You're a fucking shill, go back to reddit.

Are you 14?

Move to Chicago.

"But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist. "

You cannot disarm the rapist. Therefore you must allow the victim/target to arm themselves if they so choose.

Yeah, OP sucks dicks for a living now that the CTR money's all dried up and this post is just a pathetic attempt to relive the glory days when he got paid 2 cents a reply to shill for Killary. Enough nostalgia, OP. Back to your real job now. Those cocks ain't going to suck themselves.

Protection, self-defense, you're just quibbling with words.

Look at this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/video-gun-owner-defends-himself-intruder-machete

Would you honestly prefer that this man had been unarmed, so that he and his girlfriend could be chopped down??

If you take away the guns, you take away self defense, but the criminals will all still be armed!!!!!!

I'm Canadian and even I think you're delusional. (And take your male rape guilt and shove it up your ass, eh?) On a positive note, I don't think it's your fault. I blame your schooling. An entire generation of people taught to hate themselves to make others feel better about their shortcomings. Carrying guilt that shouldn't exist for the sake of victims that don't exist. Sad saad ... [sip of brandy]... that's what we call a shit sandwich right there, son.

I downvoated due to poor logic

Op is a nigger

or their minions, yes

most flawed "logic" ever

1) Guns are a form of protection.

Shields, armour and helmets protect you. Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people.

ah, ok, so when i throw my gun in the garbage and someone - with a gun - breaks into my home, all i need to do is slap on my bullet-proof vest, right?

a hammer can be used to drive a nail in or pull it out

a gun can be used to attack OR defend

2) Guns are a form of self-defence.

They can be, sure ...

sorry for wasting your time on point #1 - i see you've already contradicted it all by your self

3) I don't trust the government.

If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.

sounds like something i heard before somewhere ... from the mouths of dictators

4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist.

But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist.

except the rapist is ALREADY armed, or do you have an ingenious plan where by you can ensure that criminals, who don't obey laws (criminals ... get it?), will be willing to turn in their guns AND agree to not purchase any more (on the black market) ... yeah, that's what i thought ... [silence ensues]

5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Then it is a stupid idea to give them guns then, isn't it?

so we give criminals guns? well shit, let's "just say no" to that right now!

Any thoughts?

mmmhmmm ... go back to fuckin' rEddit where you fucking belong

Fuck off you retarded faggot!

niggers are literally too dumb to consciously do this. a ((( familiar fellow ))) is promoting this among the whites and the rainbow of brown in nearly equal numbers.

Criminals will likely have access to firearms, and don't play within the rules.

It's my constitutional right to carry firearms for the protection of myself and my family.

member for 2 days

posts a topic that would normally be d/v'd to the depths of hell

wins

any questions?

Keep up the good work, you've almost gone full retard. Just keep trying and you'll get there.

Take your vote manipulation bs back to plebbit.

This is a crock of shit and doesn't even need to be addressed with an answer.

Let's not immediately discount OP.

Let's humor him. Provide evidence where he is wrong.

While it's not likely to influence our new redditard brethren, it may finally influence their view to be like the real world.

I'll start with arming the victim of rape actually arms the rapist.

How many firearms are purchased legally by criminals?

How many firearms are purchased legally by non criminals who wish to defend themselves?

Do criminals need to pitcher a firearm legally? They have already given themselves to breaking other laws, what makes a person think they would bother to acquire a gun legally?

This is an obvious post from hired people.

That shit's not gonna fly around here, if you wanna go push people around go to reddit or tumblr.

REDDIT SCUM.

You're a pile of garbage unworthy of anything more than a kick in the ass.

Using upvoats bots to lie isn't fooling anyone. If you weren't fucking stupid you could try your point without the fake upvoats and see how that goes. Instead you've decided to assault an entire community with your psychosis.

Fuck off and drop dead you pile of worthless excrement.

Any actual evidence?

Don't be silly. Conservatives don't do evidence. Their specialities are lying, scaremongering and witch hunts, in that order.

He is clearly quite vexed that some Liberals have joined Voat and decided not to stand for his Nazi tactics. Typical sore loser. His army haven't been able to maliciously kill the popularity of the thread and he's got sour grapes about it.

Is it being downvoted organically, do you think?

Lol. Yeah, raging hypocrisy is another Conservative speciality. Nearly 200 organic downvotes? I don't fucking well think so.

I've been on voat longer then 5 minutes.

Using nukes on youself is suicide, and that's assuming the people in charge of actually executing the command would fire the most destructive weapons ever to be built on their own country. My personal guess is that most wouldn't, training or no, and they'd probably shoot their fellows who tried.

I suspect it is a soon to be bot account. The type that gets posted here for ccp, then gets turned into a bot so it can cause mischief.

I have not seen op respond to any comments here.

Fucking cucks go back to reddit.

EDIT:

go fuck yourself, shill

I think we need harsher tab control laws.

Hi leftardis maximus. Im glad to see you were able to navigate you trolling self away from reddit. Ill tell your mom all about your progress later, she will be so excited. 25 years old and finally showing signs of intelligence! How great is that? Our premiums might become affordable if this keeps up. Truuuuuuump Train coming through to make America great again so heads up slob. Wooooooo woooooooo!!!

OP is a gun grabbing shekel snorting yid faggot.

I am not downvoating because I disagree with you, but rather because these arguments are so weak. If you or anyone else wants to listen as to why, I'll explain.

1. If one only has tools that mitigate attacks, violent criminals will face almost no danger when attacking you. However if you're armed with a weapon, for example a firearm, a violent criminal will be facing a much greater risk in attacking you. More importantly, an offensive tool (such as a firearm) can actually stop a criminal mid-attack. Whilst a helmet will do nothing in actually stopping the attack.

2. Criminals who are in the market of using a firearm in a crime will prefer to not legally purchase a firearm. A legally purchased firearm will be much easier to trace back to them when used in a crime. Take Sweden for example: We have very strict anti-firearm laws. What's happening in the Muslim ghettos? The police stations near these areas have literally run out of storage space to hold all the confiscated illegal firearms. We live in a world where firearms exist, and unless one has some sort of magical plan to stop all smuggling and producing of illegal firearms, one has to adjust to the fact that criminals will obtain their firearms regardless of how easily they're obtained legally.

3. Look back at point 2.

4. This is the most convincing point, however it's not completely waterproof. I've held this belief many years, until I looked deeper into who the people committing crimes are. Take a look at Switzerland for example. Their gun ownership is roughly equal to USA, yet their crime rate is not even comparable to USA. Even in USA, there are ridiculously vast differences between different types of people using firearms to commit crimes. Once again, look back at point 2.

PS: I think the most important factor is that people who are anti-gun, feel that guns make a person bad. If you have a gun, or if you're pro-gun, you're a bad person. This must be a main reason why people are anti-gun, because their logical arguments are so weak. Similar to other issues, where they take a stance based on emotion rather than logic.

PPS: If these are the reasons people are anti-gun, then I can only imagine that they're maintaining their position either because they're simply unwilling to even listen and consider the possibility that they may be wrong, or they're not even allowed to be exposed to any form of rhetoric that counters their (weak) points.

Cant we just stop acknowlwdegeing the faggot with 100+alts and just downvote?

#4 is obviously wrong. If the 300 pound guy had a powerful penis substitute, he wouldn't need to rape her in the first place. OP clearly needs to invest in a few social science class.

I didn't downvote this post because it was a liberal take on things. I downvoted it because it was trash in terms of logical thought. This isn't the kind of thing that needs to be settled in a post debate, but inside OP's own head, before pressing the post button.

If this is going to be the new Voat; moronic posts with suspicious amounts of upvotes, I'm out. We'll see, though. The front page having bits and pieces that look like Reddit is a personal nightmare.

This was one of the last places on the internet to have a sane conversation, without it being shitted up. Even a hint of shitlib insanity making it to these shores has me ready to sound the alarms -- and as a former liberal/user of sites that went through this transformation, I know exactly the signs to look for.

1) Shields, armour and helmets protect you. Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people.

Yes, they protect you by shooting projectiles into those meaning to do you harm. Police defend the public with guns.

2) They can be, sure.

Thank you. Next.

3) If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.

And what of 100 million armed citizens?

4) But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist.

That's why it is an equalizer. God made men. Colt made them equal.

There are alternative ways to deal with rapists which are final, much safer, and do not end in loss of life.

And you are free to pursue those avenues. You are not required to carry a gun.

5) Then it is a stupid idea to give them guns then, isn't it?

On the contrary, killing is sometimes a completely proper purpose, as it is in the defense of lives of innocents.

Why the fuck is this getting so many upvoats? I had to check to make sure I didn't accidentally follow a link to Reddit.
Are these the /v/pizzagate folks or are we being inundated with a wave of leftist shills? This particular 2 day old account has not made any other posts or comments so an obvious shill account but where the fuck are all of the upvoats coming from?

Number 2. If more guns are used as weapons for crimes rather than self defense, wouldn't that make a point of needing a gun for self defense?

Protection from a tyrannical government is the best reason for owning a gun and your argument against it is "lol it wont help." Fuck off.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Home made bombs and guerilla tactics go a long way.

Hey newfag the intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from government tyranny.
The Bill of Rights must not be diluted because pansy assed millennials are afraid of loud noises.

Fuck off back to reddit

These arguments are absolutely terrible, you sound like a 14 y.o. that just learned that there is a debate ongoing. That being said, since plenty of other people are going to utterly destroy you here, let me just deal with number 3. You say that the government (You mean the military primarily I assume) is to powerful to be stopped by a bunch of backwoods militiamen, but I would argue that backwoods hajji's have been giving us a run for our money with little else then small arms and fertilizer for over a decade now. I can tell you firsthand as a man that has deployed to both OIF and OEF that the only thing needed to overthrow any government, regardless of how powerful they are, is willpower. Period.

Worst post ever

I have a feeling most of the upvoats are from bots controlled by reddit SJWs.

These posts are clearly being upvoted by bots or some other shady method. They get way too many votes way too fast and if there were genuinely this many users who agreed with this kind of thing there would be tons of comments in support, but on all of these posts there are just the expected "fuck off" posts from regular users and no other comments. Don't know what can be done about it but people are clearly fucking with the site.

Counterpoint: Venezuela

I tried to think of a response...

But your logic assumes that by using gun control guns would be taken from the criminals, in which case you are wrong. Then the rapes burglaries and all else are commited knowing the victim wont have a gun to defend themselves with. Make sense?

Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people.

Therefore they are a strong deterrent which is a form of protection and is suitable for self-defense. Unfortunately no other non-lethal alternatives have the same 'stopping power'.

If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.

If it becomes known that the government abuses people, your revolution is going to work a lot better if it's an armed revolution

Also when your government let in 30000 Muslim invaders in your country, you want a gun.

But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Then it is a stupid idea to give them guns.

Exactly and no. There has been numerous attempt a debunking the relevance of a 'mutually assured destruction' as a deterrent for gun violence and they all rely on one of the requirement of MAD:

Both Actors must be rational and not willing to initiate a kamikaze attack.

So unless you're facing a Muslim or a typical mass-shooter, I think it's a pretty good deterrent.

Those Koreans shop owners were glad they had guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean-Americans_during_the_riots . However before the riots they also killed a black shoplifter.

anti-gun yahoos are (((a certain merchant tribe's))) fifth column, remember this and do not treat them as anything else

lol, what shit. you're a friend of tyranny. hirohito even said, back when america had proper gun rights, that this made the land unconquerable. biggest standing army ever. your argument is "just surrender your power to the government they'll win anyway"

here's my counterpoint: no.

here's further elaboration on the previous point: go fuck yourself and your fat pathetic entitled blissfully stupid defeatism..

all homosexuals are dangerous, just not on a mano-a-mano level. getting off on collecting and spreading STDs is exterminatus level shit

1) Guns are a form of protection. If it is known you have a gun, attackers are less likely to follow through. Prevention of attack = protection.

2) Guns are a form of self defense. Whatever stupid fucking study you cite is one that overlooks the dark figure of crime. So many crimes go unreported and if you fend an unknown off with a gun, what report does that make? No one is recording statstics about how many times a would be thug schized out and fled like a bitch once they saw a gun come out.

3) If the government wants to get an individual, it will get them. But if many people en masse work together with firearms, there is a problem. The July Revolution in France 1830 led to the formation of a new government. Gun control is very important to their politicians now.

4) The firearm is the great equalizer. A 100 lbs woman with a gun can stand a chance against a 300 lbs man with a gun. A 100 lbs woman with no gun has no chance. Funny how you don't mention these "alternatives" to deal with rapists specifically. Alternatives after the rape occur are an entirely different matter. The gun does not "deal" with a rapist. It prevents the rape from occuring. I'm sure YOU would bend over and take it in the ass, but many would rather die while defending themselves then become as much of a cuckold as you.

5) People kill people. A fucking 10 year old Filipino can make a gun in his parent's backyard. What the fuck makes you think people aren't going to figure out how to kill you? And from the sound of it, the way you're trying to control people, you will not be a desirable ally.

It all comes down to life. Most people are fucking cowards and they want someone else to take care of them. Not everyone will live long and fruitful lives, not everyone will achieve their life's ambition, and not everyone will go their entire life without being the victim of a violent crime. Grow a fucking backbone and stand up for yourself. Stop advocating for people to outsource self defense, especially when you're outsourcing it to a party that treats you like fucking cattle. Good luck to you. I'm sure you'll need it.

/r/europe is leaking i see

1) Guns are a form of protection.
Protection also states that "to defend" is a definition. To defend is "to drive danger or attack away from " So you are cherry picking the definition that fits your anti gun narative even though there is a suitable definition. You are WRONG here.
2) Guns are a form of self-defense.
Completely factual statement. Wiki is a bad source as it is peer edited and things the admins don't like are removed. But even using that: "Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms." Pretty small number, maybe we should be looking elsewhere if deaths are the concern. OF that 1.3% "In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides." and there is no proof that if they didn't have a gun they wouldn't have used another way. MAYBE we have a mental health problem?!?!?! Also, that would mean 0.468% of deaths are gun related homicides and accidents. Now prove that those would not have happened with a different weapon (note that is 0.004 of the population killed on average by guns). This doesn't even take into account ILLEGAL guns which are used in almost ALL crimes. Illegal guns don't stop just because you ban guns. Look how that worked out for drugs and alcohol. Did you know knives kill about 40-50% of the people guns do? Guess which weapon will spike if you banned guns? Look at many countries that banned guns for example.
3) I don't trust the government. (If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.)
Tell that to EVERY country we have tried to invade where we were defeated by heavily armed civilians. Your assumption is fucking retarded and not backed up by the massive evidence we have from all around the world when countries tried to take over heavily armed civilians and paramilitaries, and lost.
4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist.
Logical fallacy. You assume because we ban guns, the criminal won't have one or the woman can't see the rape coming and engage early. Also, the person who gets raped at least has a CHANCE to escape if they have a weapon and are aware. Nothing guarantees the rapist wont kill the person afterwards anyways. There is also no hard data on how many rapes were prevented because the woman was armed. Weak argument is weak. You are literally saying, let the women get raped with no way to protect themselves, because guns are bad. We also can't make conclusions if guns hurt because only about 1-2 million women carry guns. What if most of them carried? Bet rapist would think twice.

5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I somewhat agree but the gun can't kill on it's own. If not a gun, then a knife. If not a knife then a machete. If not a machete, then a bomb. If not a bomb then a fire. If not a fire then a savage beating. If not a beating then name any house hold object. Guns are a tool that CAN be used for destruction, but the person that would use a gun to kill someone would also use anything else. The roaming machete gangs in Asia. Knife attacks in almost all countries. Savage gang beatings.

Here's the deal. People who want to kill will kill. Guns give you a fighting chance if you are a normal person. They also have the added advantage of keeping governments in check. Look how many oppressed tribes in Africa took over when they were armed, or in asia, or the middle east. Guns are a double edged sword, but the negatives will be filled by other shit if we remove them, but the positives can't be replaced.

Unless you own a aegis shield, that protects you against all damage, you still need a good offensive means to protect you where your defense fails. You could wear a full suit of medieval armor and are just a victim in a steal can basically because you don't have a deterrent to ward off the violence, only a way to take the blows. At some point violence must be met with violence, even Gandhi knew that.

You admit that they actually are a form of self defense. But your complaint is that they are used in crimes... You believe that people that break the law will not break the law to acquire a gun? Youve never heard of the black market? You can even 3d print the damn thing now...

Your point on 3) is nonsense. At the very least the arms act as a deterrent from government turning into a dictatorship. And yes even with as much of technology as the US military has, a few rifles can and some explosives can do wonders in waging war against our military. most revolutions throughout history take place where the populace has little more than pitchforks and takeover forts to acquire the advanced technology of the military. If I wanted I could take a small man team and go capture a tank. Do not conflate your own cowardice with proof that we cannot win if we chose to revolt.

4) so rather than them being on equal footing armed with guns, you would give the 300 lbs man the advantage... What?! The whole point is that it is a deterrent. Meaning you only use it as a last resort. If he was gonna kill you with the gun he was highly likely to kill you without the gun, so you still didn't save the victim of rape, and you took away her chance to defend herself.

5) the difference is the people make the decision to commit a crime. Guns don't increase crime rates, without guns the violence simply turns into different forms such as bombs or stabbings. You believe gun violence is the worst kinds crime there is? Your pretty niave if that's what you believe. Taking the tools for violence away solves nothing, it simply changes the method, hell you could always just toss Molotov cocktails at people, and get way more destruction then a gun. Plus they are easier to get. That saying is meant to say, don't blame the tool, blame the person. You want to stop the violence? Then you have to take away the need for people to commit violence. Meaning you have to call war on all organized crime, such as gangs. If an area has a abnormal amount of crime you have to increase police presence not make it less like those idiot BLM protestors advocated for. And you would need to increase the fathers presence in families, mainly through getting rid of welfare that includes it...

And I would like to point out that if Democrats were the answer for solving violence, Baltimore wouldn't be the shit hole it is, for that matter most, extremely violent places are Democrat controlled and have been for years.

GTFO back to Reddit you little cuck. We're all about free speech here, but we don't care for obvious, regressive Ctrl-Left agenda pushing. Take your cuck brigade back with you, as well. This ain't SRS and the admins won't protect your bullshit here.

Hi there mister 2 day member. Thanks for sharing your commie viewpoints on guns in America. Feel free to fuck right off with them as well. You, your old lady and her half black son - fuck right off. Oh and happy holidays. Commie faggot.

And no comments anywhere, much less in the discussion here.

The age of someone's account has nothing to do with the points he's making, whether you disagree with them or not.

reddit shills are here. Behold their magnificence. They instinctively need to force conformity onto all that is unlike themselves. Communist filth. We will not go quietly into the night. You want to revoke the bill of rights? Go ahead and try. This is where you or I die.

More on point 4:

Guns are an equalizer. The 300lb person (with a gun) is now no longer that much more powerful than the 100lb person with a gun. The 100lb person now stands a much better chance than if neither had weapons.

AHAHAHAHAHA you are going to cry

1 - would you attack someone with a gun?

2 - gun laws will make that ratio much worse when only the criminals will have them, we need to encourage more gun ownership

3 - If jews were armed in WWII do you think they would just walk themselves into a furnace?

4 - you can't rape people if you're getting shot, if the rapist knew all guns were turned in he can have a fucking field day

5 - I agree, you shouldn't own a gun

Is this is a joke? I don't get it.

Violent crime is in decline in the US

Interesting facts on guns in America

Nations with more guns have less crime

Some back and forth on anti gun talking points

Angry Jew-Faggs, upset we exposed their child-rapist rings and denied HiLIARy Cunton the presidency, lashing out in typical Communist fashion.

What the fuck.

This subverse has just been hit by a massive influx of shills m

Any thoughts?

Yeah, you are a retard. Freedom needs no justification. Don't like my guns? Too fucking bad.

I hate to be a butt, but there is no such thing as "false logic." There can be false premises. Or invalid syllogisms (formal fallacies). Or informal fallacies. But I can't get past your title. And no I don't own guns (just a BB gun but you're ok with letting me keep that, right?).

If you're coming to Voat to preach gun control, I can tell you this - gtfo. I fucking hated *eddit for the same reason. You're not going to get them, fuck off. Fucking faggots don't even know what real life is like.

Making firearms from scratch is easy. I have personally done it. Guns are a form of protection as a deterrent. Taking guns away does not take them from those who disregard the law. Even if you remove them all, I repeat, they are really easy to make with power tools from Home Depot. They also will not all go away. They try to get mine, they will find 2 that I give up, then I hide 7 and sell 5. Against the supposed tyrannical government, those gentlemen need turn a bloodbath into a war of attrition. Without guns, the population that resists loses more people faster. With them, soldiers might die with every raid and police action. Gun owners outnumber the US military 500 to 1. If every 10th house took 1 soldier out, the people win quite quickly. The one common factor in the liberation of populations in the past 200 years is guns in the hands of the people.

So point 1 is false, point 2 can go either way, point 3 is false, point 4 is false, since the rapist is armed either way, and point 5 is silly, since there are many lethal machines to the one looking to kill.

If they come for the guns, there will be a bunch of boating accidents, so they won't get as many as you think. The only people you disarm are those who are not s threat with them in the first place.

One key stat you fail to mention is that in any given population, as gun ownership increases, all violent crime goes down.

1) maybe your guns shoot pure toxic lead. mine are coated in copper. 2) Your point here is only valid if you believe that everyone, at some point in time, will want to use a gun for nefarious deeds. If they intend, and only ever use it for protection, then your entire argument just collapsed. Otherwise, you're saying, statistically, everyone's a criminal. 3) AR-15 will. end of story. 4) alternative ways to deal with rapists... in the moment... when a gun could be used... I'm listening. please, tell me all about them. 5) if you look at hospital records, there is actually a higher percent chance of a person living, from a gunshot wound than from knife wounds. which, just fyi, every country that has succeeded in banning guns has seen a huge increase in knife injuries... huge surprise there....

The government argument is not "Me vs. the Feds", because yes, you are screwed no matter how armed you are. It is "Us vs. the Feds". A well armed public is the fourth arm of government, as you may see in any dictatorship that quickly disarms said public.

When you make a law banning guns, you only take guns away from people who are legally obtaining them. Not the criminals who already illegally have them and have illegal avenues to get them.

Outlawing guns is not only against our constitutional rights, it's just stupid. No Gun zones haven't done anything to stop crime. You are assuming criminals are going to follow laws when you know they won't.

My thoughts are your vague generalizations and counter points to your own perceived stances of "The Right" are sophomoric and pompous at best.

I've protected my family twice with guns. And provided more meals than you could count with those ten fingers you type safely with behind the comfort your computer. So your 5 points of "false logic" don't mean shit to me personally.

But keep typing up all your regurgitated talking points till the cows come home if it makes you feel superior and evolved.

However your best bet is to worry about yourself and the things you can personally control instead of trying to sermonize on high about what you think are valid points regarding the right to bear arms and the choices of others.

You're not changing minds or making a difference with this bullshit. Just coming across like a dip shit honestly.

From where does the government derive the right to disarm its people, and to what end?

Yeah, I'd like to know the same about their authority to take a third of my income every year while we're at it.

The truth is the only thing that gives them the "right" to take your guns or your money is the fact that they have so many guns to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

" Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people."

I'm not sure if toxicity is the real issue here.

This is one of the silliest arguments i have ever heard.

You want to outlaw guns? ok then. But be prepared for: PRESIDENT FOR LIFE DONALD TRUMP.

Why can i say that? because the republicans are just 2 states away from having enough state legislatures to be able to pass any amendments to the constitution that they want.

The 2nd amendment was the fail safe to make sure people where not trapped in a tyranny. Sure one guy with a dirty harry handgun might not be enough against the government, but 10 million? Have you looked at our history with insurgencies? Do you know how much money, logistics, and manpower it takes to put one of those down? On top of UN responses, or foreign aid?

Then there are the other aspects too. IF we can remove an amendment, like the 2nd, what else can we remove? Can we repeal other amendments too? What happens if the eugenicists become a popular majority, and decide that blacks and other inferior people should not be allowed to vote? what then? Off to the camps they go, if they even get camps. Who can stand up to the government then? you going to make a sign and complain? Good luck with that. Maybe you will be lucky and they just execute you, and not your family and friends as well.

How are we going to make guns illegal? we can't even outlaw weed, meth, or sex trafficking. How the fuck are we supposed to outlaw guns? what other rights must the OP lose to feel safe(but not be safe)? You don't need a 3d printer, you just need an end mill, and those are more common than 3d printers.

Op has no fucking clue about the real world. I would advise op to get out and travel more.

Getting rid of guns isn't going to solve any problems, and it's going to create another industry that isn't taxed.

Do you want to know how easy it is to get illegal guns? Ask your weed dealer if they know anyone. Ask any of your veteran friends. Get a 3d printer and print one. Making all guns illegal may lower the supply of available guns, but it isn't going to get rid of them. It's just going to make them more expensive. This is particularly true because of 3d printed guns. There are plastic ar-15 lowers that are capable of firing over 500 rounds before failure. Not to mention, any file that can be loaded into a 3d printer can also be loaded into a cnc mill.

Now that that's out of the way, how about you back up your stats.

What studies are you citing, or is this one of those 70% of all statistics are made up things?

You can replace Harvard with Jewish, then this nonsense comes into focus.

1 & 2 are basically the same point. The left has successfully demonized guns to the point that people are afraid to own them on the premise that the guns will randomly go off and kill people, etc.

If the government encouraged gun ownership for law abiding citizens and the leftist agenda didn't exist, more people would learn how to protect themselves with firearms..

3) You might be right.. I've been asking Santa Claus for an A-10, F/A-18, and predator missles for years. Ah but then again.. Guerilla warfare has been a pain in the ass for our military so who knows.. You might not be right.

Here's my thought on number 3.

If the government wants to get me, my handgun won't protect me. But we have strength in numbers. If the government wanted to get me and the 20 million other guys like me, well they are going up against an army. thats where the second amendment is important. Its to stop them from busting down doors like the Gestapo. It means the government has a fear of civil war built into the system, they cannot pass overtly aggressive legislation, or rather, they have to dupe the american public in order to pass this legislation. It is the ultimate check on their power.

Edit: also, banning guns isnt going to do shit. We already know the technology. I can walk into a hardware store and make a gun if I had to. Its not hard, just some basic chemistry and physics.

Chicago has some of the most stringent gun controls,yet ends up a bloodbath every week. Its almost as if "If the criminals want guns,theyre going to get them,end of story".

1) Guns are a form of protection. correct they offer great protection from humans and animals.

2) Guns are a form of self-defence. This is redundant to your first point, please make better points instead of trying to inflate your great list you have going.

3) I don't trust the government. Damn right, and why would you trust them? Sure if some government hit squad wants you dead you are dead, but may as well at least make them work for it. Also this point is moot as in a real world coupe or SHTF scenario you are including police and military which are sworn to protect the constitution and would be on the peoples side when push comes to shove, as that is who they are here to protect.

4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist. Correct the women should have a means of putting her at a equal force of the rapist and no amount of gym time is going to accomplish that, a 9mm to the stomach or chest will how ever.

5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people. No shit. People kill people with cars, guns, knives, fists, ropes, shoes, fire, and all kinds of other things. Mankind sure has a way of finding ways of killing each other. I have never heard of a gun just animating in the middle of the night and killing its owner though.

In conclusion you and your kind should just fuck off already, sick of you faggots spamming the front page with your shill accounts upvoting each other trying to push your views onto the rest of us. You can come take my guns from me any time you want, better bring your own though and practice with it.

Regulation has proven time and time again that it is useless

1. Sure, you wear body armor against someone with a gun. See who lasts longer. The saying "the best defense is a good offense" certainly holds true here.

2. You didn't even refute this point, just pulled a red herring and discussed statistics. Guns ARE useful for self defense. To address your red herring anyway: yes, they are useful for crime, too, but the places with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates, so this doesn't seem to be a problem of access for criminals. Perhaps the adage "an armed society is a polite society" has some truth to it, as people are less likely to carjack someone knowing there's a good chance that person is also armed.

3. You're right, a big hand gun wouldn't be enough to stop a tank. But you're making a case FOR bigger weapons, not AGAINST smaller ones here, even if you don't realize it.

4. See point #2. You're making the same red herring and again ignoring that guns are useful for self defense. Assuming no guns, how would you propose this potential rapist situation play out? It sure doesn't look good for an unarmed petite woman.

5. You're missing the point of this quote: it's meant to highlight that a gun ALONE does not fire a bullet, someone has to pull the trigger. Perhaps this is a better example to illustrate the point: cars don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban cars, then?

We must censor all of VOAT! Starting at /pizzagate. An infamous troll hates all JEWS and makes us butthurt.

Disarm yourself then, and be the biggest retarded victim you can be!

1. Shields, armor, and helmets will not protect you against a large enough caliber bullet, and they sure as hell wont protect you from a rapist.
2. A bloodbath is better than a rape 100% of the time, and will discourage future rape attempts. I gurantee if you or your wife were going to get raped you would gladly pick up a gun in self defense.
3. Nigger.

All your points are predicated on the fact that no one has access to guns. Let me see you get anywhere close to implementing that in reality and then maybe the crap you wrote is not just garbage that needs to be dismissed post haste as I have. Please come back with real substance next time. Also, as an East Indian, I have no skin in the game.

OP is a fag.

Good post. Right to the point, for the most part.

I agree with the principle of your arguments, but my issue is a practical one. Asking Americans to give up their guns is like asking them to cut off their dicks. The gun industry is worth tens of billions of dollars in the US -- and that's just the declared profit, without counting the black market stuff. People tend to be a bit reluctant to give up that kind of money. Plus, arms dealers aren't necessarily known as being the most reasonable people anyway.

I'm surprised I got in first, tbh. Asking for, "any thoughts" is pretty much like showing a red rag to a bull.