>>28846946 >I could have disarmed this dude and fired all rounds easily. There are people with better strength/skills wandering around wew lad, didn't know life was a fucking movie. If she really believes that, would be fun to see all the rounds fired into her if she actually tries that.
>>28847446 Same reason statists worship cops. Indoctrination into a political mindset without questioning. The result of highly biased, sensationalist garbage coming from the media. Shits fucked up and stuff. Why the hell do you think Trump and Boynee have such a cult like following?
>>28846946 what i find interesting about that picture, is if she was in Manhattan when she took it considering new york laws being the shit tier that they are, means that dude is either a police officer, or some sort of private armed security, since open carry is illegal in new york unless you are a police officer, or otherwise a authorized armed security gaurd.
>>28846946 That little strap of the holster over the backstrap if the pistol makes it difficult for someone to take it out from behind; strap must be pushed forward before tge gun is removed. A Lib-dyke trying to wrestle a gun away from a 'cop' could be charged with attempted murder or any number of felonies. A shame she didn't learn any real lessons during her 'training'.
>>28847460 >hey someone is grabbing my gun >elbow to her face >draw weapon and yell get on the ground if she isn't already >told to put hands above head >roughed up for not following directions because she refused to stop her now broken and bleeding nose >read rights
>>28853688 >You really shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm since you have a mental disorder.
I don't think weeabooism or virginity is listed in the DSM-5. You're gonna need to provide some citations supporting your conclusions. You should probably also list your professional qualifications to make such a judgement.
>>28847259 >Britcunt spergs out >Tackles gun owner >Really just wraps her arm around his neck, hardly moving him at all >She reaches for his holster, manages to unsnap it >Guy goes red alert, her head is on his right shoulder because her partial weapons training didn't teach her that other people have arms too >He punches her in the face >Just absolutely decimates her face, blood and snot go flying >She starts screaming MANIAC!!! RAPE!!!! >She has london accent so no one understands her >The police arrive, she runs at them >The mace her, she vomits on them >They beat her mercilessly >Plan well executed
>>28858647 >not realizing how quite literally your argument goes against the US consistution in its rights to own firearms and the absolute right to it But fuck it bro right bro, times are a changin bro, time to change that silly amendment huh bro, by using a scale that is completely inaccurate to the ownership of firearms and can't back it up with SOLID evidence Confirmed for spending too little time on the internet and possibly a mad britcuck and commie bastard
>>28846946 >I could have disarmed this dude and fired all rounds easily. Given that the dude is obviously from the NYPD and thus carrying an NYPD Glock, even if she disarmed him, I doubt she would find shooting any of the rounds to be easy.
>>28857320 >So if you get convicted of a crime you aren't given constitutional rights like due process if you ever are accused of a crime again?
Are you a Yuro, by chance? You don't seem to have a firm grasp on how our Constitution functions.
Anybody accused of a crime in the US receives due process. If found guilty, the penalty may include temporary or permanent loss of some rights. If that same person is accused of another crime, they receive due process. Forfeiting some rights for misbehavior doesn't mean you forfeit all rights.
The key thing is, forfeiture of rights is decided on a case by case basis with all due process. The anon I was replying to wants to arbitrarily deprive a particular group of their rights simply on the basis that they have a hobby that he doesn't like. He also wants to deprive virgins of their rights, which is exactly contrary to the meaning of the Constitution.
/>>28861874 No, I'm American, I own guns. Do you understand the constitution?
Why are you trying to equate federal/state law as the same level as the constitution? Our government passed laws that under federal law prohibits felons or violent criminal offenders from owning a gun which would be considered a breach of their constitutional second amendment right. This law was held up by our supreme court which is basically an at time interpretation of the constitution. But we as a majority of society deem these to be reasonable laws that breach the constitutional right of a minority of citizens.
My point is that if we as a society prohibit constitutional rights to some citizens, what is to stop us reinterpreting to ban other groups from having guns? So the argument that the second amendment gives you rights to own a firearm is cannot be infringed as a US citizen, then why do we prohibit it from some citizens. Which means that the second amendment isn't so black and white since we choose who we do and who can't own guns already.
So if you're a weaboo or virgin you don't get more or less constitutional rights ideally but in reality, society says that you do. This can change and it should since you are a cultural degenerate.
> If found guilty, the penalty may include temporary or permanent loss of some rights You're not supposed to lose constitutional rights due to federal laws by the definition of the constitution but we as a society deem it necessary in certain instances. We do this by enforcing or not enforcing laws that have been written.
>He also wants to deprive virgins of their rights Being a virgin doesn't mean you have rights other than the fact you are a citizen of the US protected by the constitution. Just like felons (in an ideal case)
So now do we understand federal vs constitutional?
>>28864269 His point is that there needs to be due process before the revocation of a right, you would need to prove in court that someone was either a weeaboo or a virgin to strip them of their right to bear arms. This would also necessitate the creation of a legal definition of "weeaboo" because that's not even a thing as of now.
Additionally your virgin requirement would be immediately overturned for violating the 1st amendment rights of a wide range of clerics of a wide range of faiths.
>>28864359 >Lives in America think he owns his house. What a cute notion. We don't own shit here man. get your head out of your ass. The government can come and take you guns, your house and your rights away with little to no reasons or recourse. The USA Government is worse than the fucking Nazis. Argue other wise while I ignore you.
>>28864552 You're missing the entire point of the post though.
ANYONES rights can be revoked if society deems it necessary and that the second amendment doesn't protect your gun rights regardless of whether you're a weaboo, virgin or non-degenerate since we as a society do it to certain citizens already.
Using federal laws is not a valid argument for violating or protecting constitutions rights which the person before him was trying to argue.
>>28864692 the amendments simply state the rights you have - they do not protect them from anything apart from government interference, and towards that further end, due process can temporarily (emphasis on temporarily) prevent their exercise. part of the same law that allowed their removal also mandated a restoration procedure.
the argument for the ability and legality of civil right forfeiture was when the person practicing those rights directly used them to break the law, and further, to infringe upon the rights of others.
civil right forfeiture differs from state to state, but encompasses enfranchisement (which in the 14th amendment's 2nd section allows an exception due to rebellion or other crimes), jury exclusion (which is a lifetime ban, and the supreme court has not determined that the right to sit on a jury is a fundamental right like free speech is), and the right to be armed (felons are prohibited persons in us code 18 title 922g).
the legality of the last one, the right to be armed, has been challenged dozens of times, and always upheld under the general argument that a convicted felon, unless directly pardoned and has their rights restored by due process, is serving the public good by being denied arms because they are risk for re-offense (debatable) and the interest of public safety is meant to err on the side of caution.
happily that same decision to limit the right to bear arms to convicted felons also guaranteed a process to restore those rights by due process - namely a pardon or rights restoration order from the state.
>>28865403 calm your tits, nigger. i stalked her for a few weeks and her life is 4 parts rekt, 4 parts teen mommy liberal, 1 part slut, 1 part whore. i think you're really really mad now for no good reason.
>>28864269 >So the argument that the second amendment gives you rights to own a firearm is cannot be infringed as a US citizen, then why do we prohibit it from some citizens
Because those citizens have proven, through their actions, that they are not capable of responsibly exercising their rights. The part that you seem to be having difficulty with is the case by case basis.
People aren't randomly assigned to the group, their own actions put them there. They are aware of this fact before engaging in whatever activity qualifies them for inclusion in the group. These people are voluntarily giving up rights in order to have greater latitude for misbehavior.
>>28867758 NY politicians and police brass are scared of guns and think that it will reduce chances of a bad shoot. All it really does is fuck their aim. Not that many NYPD shoot more than their required qualifying requirements once a year.
>>28864269 So now virginity is cultural degeneracy? That means, by your standards, that everybody is born into a state of cultural degeneracy. I guess the best way to deal with that is to pressure kids into having sex as early as possible. What could possibly go wrong?
>>28867792 The presence of a hymen in a female does not indicate virgin status. Same goes for the lack there of. It can be lost when riding horses(not like that dirty zoophiliacs) or bicycles. Some women are born without a hymen.
And what you seem to not fucking get is that the constitution is supposed to exist as rights that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY AS A US CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT TO SUPERSEDE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BUT WE AS A SOCIETY DO IT ANYWAYS.
So if constitutional rights can be encroached upon by federal laws because society decides to enforce unconstitutional laws what's to stop them from taking gun rights away from whoever the fuck they please in the future. If you are complacent about taking away constitutional rights away from a certain subset of people in society what is to stop that group encompassing more people which might include you?
And you cant use the "I didn't break the law so I get to keep my rights" argument because the entire fucking point of the constitution is that even if you fucking kill someone you still have fucking constitutional rights except in the case of voting because it is stated in the constitution itself.
Why is this concept so fucking hard for you? Like how are you this fucking dense?
>>28858016 Yea you can go fuck yourself. I'm twenty six and still a virgin. Why? Because I decided that it's all bullshit between false rape charges, stds, pregnancy/abortion, prositution being illegal, child support, statutory rape charges, emotional baggage, rejection, and anxiety issues Remember you can't lose if you don't play the game.
>>28846946 >born in Bremerton WA >ohfuckthatswhereilive.scared >lives in london For fucks sake, that was close. For a second I thought she still lived here. Glad she doesn't, but that would explain a whole lot as to why she's retarded
>>28868616 Wow I'm blown away by your critical thinking skills. To forfeit is to start playing a game then quit where as not playing at all means non participation. Your subjective definitions are invalid
>>28868503 yes, you're a virgin because you decided against it. it was totally voluntary, you just turn down pussy left and right because you'd rather not take the unlikely risk of preventable consequences
seriously, i'm kinda alarmed that there are apparently all these virgins on a weapons forum - you can't even use the gun god gave you
>>28868503 If you're to scared to talk to women, you're too fucking incompetent to own a gun, end of story you fucking mong.
I originally said virgins shouldn't own guns to see the response on this board and you're actually just as pathetic as I would have hoped. Not because you're a virgin but because your way of justifying it is so fucking delusional its unreal, especially on a board about guns.
>>28868038 Not the other guy, but I agree with him. The Constitution acts like a social contract for Americans. By living in our country, you agree to abide by the rules. "Your rights end where another's rights begin." Etc.
Why allow someone who was convicted of shooting someone else to legally own another another firearm? What's your solution to that?
>>28869403 Not the guy you're replying to, but it seems like you swear that you have no time to have sex. All you need is an hour or two. In the time that you masturbated these past three weeks you could have lost it. While I agree that it's nothing special, it's still fun and rewarding. So tell me why you have to justify your insecurities on a Nepalese cave painting exposé?
Where the fuck in the constitution is this implied? Infringing on others peoples rights? The constitution is a contract between citizens and their government, not between citizens. There isn't a single fucking mention in the constitution about violent crime and whether state/federal law allows the removal of constitutional rights for it.
The entire point is that when people cry about their second amendment right to own firearms its completely infuckingvalid because we already have LAWS in place that infringe that right for criminals UNCONSTITUTIONALLY YET WE AS A SOCIETY ARE OK WITH IT AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT US PERSONALLY WHICH IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY.
I swear to fuck you fucking rednecks are retarded. I'm as liberal as they come and I still have to explain the constitution to you dipshits
>>28869946 ...Shall not be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY without due process of law. You go to court, court deems you not responsible enough to handle firearms, car, alcohol, whatever. You have the right to defend against it, and have a legal advocate assist, but thats the way it works. Should white collar criminals be deprived of 2nd amendment rights? No. Should Tyrone after doing 5 years for robbing that liquor store? Probably. At least for a few years to determine whether he's done being a fucking ape.
>>28870033 Again everything you are saying does not apply to the constitution.
Even depriving someone of their property doesn't imply that it you should never be able to buy property, even more so that the right to possess that property (arms) is actually explicitly protected in the constitution.
>>28870426 There is no override. They are not in conflict. Suspension of your constitutionally protected rights is allowed through the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process clause. The Court has already interpreted this in this exact way.
Right of Assembly for instance is also often abridged in this context.
>>28871091 >So if I'm convicted of littering could I have all my constitutional rights removed if it was a federal law that was passed? Yes. >Would that be constitutional? I can't imagine you'd have a hard time arguing an Eighth Amendment challenge against any revocation of rights for a violation, let alone revocation of one's rights to Due Process for just about any crime.
>>28870184 Not saying your argument is invalid. Hell, we might even be arguing different tangents of the same side of the argument. What I'm saying is that your position isn't as clear as you think it is.
>>28869946 >Due process. It seems YOU Mr. Liberal need to actually READ the constitution. The first ten ammendments outline what your basic rights are and further in the Const tells how those rights can be taken away. For example the 4a explains how you cant just have your house and person randomly searched....but if there is a warrant it can be....or like with TSA if you go to a place to be searched in order to gain entry. Such is, if you give up or lose your right, you no longer have them.
>>28858016 Had a fiance, was saving myself for her. Bitch cheated and since then kinda gave up on the whole thing. 21 here, go fuck yourself. A natural right is a natural right, and my right to my life, to defend myself, and fight is mine and if you want it, come and fucking take it.
Getting pussy's not a right, nor even a privilege. So get fucked you gun grabbing cunt
>come to america >bitch about how much better your old country is
Go fucking back then. My wife is half Vietnamese and her mom was born there. Never says anything about how great it was in Vietnam, loves America and considers herself lucky to be here.
Can't tell you how many times I've run into someone from Europe that brags about how much smarter/better their country is than America. I've never met someone who moved here from Asia that had anything but nice things to say about America.
Conclusion: Europeans are ungrateful shits, give all their naturalization slots to various Asian nationalities that will actually appreciate the opportunity to live here. As a bonus California will probably become even more overrun by them and might actually become a better place somehow.
>>28876659 Only Asian I ever heard complain about America used to own the restaurant next to us.
>Brack people awrays want use bafroom >They come in, I very busy, bug me for water >I try make money, I work to feed my daughter, they want free food, free water, free bafroom >Even if I give free food, they steal >Why steal all my soy sauce? >Soy sauce one dorrar a bottle >One bottle rast for a year >Buy soy sauce with food stamps, still free >Brack people no good for American businessman Anon >I hope porice kill all bracks, rive and work in peace
>>28873422 Due process deals with federal and state laws, not constitutional laws. Yes there is clauses that remove certain rights but those are in the constitution themselves. Saying that you lose the right to vote (disenfranchisement) due to "rebelion or other crime" (Reynolds v Sims) which is stated in the constitution still abides by the constitution.
Extrapolating this idea of removing constitutional rights because of a crime is not constitutional; such as in the case in the case of denying second amendment rights to felons. There is nothing in the constitution that allowed this other than the fact that it could be implied by the 5th amendment (due process) which is a shaky interpretation at best. But we do it anyways as a society and as a society we are OK with it because we don't like felons. What's to say we dont like weaboos in the future?
>TSA So when the TSA takes items that are not TSA complaint without a warrant, is that allowed under the 4th amendment?
>>28875523 If we change the federal law to exclude weaboos from owning guns, you are accused and convicted and your guns removed, is this not due process? Due process deals with how a law is enforced, not the content of the law itself. And since we unconstitutionally do not allow felons to own guns, it could be said we could do the same to weaboos.
>>28877043 >So when the TSA takes items that are not TSA complaint without a warrant, is that allowed under the 4th amendment?
Yes, because they're not kicking down your door and ransacking your bathroom for shampoo bottles larger than 3 ounces. TSA restrictions on personal property are in effect in clearly marked areas, which nobody is forcing you to enter. Don't like the rules? Stay out of airports. Problem solved.
>>28868503 Honestly I know where this annon is coming form. I was still a virgin when I got into collecting guns, and I didn't lose the v chip until I was in my mid 20's.
My reasoning though was not that I wasn't afraid of talking to women or anything... It was just that I didn't find any of the girls in my area to be attractive / or interesting enough to pursue. Eventually I did find a woman that did fit what I was looking for and went on to fuck her brains out for a number of years.
Being a virgin at times is by choice either having standards (like myself) or seeing the bigger picture (like annon), and has no correlation to owning firearms.
>Having said that... annon some free advice, just wear a rubber and be sure not to find a gold digger and you'll be ok
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.