>there are people who aren't pro gun-control
Why? Are you a dumb hick who clings to the constitution even though you don't understand that the second amendment was created in a far more dangerous time then we have now?
>being anti second amendment
reddit, tumblr, and salon are that way, ze
>all statistics point to gun control leading to increased in violent crime
>OP is so afraid of guns he wants to ban them
Grow a dick faggot.
>he doesn't do his own research
Proof that OP is faggot
Nah, I just think there's way too much gun proliferation in the US to be able to legislate them away, and we'd end up having endless shootouts with crazy rednecks if we tried to confiscate them.
Plus, I think guns are cool and I like poking holes in paper or making steel gongs ring from a hundred yards away.
I'm not against things like background checks and registration, though, and I don't for a moment believe that the 2A means what typical gun nuts think it does.
>implying any military can take on the well armed populace which america boasts
kekity kek mr cuck
>tfw you live in country with strict gun control and very little violence
>no mass shooting since 1945
How are you, Americans? You had no mass shooting in whole 2016? It's really great! We are proud of you!
>implying France didn't have incredibly strict gun control and got btfo anyway
Good goyim. It's 2016 the time of pointless killing is over I mean get with the time. Except for niggers ofcourse but you know that's just because of the evil white people and slavery.
>I'm not against things like background checks and registration, though
Then you're naive. Giving ground on issues like registration doesn't satisfy people who want guns practically banned altogether, it just leads to your gun laws turning into an abomination like those in California.
>The second amendment was created in a far more dangerous time then we have now
Okay fair enough, there will never be any danger to the US ever again, so let's just get rid of all the guns.
No I mean that mentally ill people (like a lot of the elliots here) keep committing mass shootings by buying their semiautomatic assault rifles and magazines through legal means.
You should watch Bowling for Columbine. As much as Michael Moore is a fat piece of shit, he brings up a lot of good points about gun control.
He shows in it how easy it is to get guns and ammo in Canada, but they barely have any of the shootings problems the US has.
I disagree with a lot of what he says in it, but it's still interesting to watch from an objective standpoint.
at least if youre talking about usa (#1), eliminating guns is not a practical possibility. we have more guns than people. so if you live in a society where every evil person who wants a gun can get one (even if they were declared illegal tomorrow), you should be able to get one yourself. people who are against gun control in the UK are in the wrong, but in the US it's a reasonable position given our reality. if you really want a well-thought-out position, listen to sam harris's latest podcast. (just google sam harris podcast and find the most recent one.)
How much of a cuck can you be to not want to be allowed to defend yourself?
Ok, let's restrict gun ownership for civilians
I think it'll work. I can hear jamal now
>Sheeeiiit nikkuh we gon rob dis here cracka
>ay yo yo hold up da'quan
>dont u no dem po pos gots a new law
>wes cant rob dis cracka honkey with a gat no mo
>... aw man
>fuk dis shit wes gon go 2 skool n lern sum economics and shit
It's more of a joke about how gun nuts are paranoid and schizoprenic hicks who think the government is coming after them but the government could easily take them out if they wanted to.
Anyone else part of the NH master race?
>3+ gun shops in my town
>Extremely low crime rates
It's not about giving ground, it's because I legitimately think they're good things.
Most of the guns used in crimes in America are bought legitimately with the intent of illegally transferring them to criminals. Everybody likes to freak out about mass shootings and shit, but regular criminals with guns is a way more important issue, and mandatory registration would at least provide a means of prosecuting the people involved.
I agree with this, too. Gun nuts like to whine about Moore and his movie, but if you watch it, it's actually reasonably pro-gun, and more about the fucked up culture we've created that leads to people doing dumb crazy shit with guns.
Guns aren't a problem, niggers are. Switzerland doesn't have a gun crime problem for example.
The whole Bill of Rights was written at a time more dangerous than now. Do you not need freedom of speech since the government isn't actively oppressing you? Do you not need a guarantee that you get a fair trial because you haven't committed a crime? Go back to reddit
you are going to kill your wife because she cucked you, you use a gun , guns are banned you use a knife.
the more guns a city will have the less a criminal wil risk his life
hey look, its you :^)
maybe you stopped reading because your dumb hick brain got too tired, it's understandable
>the government could easily take them out if they wanted to
Leftists need to understand that soldiers are more likely to side with the pro-gun crowd than Obama if he ordered the military to attack American citizens. Soldiers and veterans aren't all no gunz nu male cucks like you.
Don't ad hominem OP, it's embarrassing. Guns are incredibly badass. I like being able fight back if two or three Mohammeds or Jamals try to get violent with me.
Also, guns aren't really an issue. It's mostly minorities. Look at Switzerland. They have a high rate of gun ownership and low crime rates. By minorities I mean niggers. Asians are a-okay.
As someone NOT from the USA, do people really think that if the US army rolled through in an attempt to disarm the people that the people would stand a chance?
I don't care if guns are legal or illegal in the USA, but be realistic.
Can't people just say "No, I enjoy guns, please don't ban them."? Or, "I feel more safe when I'm armed so I use it for everyday protection."?
I feel for the progun people who operate with half a brain, the face of their side is a screaming redneck talking about fending off an army.
Not that guns will ever be banned anyway, do you realise just how much money those gun manufacturers make and spread around? It's silly to even talk about, if there's a law they don't want, they'll just throw money at it until it goes away.
While I get where you're coming from, I don't think it'd be that straightforward.
Obama would never just order the military to attack gun owners. Here's how it would happen:
>Gun law gets passed
>Gun owner refuses to comply
>Cops come to force owner to comply
>Gun owner's friends or a "militia" looking to make a statement shows up
>Cops are outnumbered and outgunned
>Military gets called in as backup
>Somebody starts shooting
>It becomes a firefight
>Military is there and being shot at, so they shoot back
Just like Ruby Ridge or Waco or any of these other things.
US army has like 1.6 million people in it, the US has many many times that number in military aged males. on top of that, ordering soldiers to attack US citizens will cause massive desertion, meaning the army wouldn't just be hemorrhaging soldiers but intelligence, training, and supplies.
>can't people just ignore one of the most important reasons gun ownership is a right? i'd much prefer it if they didn't say that stuff, it's distasteful
The same military that is largely composed of strong supporters of the Second Amendment is going to go around forcefully disarming Americans to revoke their Second Amendment rights? You sure about that?
Even if that did happen, you might have noticed guerrilla warfare isn't our military's strongest field. If rice niggers and sand niggers can put up a fight against them, so could American citizens.
Of course people would stand a chance, look at the current situation in the Middle East.
Consider that situation is actually tipped more in favor of the US Military because there are fewer misgivings (both domestically and within the armed forces) about dropping bombs and firing rounds at dumb ugly brown people named "Muhammed."
You forgot that our Army is composed of US citizens, many of which are pro-gun right-wingers.
>Here is a tip
>The military consist of Americans
>They'll never take them from american hands
Seriously though, gun culture is so rooted in most american families (especially police and military families) there is no way more departments or the military would force confiscation.
>As someone NOT from the USA
Whether you're from the USA or not doesn't validate or invalidate your opinion, so it's not worth mentioning
>do people really think that if the US army rolled through in an attempt to disarm the people that the people would stand a chance?
What is guerilla warfare? The whole of NATO couldn't defeat the Taliban in more than ten years. The government isn't just going to carpet bomb civilians because they want to take their funs away. Not to mention that lot's of people in the army might leave if they get ordered to take peoples guns/liberties
>Can't people just say "No, I enjoy guns, please don't ban them."? Or, "I feel more safe when I'm armed so I use it for everyday protection."?
They do, but progressives latch on to the 0.1% that act like moronic hicks and accuse all gun owners of being baby murderers anyway
>I feel for the progun people who operate with half a brain, the face of their side is a screaming redneck talking about fending off an army.
Partly right there, but there are lot's of things the rednecks say that is right, just because they act like idiots doesn't mean they are wrong.
pic related, along with the 700k defensive gun uses each year is why I remain pro-2A.
I don't cling, I look at empirically proven things.
The authors of the Second Amendment made it VERY clear that the 2A WAS NOT intended to enable citizens to resist the government. Go read the relevant chapters of the Federalist Papers, Madison (I think it was him who wrote those parts) basically calls people who think that's what it's about mentally ill. ("A disease without treatment or cure" or something like that.)
I agree about desertion, but there's not a chance the citizens can stand up to a concerted military effort. You're talking about a bunch of disorganized guys, maybe with a few groups of a couple hundred at most, fighting a highly trained and organized military with excellent communications, and the citizens would be using small arms and improvised explosives to attempt to counter aircraft, armor, and artillery.
I get what you're thinking, but a domestic operation would be very different from what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq. The vast majority of Americans would roll over and take whatever the government wanted to do after watching a few hundred or thousand of those who tried to resist get slaughtered. Middle eastern insurgent groups are much better funded, equipped, and in some cases organized than American rebels would be, and they're fighting a force with a long supply chain and insufficient manpower to control the majority of territory.
I mean, look at the Civil War. There was much more parity of arms then than now, and the rebels still got wrecked.
But anyway, a wholesale ban will never happen anyway, the worst thing likely would be an end to new sales, and even that isn't likely. Everybody knows it'd lead to too much violence, and no political candidate, no matter how anti-gun they are, wants the negative press that would come of that.
you have the right practice your religion
you have the right to say whatever you want
you have the right to protest the government
the second amendment;
you have the right to keep and bear arms
the 2nd amendment is there to scare the shit out of the government
>after watching a few hundred or thousand of those who tried to resist get slaughtered
If you honestly believe that the US Armed Forces would slaughter a thousand people and then there be no retaliation, then you know jack shit about this nation or it's peoples.
Not only that, but your situation is totally inconsistent with how gun control in the US has been implemented in the past. The armed forces do not enforce gun control laws.
In the event that the government does become completely tyrannical and sic the armed forces on the people, then the ownership and usage of civilian firearms would be completely justified and necessary in order to thwart such tyranny.
You kinda missing the whole point of the well regulated militia part.
The founding father crated the second amendment because they feared the British would attack again. They wanted men in a well regulated militia to be able to defend their homes from the British.
Thats not how the modern military works.
A detachment of F22s and all the logistical resources needed to make it into a usable asset don't just suddenly end up in the hands of guerrillas because a general tries to defect. For every guy who gets into a jet and blows stuff up, there's many more responsible for the technical aspects of making that possible. Technicians, engineers, maintenance personal, as well as all the physical assets like specialized jet fuel, the refueling equipment, runways, hangers etc... etc... Even if a general said 'fuck it I quit' all those assets don't just switch sides and its all useless anyway without the trained personnel to actually make them work.
The logistical necessities of modern military equipment are enormous.
>The authors of the Second Amendment made it VERY clear that the 2A WAS NOT intended to enable citizens to resist the government.
>a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
it says right there we can resist whoever the fuck we want
The threat of being being overtaken by a tyrannical government who wishes harm to its populace is no more or less real now than it has been at any time in the past. Look at Germany.
In the 20th century, over 250 million people were killed by their own government, six times the amount that were killed in warfare.
>but there's not a chance the citizens can stand up to a concerted military effort. You're talking about a bunch of disorganized guys, maybe with a few groups of a couple hundred at most, fighting a highly trained and organized military with excellent communications, and the citizens would be using small arms and improvised explosives to attempt to counter aircraft, armor, and artillery.
hahaha what is vietnam nigga like what is iraq like what is afghanistan nigga hahahahahaha
>a domestic operation would be very different from what happened in Afghanistan or Iraq. The vast majority of Americans would roll over and take whatever the government wanted to do after watching a few hundred or thousand of those who tried to resist get slaughtered
there is no way to actually say this would happen. the vast majority of americans are sick and tired of what little government repression they face, and although some people would be terrified into complacency by military action, many would also be pushed into retaliation. generally speaking, americans don't react kindly to being fucked with.
>read the relevant chapters of the federalist papers
which chapters are those?
I said higher up the thread how it would be likely to happen.
They wouldn't send the military in to slaughter people, what would happen is that they'd send the military as backup for the civilian authorities when standoffs happened, and then when shots started flying the soldiers there would naturally return fire as necessary to suppress the people shooting at them.
I do think that the military would be deployed more directly in the face of organized, armed, and violent groups, though. If a huge gun ban went through, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a few large militia groups openly opposing the government, and if you're talking 300 guys with AR15s threatening to light up any cops that come for them, you better bet they'll deploy troops and maybe even use airstrikes or the like to take them out.
>far more dangerous time then we have now
You're not terribly bright, are you champ?
The funny thing is I don't even need to mention how gun-control is counter intuitive to it's claimed goal, do you actually believe a government would want to disarm it's citizens for their protection?
At the end of the day it's the people who would justify the use of force against those it claims hold some responsibility to their whims, well those are the individuals you should fear.
The irony is that I would be the first to tell you causing harm to your fellow man was the driving force behind the development of firearms. Do you really believe the people who would lord over you should be in sole possession of such tools?
>I said higher up the thread how it would be likely to happen.
no, you shouted your baseless conjecture. a country-wide resistance is not quashed by shooting a few cowboys in standoffs. that makes martyrs out of the cowboys, and villains out of the military
>army had a hard time occupying iraq and afghanistan
>think it can occupy the entire US with 3 guns per citizen
Libs are just defeatist sad faggots who always roll over and hope the rape won't be too hard. Exactly what they're doing with Islam.
Suck up to the guy who will actually kill you, demand resources from the peaceful culture with restraint, make no effort to strengthen or defend yourself.
We didn't have a hard time occupying iraq and afghanistan. That part came pretty easy. It was leaving it to people who are used to being told what to do by a dictators that was hard.
>hey'd send the military as backup for the civilian authorities when standoffs happened
There aren't enough soldiers in the Army to provide the amount of backup it would require to confiscate 300 million guns, many of which would belong to the service personnel themselves.
It's not feasible on any level, save for the creation of self-replicating robots that are immune to any sort of harm.
If it was feasible, we would have stamped out the insurgency in the Middle East years ago.
Face the facts, police are not military personnel, and military personnel are not good at dealing with asymmetrical warfare.
It also means controlled and supervised.
>not regulated as in government regulations
Escape there was a huge deal on whether or not the State government or the federal government has the ability to control militias due to slave riots. Which means that militias are went to be regulated by a governing body.
Clear rules for the organization and supply of the militia in question are outlined, and it is made clear that it is not intended to be a defense against government tyranny, except in that there was to be no substantial standing army. The defense against the government was that the American fighting force was to be composed of local part-timers who naturally would not turn on their own communities.
The force outlined is actually quite similar to our modern state National Guard units.
>which chapters are those?
28, 29, and 46 are the ones I can find at the moment.
Well-regulated also means controlled and supervised. Which is what i want. There is no reason why you should own an unregistered gun. There is no reason why you should be allowed to buy a gun without going through some sort of red tape.
Oh, I don't disagree. It would be absolute insanity to attempt to disarm America.
I was only arguing against the idea that, in such an insane situation, a civilian rebellion would be able to defeat the military and overthrow the government through force of arms, as some seem to think would be the case.
you do realize that nearly all 300+ million guns in the united states arent registered apart from full auto and short barreled shotguns and rifles and very few destructive devices?
the ESRB was the best thing to happen to vidya
>be 12 years old
>see game rated m
>want that game because it is rated m
I never said that we shouldn't. I'm just sick of people throwing shit around about the Constitution without actually understanding what's meant by it.
I'm staunchly pro-gun. There's a Daniel Defense AR15, an MR556, a Saiga, and a Howa 1500 on the wall across from me and a P226 within arm's reach of me right now. Like I say, I just don't agree with the interpretation of the 2A as the gun lobby promotes it, and neither did any Supreme Court until they made a partial turnaround a few years ago under suspect political circumstances. (And they still supported certain restrictions and regulations, too.)
Do you even know how the rating system came to be? Let me give you a hint. It wasn't because the game industry just decided to regulate it's self.
>n the United States Senate, Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin led hearings on video game violence and the corruption of society which began in 1992.
Why does it even matter if the firearm is registered or not?
Since when does registering a firearm prevent someone from using it in a crime?
You think gun crime is a person shooting another person, then disappearing like a ghost only leaving a clean gun behind to track them with?
>Guns aren't a problem, niggers are. Switzerland doesn't have a gun crime problem for example.
yeah, but you can't say this...
it's like people gathering around a giant pile of shit in your room, and everyone is talking about using a shovel to remove it, sprinkling some powder to absorb it, and other strategies with how to eliminate the problem of the giant shit in the middle of the room...
despite this, every one simply ignores the fucking monkey/baboon in the corner that's taking the giant shit.
This is you right now you fucking bitch ass faggot
If you pull someone over, you run their incense through a database that tells you if they are a criminal.
And if you have cause, you search their vehicle, and if they are a felon in possession of a firearm, that's another felony.
It doesn't fucking matter if it's registered or not.
>You going to pretend that every person who had a unregistered gun is an outstanding citizens?
let me reiterate; ~95%+ off all firearms owned lawfully in the united states are not registered. the remaining 5% are guns that are registered, owned by people who have undergone extensive state and federal background checks to own NFA and class 3 firearms.
so theres 300+ million law abiding gun owners in the us, and bascially niggers from chicago, la, ny, and nearly all black urban centers ruin it for everyone else by owning stolen guns somebody else bought legally with no intent of giving it to a criminal because a straw purchase is very illegal.
>but muh adam lanza
he committed at least 2 felonies before firing a shot.
i bought all my guns legally and i comply with all state and local laws regarding my unregistered firearms. the people who are not law abiding and who own guns bought them illegally, thats why you can get put in jail for owning a gun that you have no business owning; unlawful possesion of a firearm.
cars are registered and cars kill more people than guns.
>pull over nigger
>he has a hipoint
>run the serial on the hipoint
>"are you moshe goldenblatt?
>'no i is tyrone johnson nikka"
>youre under arrest for felony unlawful possession of a firearm"
>bascially niggers from chicago, la, ny, and nearly all black urban centers ruin it for everyone else by owning stolen guns somebody else bought legally with no intent of giving it to a criminal because a straw purchase is very illegal.
Yeah it's like those niggers that are currently occupying a wild life reverse calling harm to innocent people...oh wait those aren't black people.
Why does everyone seem to think that the military would side with the government? I'm from a military family, and have friends in the military. Everyone in there is Tea Party as fuck and would side with the people. When sworn into the military you swear to uphold the constitution, not the government. It's legal for them to disobey unlawful orders. Same with cops, though I can't say for sure where they stand...
>The authors of the Second Amendment made it VERY clear that the 2A WAS NOT intended to enable citizens to resist the government. Go read the relevant chapters of the Federalist Papers, Madison (I think it was him who wrote those parts) basically calls people who think that's what it's about mentally ill. ("A disease without treatment or cure" or something like that.)
>implying that there wasn't major disagreements between the role of government and federalism between the founding fathers
>implying there weren't anti-federalist papers
>government cannot use military forces against citizens
>if they tried to do so on any scale whatsoever, they'd most likely have a full uprising on their hands; military's trigger-fingers are primarily early-twenties with far more loyalty to the American citizenry than the American government
>drones cannot fight a truly guerilla war, otherwise we'd have no need for troops on the ground in the Middle East
>goatfuckers in a treeless desert can evade drones for decades, somehow OP's artist thinks armed and sometimes-professionally-instructed citizens of one of the world's most wealthy and personally-armed nations will be incapable
See the Oregon situation and tell me how many armed drones the military sent in.
You can drive a car on personally owned land/roads without a driver's license. It's only driving on public roads that requires a test/license. Similarly, You must take a class/test to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit to carry a firearm out in public.
All of that is moot though because the constitution doesn't guarantee you a right to own/drive a vehicle.
>If, on the other hand, the national government usurps power and betrays the people then the state governments are in a better position to oppose the national government
>the limited resources available to the national army make it unlikely that it would grow large enough to erect a despotism.
>Hamilton states that a well-regulated militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
>In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry
You right it is all moot point. We are all avoiding the elephant in the room. There were over 294 mas shooting last year. That isn't even counting shooting that weren't consider mass shooting. Yet you sit there and say that absolutely nothing should be done to try to avoud/prevent that because MUH RIGHTS. If the same amount of people that died from mass shooting died from something else. You would be demanding the government to do something.
>B-BUT YOU DON'T NEED A GUN!
What if I enjoy hunting? What if I enjoy target shooting? Are you saying I'm not allowed to enjoy these things because of your feelings? Pools kill more people (and children) on average than guns, and nobody really needs a pool in their backyard. Should we ban all pools? What about cars, since more people die from car crashes than guns?
>B-BUT THE POLICE WILL PROTECT YOU
The police take about 10 minutes on average to arrive. If someone is intent on hurting me and my loved ones then 10 minutes is all they need. Besides, what if I can't reach the phone?
>B-BUT GUN-FREE AREAS HAVE LESS GUN CRIME!
...And they have more stabbings, beatings, muggings, etc than places with guns. Saying gun-free zones have less gun crime is like saying places where they don't sell burgers have less people eating burgers: Of course it's true, but that doesn't mean jack shit because what else do you expect?
>B-BUT YOU'RE JUST A RACIST PARANOID WHITE TRASH REDNECK!
I'm Latino, and there are plenty of non-whites who are pro-gun as well. Blaming white people for everything makes you no better than the stormfags who blame the Jews and blacks for everything.
>B-BUT THE GOVERNMENT COULD JUST SWOOP IN AND KILL YOU ANY SECOND!
Planes, tanks, and drones can't patrol the streets as effectively as armed policemen can. And when there's a chance that anyone can be packing heat, they're a lot less likely to enforce a police state. Guerilla warfare also allows the people to fight back because the police/military would use standard by-the-book combat tactics, which doesn't do jack shit against armed people who set up traps and know the region better than they do (Source: Viet-Fucking-Nam). Besides, even if they could kill everyone, who wants to rule over a nation of corpses?
tl;dr Enjoy getting blown up by Muhammad and going to jail for not being tolerant enough
given that the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century without fail rose in face of the armed peoples they then ruled, and massively used their freedom to own firepower to start their revolutions, im not sure this whole rhetoric around "we will defeat any tyrant in his infancy" has any merit.
How many of those mass shootings are niggers/criminals killing each other? If you aren't suicidal or a criminal your odds of being a victim of gun violence in America are extremely low.
and all this are considerations that no longer apply considering the existence of firepower like modern artillery, chemical/biological weapons, and generally the ridiculous extent of the US military. if the rest of the world can barely rival its military if they put their stuff together, thinking a bunch of mountain dew destruction machines with guns will be any sort of serious opposition seems a bit optimistic.
And if the government starts using shit like chemical weapons against its own citizens they will be outed as the tyrants they are, causing more people to side with the rebels. Then it's only a matter of time before Russia or China invades to "free" Americans from their oppressive regime.
I'd wager that 75% or more of those mass shootings are black-on-black gang shootouts. When are we going to stop avoiding the elephant in the room that is blacks?
Also, the best way to stop a mass shooting if you are confronted with one is to bring a gun of your own into the fight, which is why so many mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.
Stopped reading there, spic.
>And they have more stabbings, beatings, etc
Not if you live in a Nordic country not filled with spics and niggers. Guess what, we have strict gun control and low crime rates compared to burgers
Tbh if we want to live in a country with the second amendment, gun safety should be taught in schools
more gun control, such as gun licenses, is fine with me. i don't see the point of getting rid of guns though, since guns are super cool and having more freedom (such as the freedom to buy guns) is way better than having less freedom.
also can you imagine how sick it would if you learned how to disassemble and reassemble rifles in like the 5th grade?
you cannot buy a firearm if youve been diagnosed as mentally ill
this is the form you have to fill out a firearm before you do the background check
>Stopped reading there, spic.
Then why did you reply? :^)
>Not if you live in a Nordic country not filled with spics and niggers. Guess what, we have strict gun control and low crime rates compared to burgers
Where do you live?
Gun shows don't have to check for that stuff and it's completely legal to buy a gun 2nd hand.
Yet let's not try to stop gang related mass shooting. Because If it's something we all know. It's that people with gun almost never go to gun free zones and shot people.
>which is why so many mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.
It's pointing out the flaws of the "Hurr it's pointless to own guns since the military has superior firepower" argument. If the government goes full-tyranny, they only win if enough cucks surrender and give in to their demands. They lose if people resist.
you know you can buy guns on Facebook right?
if not in your state, there's guaranteed to be some state around you allowing simple person-to-person sales
>tfw looking at handguns and rifles in facebook gun groups
>tfw trying to talk myself into buying one for $150-$200
what is the communist revolution in russia
same in china
what are the nazis
all started their regimes from an armed citizenry. the russians and the chinese fought civil wars against their totalitarian plagues and lost.
you guys seem to labour in a hypothetical world where the government turns despotic, orders their military to subdue the noble populace, and the knights in shining armor ride forth from texas to rain death down upon the fascist swines. does anything like this have any precedent in history? im only aware of significant portions of the population supporting the terror, and that part of the population gaining power by controlling the military.
>They lose if people resist.
the russians and the chinese are the US people now? im really trying to make sense of what youre saying, please give it another go.
I have a co-worker who owns a gun. Wants to sell that gun. So I buy that gun off him.
Yeah You did, but you are ignoring the fact that in a lot of states you don't have to do that.
If the US government is fighting a civil war (this is the resisting part) and then gets invaded by China or Russia, they are now fighting on two fronts and will eventually be overthrown. Foreign countries would intervene if the US government started using things like chemical and biological warfare on its own citizens, which is what somebody said would happen to the under-armed rebels.
Even if a full invasion did not happen, foreign countries that dislike the US would support the rebels with things like equipment and specialists. That weakens the "What's the point of resisting since you're outgunned anyways" argument.
The point still stands. If you're expecting to be armed by foreign powers anyway and this is critical to the success of your revolution, stockpiling outdated firearms is helping no one and incidentally resulting in the occasional mass murder. So then why?
Right, in Europe you just get gunned down or suicide bombed by twitchy ragheads
i didnt suggest you personally do, but your group - the gun people - is in favor of having the guns that have been used to kill thousands of school children in recent time. also, you didnt answer the question.
>implying city coulture is superior to country >culture just because it is city culture
I like owning a gun because it makes me feel like a man. I don't need to prove shit to you if you dont get it.
Because it's my right to own firearms and there isn't a goddamn thing you or the government can do about it.
I have lawfully used my gun to chase away a couple niggers trying to break into my car. Why should I surrender the right to defend myself? What do I get from disarming myself and surrendering the ability to protect myself and my property?
basically the serial number on the gun works like a license plate on a car.
if i own a pistol; serial number 1234567 and my name is anon and it gets stolen i have to call the police and tell them my name is anon and my gun with serial number 1234567 was stolen. and if tyrone has it and gets pulled over or whatever and is detained by law enforcement with my gun itll be returned to me.
Again what you do isn't what everybody does. Not every gun owner writes down their serial number. If every gun owner was responsible as you claim to be. Then there wouldn't be such a big problem.
>the gun people - is in favor of having the guns that have been used to kill thousands of school children in recent time
Fuck those shitty kids. I'll consider getting rid of guns when they all die.
You're not explaining what I get for surrendering a right. What's in it for me? How do I benefit? The way I see it, all that happens if I disarm myself is I can no longer protect myself. There is nothing in it for me, so no shit I'm not going to support surrendering my Second Amendment rights. There has to be give and take in order for there to be a compromise, but from my perspective the gun grabbers are all take and no give.
Before you make your "Think of da children :'(" plea to emotion, keep in mind that I don't have any kids of my own and I consider a handful of school shootings in a country of 350 million to be statistically insignificant.
I live in sweden and as you can imagine, everyone is pro grun control. I don't get it. People who oppose civilian gun ownership are basically admitting to being a retard that can't be held responsible with owning a weapon. Cops are generally stupid and unintelligent, so why is this reponsibility thrusted with them?
Let me make this really clear for you.
Guns are not getting up and shooting school children.
Fucked up individuals are.
Fucked up individuals will get a gun no matter how hard you make it to do so. If it's too hard they'll use a katana, or pipe bomb, or ballpeen hammer.
Decent human beings will probably not try to get a gun if you make it hard to do so.
So what you create, is a society in which deranged assholes are able to shoot up people without fear of retaliation until police show up.
If more regular people are carrying guns, and an Elliot Rodgers wannabe starts firing, He gets gunned down before being able to hurt more than a couple people, if any at all.
Restricting gun ownership only changes whether criminals are buying them from Gander Mountain or from Dee on 12th Ave.
>Before you make your "Think of da children :'(" plea to emotion, keep in mind that I don't have any kids of my own and I consider a handful of school shootings in a country of 350 million to be statistically insignificant.
almost eliminating the indigenous mass murder of your people's children does not do anything for you? i dont see how you can reasonable expect the constitution - a legal agreement among the people - to do anything for you if you dont even care if the weakest among the people live or die, and expressly say you are willing to sacrifice them if it means you can go YEEHAW.
"Defensive gun uses by crime victims are three to four times more common than crimes committed with guns; " - Gary Kleck, a criminologist with a PhD
T-THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Children are also killed by things like pools, so when are you libfags going to go after pools? After all, nobody NEEDS a pool and public pools staffed with professional lifeguards are available. We must pass legislation barring private pool ownership and pools deeper than four feet to keep the children safe!
>Let me make this really clear for you.
>Guns are not getting up and shooting school children.
...which is why explosives, tanks, attack helicopters, howitzers and generally any military weaponry is freely available on the white market - they dont kill people either, since its the people that use them do.
You don't NEED a gun, call the police
You don't NEED a car, just walk, what are you, fat or something?
You don't NEED your own housing, just live in our public housing
You don't NEED a full ration of food, you could stand to lose some weight
in the US, how can you stop people from having guns? there are more guns in the US than there are people
in australia they even tried to buy back all the guns but gun ownership just went back to previous levels before the buyback years later
but also what if there is no correlation between violent crime and gun ownership?
also this >>25945880
>you are not losing anything if they outlaw guns
except my RIGHTS
Whens the last time you heard of a stolen howitzer being used to level a playground?
Besides, just because you can't buy a tank doesn't mean some lunatic won't get ahold of one and do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmFiZoe-7P4
Of course not. The posts that really BTFO liberals don't have replies.
any liberal who doesnt start with "cops and soldiers are murderous thugs" has no need to. nor does any conservative who doesnt start with "the government is the devil" have to argue for the guns that kill actual american children instead of hypothetical ones.
This picture is mind numbingly retarded. Now I'll explain why in detail All Libcucks and Eurofags please read on, if you're already redpilled then there is probably nothing in what I am going to type that will be new to you. Anyway:
>Declare guns are now illegal, go house to house collecting them with the militarized police
>Some cooperate, others deny having any guns at all, some go out in a blaze of glory forcing the police to kill them
>As this goes on, public resentment of the government heavily increases by all but the most cuck'd Americans
>Resistance inevitably forms, a mix between 2nd amendment believers and people who are just tired of the government's shit
>Bombings take place nationwide of government buildings, guns are still illegally obtained through our unsecured border and bought from the Mexican cartels who have essentially found a great new way to make money on top of the illegal drug trade already in America
>Resistance members bomb a government building
>General Shitlord scrambles the drones and tanks to respond
>By the time everything is ready the assailants are gone and live to fight another day
>General Shitlord comes up with a new plan: Keep at least a few drones and tanks out at all times that way attacks can be dealt with immediately
>Public anger grows as now there is literally a military occupation on their front lawn
>Resistance changes their targets from killing government members to killing the faggots who fly drones in trailers
>As the body count of drone operators rise, it becomes a vilified job in the military
>General Shitlord moves the trailers on to military bases for increased security
>Drone operators are still people and can't just live on a base forever, they have families and lives outside of their job
>When they inevitably go into town they are assassinated
>The family members of the operators are also targeted
>Military literally can no longer find anyone willing to do the job
>Are you also supporting an industry that enables mass murder when you buy a car,
no, because cars arent designed to be used to kill. you know, just like someone who invests in chewing gum stock dont support an industry that enables choking to death, but people who invest in tobacco enable poison peddlers.
Doesn't change the fact that more people in the US are killed by cars than guns, so if you guys really did give a shit about saving the children you would be opposed to cars. According to gun grabber logic, nobody needs a car when they can just walk, ride a bike or take a bus that is safely operated by a government-approved official.
I thought autistic skellingtons would appreciate a force multiplier that would prevent Chad or Jamal from just kicking their shit in
Have fun defending yourself from someone bigger and stronger than you with a melee weapon, senpai.
by that logic, according to you, there should be no safety standards anywhere ever. why should the stinking fascists tell me how to wire up my house or fireproof my gas station in the middle of the city.
Guns don't actually matter.
Gun control/liberation changes the speed at which the crime statistics slopes upwards or downwards for a short period after the change in policy and then things keep going the way they where going.
Crime rates are related to economical factors more than anything.
>Guns are specifically made to kill people
An inanimate object can not have an intention to do anything. Guns for civilian sale are not intended to be used to murder, nor is the right of gun ownership the right to kill. You should be banning murder, not guns.
whats up with the nonsense?
>there should be no safety standards anywhere ever
You can not put limitations on people's human rights in the pretext of it being for "safety purposes". That's actually how all dictatorships operate. Protecting your life and your property is an obvious right as a free man, and so even if you could prove that gun control leads to less crime, it would not make a difference.
its ok that you dont have assets or a family you want to protect. I come from a family whose home and family members were taken and murdered by a fascist. I will always be strapped. I will protect my life and my wife and children as much as I can. Fuck you week liberal pieces of crap. Come take it from my cold dead hands.
When it comes to firearms, I don't mind some safety regulations. I agree with barring felons and the mentally ill from legally owning guns. I don't mind background checks when I buy a gun and I agree with requiring safety classes/training to obtain a concealed carry permit. I don't keep my guns loaded when they aren't being used. Whenever kids are at my place I make sure my guns and ammo are not accessible to them.
Most law-abiding gun owners have similar beliefs when it comes to this kind of thing. The notion that we're all wannabe gunslinger cowboys is one of the media's many lies.
I think bombs kill more people than guns do, stupid.
I mean you obviously care only about lives, regardless of whos they are, so ban the manufacture of explosives for the military. They kill way more people per year than guns do.
>We don't need guns like we did back then
Funny how none of these are actual arguments
>Gun violence is on the rise
>You're more likely to be killed with your own gun than use it to defend yourself
Idiots are allowed to use guns, so they're allowed to ruin it for everyone else? What would happen if we used the same approach to privacy? Or the fact that "a few Muslims are terrorists"? Ban encryption and deport all Muslims? No.
I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support the 1st Amendment, equal rights, I don't support the US's aggression around the world. It sucks that there's no party I can vote for.
>Republicans support the 2nd Amendment, but are against equal rights (Conservatives don't support the majority ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges)
>Democrats usually are against outright aggression (Iraq War), but have been weak on the 1st Amendment (Obama's NSA programs, SJWs trying to inject their fascist views into the Democratic platform) and they support banning all firearms (bullshit)
Why can't politics make more sense in the US?
>You're more likely to be killed with your own gun than use it to defend yourself
I'm not even sure how true this is considering there are more violent crimes prevented by guns than caused by them
Just checked the swedish police's website, and under the article "The police's right to use firearms", in the first paragraph they state
>Police officers have the right to use firearms when they're facing danger, for example in the form of a person armed with a knife or a gun.
Yet the citizen who faces the criminals before the cops show up do not have this right. I'm amazed at how few people see a problem with this.
I know OP is baiting/joking, but what the fuck is the point of that picture? Just because drones exist people should just give up on their rights and get on their knees, or else..?
It's shit like that why people get guns in the first place, and that's why it's in the constitution. The founding fathers were smart like that; they knew that leaders can turn into power thirsty tyrants in extreme cases, and for that exact reason the people should be armed. Government works for the people, not the other way around.
>guns are made to kill
So? They still kill less than than the things not meant to kill.
Cigarettes are not meant to kill and you want them regulated, cars are no meant to kill and you don't want them regulated.
Both of these things do more harm than guns, so why are you so hung up on guns?
And then you wonder why people think your grabber mentality can only lead to further government invasion of the private life and diminishing of rights.
>Just because drones exist people should just give up on their rights and get on their knees, or else..?
Yeah, a normal person would say that the problem is not the guy with the gun, but the fucking drone. Gun-haters approve the second for some deranged reason.
>he doesn't want to ban all cars is the difference
nor do i. the reason is that dying by car is a matter of the ordinary risk of life of being involved in an accident that kills you. you are exposed to the same risk by walking in a field; you might trip over a stone and break your neck. guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill - not by accident, but on purpose. saying that that doesnt make guns as tools for killing qualitatively different from cars is like saying that riding a horse is qualitatively no different from flying at super-sonic speed. the proportionality just is completely different with guns than with ordinary risks of life that manifest accidentally, not purposefully, with objects found in daily life.
>You can not put limitations on people's human rights in the pretext of it being for "safety purposes". That's actually how all dictatorships operate.
thats also how any democracy operates when it regulates safety concerns or health concerns. why cant i open that clinic? oh right, i need a license and dont have one. why cant i wire my house in the middle of the city up any way i want? oh right, i might burn it down. the point is your freedom is being regulated in loads of ways that make sense to you for safety reasons that you accept. its only when you dont like a regulation that you start shouting SPILL THE BLOOD OF THE TYRANT IN THE TOWN SQUARE.
see first comment, its a matter of proportionality and whether the deaths those things cause are ordinary risk of life types or not. you have to fully expect that people will die of cancer if you sell cigarettes. you can also get a cigarette into your windpipe and suffocate, but thats just ordinary risk of life. causing cancer and loads of other awful stuff makes it reasonable to consider banning them; the possibility that some people accidentally suffocate on them doesnt.
>Bullets damage ability to think critically
How about you come to the paradise that is Brazil right now ? I can't even buy a single bullet without being thrown in jail, and getting guns legally is bureaucracy boogaloo, but walk into any favela in Rio or Sao Paulo and you'll see niggers walking around with 1911s, AKs and ARs.
>Inb4 elitism monkeys need not apply
Sure, then go to Enlgand or France. I hope you like being stabbed or exploded to bits. Because you see, if you ban one method of killing, people will still want to kill anyways.
Not like killing isn't banned anyways, yet people still do it, ain't that right ?
i take offense at the "stupid", master troll! get thee away from the edge master and return to civilized discourse, or i shall leave this place in a huff and faint from rage!
but seriously, i didnt comment on military disarmament. would you also like to accuse me of being inconsistent with regard to my views on the production of saffron?
>the reason is that dying by car is a matter of the ordinary risk of life
Being murdered is also a matter of ordinary risk of life for fuck's sake, gun or no guns involved.
>you are exposed to the same risk by walking in a field
No you're not because there's no traffic in a field. Are you genuinely retarded?
>the proportionality just is completely different with guns
>ordinary risk of life
This can be said about anything.
>matter of proportionality
Ok, ban guns then. What happens?
In dreamland, no more guns, no more problems. In real life, some civil unrest, more government, a mess, criminals will crime freely and harder, maybe you'll stop one or two autism-o shootings while making it easier for real criminals to act and causing people who defend themselves to be considered criminal, like the brit that went to jail for reacting to a robbery and killing the invader.
and yet they serve to protect more often than not
guns are made to kill bad people, but can be misused, just how a knife is used for cutting vegetables but can be misused
>don't make any arguments
>post ebin comic instead xDD
>have countrywomen raped by muslims
how tolerant :)
>why cant i open that clinic? oh right, i need a license and dont have one
I never claimed operating on another human being is a human right.
>why cant i wire my house in the middle of the city up any way i want?
Another irrevelant analogy. Are you saying if I keep a gun in my drawer it's going to start shooting people by itself? No of course not. It's not a time bomb or an AI.
>for safety reasons
If you were interested in my safety, you wouldn't stop me from owning a gun and being at the mercy of murderous criminals who do have guns! The only safety you're concerned with is that of the criminals.
>Have common sense gun legislation
>Law abiding citizens have guns
>Criminals can only get guns from our shitty neighbours to the south
>Most don't have guns anyways
>Nobody but criminals get shot
Haha Canada wins again
>His president is L I T E R A L L Y a nigger
>>the proportionality just is completely different with guns
>>ordinary risk of life
>This can be said about anything.
so where do you draw the line? apparently you draw it somewhere between "you cane wire your house up any way you want" and "you can trade tools designed to make killing as easy as possible", but somehow the first instead of the second is unacceptable.
>guns are made to kill bad people, but can be misused, just how a knife is used for cutting vegetables but can be misused
and the fact is that guns are being misused on tens of thousands of innocents.
>I never claimed operating on another human being is a human right.
the right in question is freedom, which is "you can do what you want unless expressly forbidden".
>Are you saying if I keep a gun in my drawer it's going to start shooting people by itself? No of course not. It's not a time bomb or an AI.
glad we cleared that up, i thought for a moment you might think that i thought guns roam the planes freely in the US of A.
>If you were interested in my safety, you wouldn't stop me from owning a gun and being at the mercy of murderous criminals who do have guns! The only safety you're concerned with is that of the criminals.
there are other ways of dealing with criminality apart from shooting the bad guys, you know. you could give a more equitable distribution of wealth a go, or investing in the people instead of your military complex, or a gazillion other approaches that deal with your problems instead of shooting the symptoms.
"More Dangerous time"
>Not thinking technology advanced
>Not thinking that any two bit criminal can find a way to import a gun/make guns for petty crime
>Not thinking the US military would annihilate any small resistance before it ever even had a chance
>Not thinking its not always dangerous
You want us to be weak cucks reliant on others. Every man should be able to protect himself from another man.
>is freedom, which is "you can do what you want unless expressly forbidden".
I never defined it as such.
>i thought guns roam the planes freely in the US of A.
yes that's the impression I get when you compare guns with fires caused by faulty wiring.
>there are other ways of dealing with criminality apart from shooting the bad guys
The examples you gave can be implemented along with looser gun laws. They're not opposed to eachother in the slightest.
But when faced with an armed assailant who has the intention(he's a person, not an inanimate object) to kill you, the best defense is to be armed, not hold up a copy of the US law saying murder is illegal. Cops are armed for this reason, so it only makes sense that the victims of the crimes are armed.
>ordinary risk of life
I'm still unsure as to why you brought up this in the first place. Being murdered is an ordinary risk of life so what bearing does it have on banning guns?
>give a more equitable distribution of wealth a go
Oh, there we go.
When he didn't answer to >>25946944
i suspected it, now you can see it.
He thinks the government can regulate the economy and all human interactions efficiently, he thinks it's the government's guidance that makes progress.
He probably thinks good intentions can justify a little tyranny.
>I never defined it as such.
really dont care, thats the going definition in legal tradition.
>so it only makes sense that the victims of the crimes are armed.
but then the offenders will be as well - which doesnt happen anywhere near as much in countries with gun control.
>>ordinary risk of life
>I'm still unsure as to why you brought up this in the first place. Being murdered is an ordinary risk of life so what bearing does it have on banning guns?
guns strongly amplify your risk of being killed, cars dont amplify your risk of dying by an accident. thats the difference. the stuff made to kill actually increases your chance of being killed significantly, and this looks pretty unproportional to the rhetoric of "but my 2A rights!".
i actually forgot to answer that one, but your comment here isnt unexpected. you see totalitarianism in stuff like health insurance systems as used in canada or germany, and youd rather people die of stuff that could easily be treated by the thousands instead of having to cash out a hundred bucks a month to support a health system. of course you also see a tyrant in anyone who thinks "well those ten thousand kids didnt really have to die did they, lets do something about that - no more guns guys!"
>He probably thinks good intentions can justify a little tyranny.
the rhetoric is getting pretty pre-industrial. im not the kings vassal coming to gag and shackle you, and even a free spirit like yourself acknowledges that there are risks that need regulating at the cost of freedom. what you dont say is how you would like to see the line drawn in any manner having a semblance of consistency.
>knives are also being misused by thousands
yeah, about twice as many people killed with knives as are with fists. guns: roughly 11 times as many killed as are with fists. the reason people go for gun regulation but not knife regulation is that guns are so much more efficient tools for killing, and are also so much more prevalently used for it.
I haven't seen proof of government regulation actually helping anything at all, i haven't seen proof of socialized healthcare systems being better, i haven't seen proof that gun control works, diminishes crimes or deaths.
I don't know where the line is, but i bet it's way further back, and you bet it's way further ahead.
You still haven't answered about the practicality of gun control. You've been arguing semantics and morality of it for awhile, but what does actually happen if you try to enforce it?
Of course the world would be better with zero guns, but that's not possible.
If you do take guns away you only take it from law abiding people and create new criminals with the flick of a pen, i said it before. The guns and the legislation around them do not affect crime rates that much, it's mostly economy and inequality.
And if you want to talk inequality, well, then less regulation and less government is the way to go. The more free the economy the better the country.
So is this comic saying that it's okay to kill people who don't want to give up their firearms?
I can imagine the smug look on the kike artist's face as he thought about this situation and how victorious liberalism would be.
>You've been arguing semantics and morality of it for awhile, but what does actually happen if you try to enforce it?
morality? i havent been arguing morality at all. i used arguments derived from constructs that are well-established in legal theory. im actually not sure whether i would be morally opposed to owning guns; i just see that US has a problem with mass murder, and guns seem to facilitate it.
>You still haven't answered about the practicality of gun control. You've been arguing semantics and morality of it for awhile, but what does actually happen if you try to enforce it?
it worked for the germans and the canadians, among others. im aware that there are countries where it doesnt look much like it worked out all too well, but that doesnt mean the concept itself is flawed, just that their implementation of it went wrong somewhere.
>And if you want to talk inequality, well, then less regulation and less government is the way to go
the financial crash of 2008/2009 doesnt fit that narrative. those hyper-leveraged high-risk bundles of mortgages that were backed with sometimes no more than 1% by the house "owners" were only possible due to deregulation. this "its either regulation or deregulation" stuff is so devoid of nuance and understanding, i cant take it serious.
>The more free the economy the better the country.
>the better the country
better at what?
following that logic, i would be justified making a clamour about how i cant buy howitzers on ebay, why is the king in washington censoring my freedom. or you could say if we ban open fire at gas stations they will just start blowing stuff up with their helium balloons, so why ban the open fire at gas stations.
just to make absolutely sure you understand what im getting at: the point is that these hypotheticals of "even if we get a hold of problem A, problem B will just fill its place" make no sense, because you can go any way you want with them.
you can't buy a howitzer on ebay because it is expensive and you need to register shit like that
you cannot buy guns off of ebay either
and also the point I made was NOT hypothetical, as it actually happens
get the fuck out reddit, go be communist somewhere else
The unadulterated circulation of firearms promotes a culture of militarism and masculinity, as well as allowing a man to be responsible for himself.
Anyone who supports gun control is a cuck and I can't comprehend why they are so afraid of being able to protect themselves.
>morality? i havent been arguing morality at all. i used arguments derived from constructs that are well-established in legal theory. im actually not sure whether i would be morally opposed to owning guns; i just see that US has a problem with mass murder, and guns seem to facilitate it.
Nice non answer.
>it seems to facilitate
>bunch of opinions
>better cull some rights and increase government power then.
>Nice non answer.
of course the part you cited wasnt an answer, there was no question. i was just remarking on the claim that i was arguing morality, which i was not.
>>bunch of opinions
>>better cull some rights and increase government power then.
yeah, my opinion is that the data shows guns are involved in so many killings that something needs to be done about them. another one of my opinions is that tobacco is harmful enough that it should be outlawed, and that 4chan should be taken off the internet for providing an echo chamber to socio- and psychopaths. all of these are opinions, founded in easily observed data.
Immediatist "solutions" from shallow observations that you took to hearth. Got it.
You should leave the dangerous echo chamber if you think it's so dangerous.
I know i'm leaving you alone here, no more being baited for me.