How did Americans grow to become so obsessed with guns and gun rights?

File: 1475723710547.jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

>>1835273
Its in the constitution, the nation started out as a bunch of farmers, the whole revolution thing, don't tread on me.

It's one of the few countries on earth where individual freedom means a damn.

File: CCW deters robbers.webm (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>>1835280
Also forgot to mention the urban youth angle.

>>1835273
we carved our country out of the wilds.

>>1835289
Well but, why do american connect little murder sticks with individual freedom so much?

File: 1467086436639.jpg (646KB, 1521x1141px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1521x1141px

>>1835291
Plus, aside from their utility, guns are just cool and fun. Lots of people might try to deny it, make it seem like the only purpose a gun has is as a tool for hunting, or self protection, but there's definitely a pleasurable side to firearms.
>>1835325
Why wouldn't they?

>>1835280
>the nation started out as a bunch of farmers, the whole revolution thing, don't tread on me.
Are there any other colonial countries that share this same view? I'm thinking specifically of latin American countries

>>1835328
>Why wouldn't they?

So, inherent presumtion?
It's still completely alien to me. Why does the ability to kill people around you grant you individual freedom?

Our founders wanted us to be armed to resist tyranny.

File: mauser c96 double.webm (2MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x375px

>>1835339
It grants you the freedom from relying on the state to protect your life and property.
Its also a freedom in and of its self, being free to purchase a firearm for individual use.

AMERICA!!!

File: IMG_20160915_123537365.jpg (2MB, 2121x3771px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2121x3771px

>>1835325
Because those little murder sticks are what keep the individual, individual.

>>1835273
They didn't grow to it, being able to bear arms was once considered a right in all civilized countries. It's the other nations that became obsessed with gun control.

File: wolverines.jpg (92KB, 600x326px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x326px

>>1835354
I know YOU might be ironic about that, but I am not.

>>1835273
>country came about after forcible expulsion of British, via guns
>founding document enshrines the right to protect one's self and country, via guns
>frontiersmen blaze a trail across the wilderness, via guns
>newly settled lands rely less on a well-organized constabulary and more on mutualistic community-wide protection, if even that, via guns

All this talk about gun control is fairly recent in terms of the country's history. It'd be better to ask, "why wouldn't they be?"

>>1835353
>individual freedom through personal protection
Bit of a base way of seeing things... And I still don't completely understand, a gun isn't an ultimate protection tool and people can still easily hurt you, with or without a gun.
There are varying levels of protection, from learning martial arts, carrying a knife, a gun, hiring bodyguards.
Why is a gun held up as so sacred and unique?

>Its also a freedom in and of its self, being free to purchase a firearm for individual use.
But that is true for the large majority of the world. Maybe it's not easy as "buy a box of twinkes, get a free gun", but still...

>>1835371
I wouldn't say gun control is a recent thing, but it has always been centred on urban centres.
>>1835377
A gun isn't an ultimate personal protector, but for the average working class or middle class person, it is the next best thing.
>Maybe it's not easy as "buy a box of twinkes, get a free gun", but still...
Guns aren't just given out with every Happy Meal, you know. There are some regulations in place governing firearms, even in the US.

File: 20160906_171448.jpg (2MB, 1687x2117px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1687x2117px

>>1835357
Shitposting with personal arsenal.

>>1835377
>Why is a gun held up as so sacred and unique?
Being able to hold something that instantly allows you to defend yourself if need be or out food on your table for less than $.50 with a good shot is pretty powerful.
>Varying levels of protection
And firearms will always been the most efficient for the average Joe.

File: IMG_20160906_233106411.jpg (884KB, 3771x2121px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 3771x2121px

>>1835393

File: _IMG_000000_000000.jpg (1016KB, 3258x2043px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 3258x2043px

>>1835396

>>1835390
Lad urbanization is a pretty fucking recent phenomenon. We're talking something that was mostly driven by the Industrial Revolution making the majority of urbanization less than 200 years old.

>>1835405
Sorry, missed your "fairly recently" bit.

>>1835400
Nice Makarov.

File: Brutal.png (387KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 600x600px

Because when the country finally does go tits up, its going to be fucking METAL when everybody tries to "look out for their families" by going mad max on each other.

Defending their families and "property rights" will then settle into feudalism based on powerful warlords, because that's what the founders would have wanted.

>>1835411
>when the country finally does go tits up
so is this why people support Trump? They have these fantasies about the end of civilization where they can finally shoot people and get away with it?

File: 1470501452964.jpg (238KB, 778x842px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 778x842px

>>1835363
I wasn't being ironic in the slightest.

>>1835418
Thats a bit of a generalization.

>>1835325
It's as much a symbol as a real article. Most Americans don't view the state as almighty, which is a little ironic with the cult of nationalism that is more prevalent than near any other american trait. They neither trust the state to always protect them nor for the state to always act in their interest. And Americans are willing to do more than simply talk about how terrible government is. The Swiss know as well, that many guns keep foreign countries out and gives at the least a pause for thought for any who might try. There is a different mindset in the states than in many countries, I appreciate the diversity.

>>1835418
>so is this why people support Trump?

That's mostly out of them blaming politicians for not keeping those factory jobs by not enacting protectionist trade policies... when they have been voting for free trade politicians since forever out of the belief that they are just that hard working gosh darnit that it will never bite them in the ass. Except it did, and they blame Obama.

>>1835458
Gotta learn from your mistakes sooner or later.

File: 1474511104160.png (86KB, 1000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x1200px

>>1835458

>>1835457
>Most Americans don't view the state as almighty, which is a little ironic with the cult of nationalism that is more prevalent than near any other american trait
Being pro-small government and being a nationalist aren't contradictory. On the contrary, they're quite complimentary as having loyalty to one's nation over the state is far more nationalistic in principle than the other way around. You seem to be under the impression that the state is the nation which is false. A state is lines on a map held together by a single entity. A nation is a group of people who are held together by cultural, linguistic, and/or ethnic ties. A nation can have a state, and many states are built upon nations, but a state is by no means guaranteed to be a nation.

Lots of rural area + first world police taxes = state rangers and gun rights.

File: salty.jpg (47KB, 600x556px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x556px

>>1835464

I said they supported free trade politicians because they thought free trade was good for them. Now they don't think so and are voting for Trump who is protectionist and they don't think the republican establishment is looking out for them.

Now how the fuck is that image a response? You know so many of these guys supporting Trump love Ronald Reagan? The guy who started a ton of these free trade globalist agendas? But no, just keep blaming Obama.

Grow up.

>>1835371
>>newly settled lands rely less on a well-organized constabulary and more on mutualistic community-wide protection, if even that, via guns
>All this talk about gun control is fairly recent in terms of the country's history. It'd be better to ask, "why wouldn't they be?"
TBF inside cities there was very strict gun control.

>>1835486
he wasn't blaming Obama, my fine Democrat friend.

>>1835488
>inside cities there was very strict gun control
If complete allowance of ownership but restrictions on open carry is very strict, I'm curious as to your thoughts on current cities where firearm ownership requires permits or certain firearms that are legal in the rest of the country or even within the same state but banned outright in the city. Gun control today and "gun control" 50-200 years ago are two entirely different things.

>>1835490

eh, I was generalizing, but so was he. So fuck it.

>>1835505
>If complete allowance of ownership but restrictions on open carry is very strict
That's what I meant, and that is very strict compared to the rural "if you can afford it, it's yours."

>>1835516
But if you could afford it in the city, it was yours too. You should couldn't open carry. There was zero restriction on ownership.

Because the right to personal defense is the foundation upon which all other rights are built.

It really should be first in the Bill of Rights, but I see how the Founding Fathers reached a compromise, and decided that speech was a paramount freedom, followed closely by the right to be armed, thus securing all other aspects of said document.

>>1835273
Because the 2nd Amendment leaves too much room for interpretation.

>>1835573
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>>1835578
WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA
I'm pro gun ownership but I do think that that little phrase has caused far too much trouble.

File: IMG_20160827_201006573.jpg (3MB, 3771x2121px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3771x2121px

>>1835407
Danks, that's the only image I have of it though, I really should take more.

>>1835582
"Militia" is any male, aged 18-50
I will give you that the FF didn't anticipate the longer lifespans of today, But a lot of people do misread that as "Official government-run military" which is clearly a statist subversion.

>>1835273
I honestly don't know but where I lI've guns are in no a part of the culture.

File: 1476067120080.jpg (141KB, 890x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 890x960px

>>1835273

About three days after slavery was abolished and house burglary increased 100 times.

>>1835583
up here in canada, makarovs have to have a fugly long ass barrel because apparently that extra couple inches makes all the difference.

>muh 2nd amendment
>muh oppressive government
Your government is a cancer. They've made it possible to ship countless jobs overseas, they've made whole towns reliant on welfare, they fund and arm the very terrorists they fight, to keep up bloated military spending. They rig elections, they emphasize on identity politics to make people forget actual politics.

If you're supposed to overthrow them you should've done so many years ago. Spineless fucks.

>>1835762
revolutions almost never happen until the people have experienced mass starvation.

>>1835339 That which created man, granted him liberty, and the right to create property, so man creates sticks. America is a social contract, we pledge to the mutual defense of life liberty and property. The constitution is secondary to this, and has nothing to do with it. It is every American's contractually bound duty, whom is in good standing with the law, to uphold the law, stop crimes, and if possible charge and arrest criminals to the sheriff, sometimes sticks are useful.

>>1835273
>fought for independence with guns
>survived the frontier with guns
>won territory from Spain with guns
>proved ourselves to Europe with guns
Pretty easy to understand

>>1835336
Not really - they mostly got their independence through guns, and those that didn't ended up under authoritarian regimes that stamped out their individual rights.

>>1835794
*through diplomacy

>>1835779
you are experiencing starvation of your rights in favor of corporatism, globalism and oligarchy.

>>1835762
The lawful population in the 1800's would have done this, but traitor: Woodrow Wilson happened. The depressions destroyed family farms/wealth and orphaned the younger generations, the 14th amendment was misused to create birth certificates to gain in loco parentis over children, to educated them to be stupid, to ship the cannon fodder off into foreign wars. Income tax, driver's licenses, Torrens title real estate, marriage licenses, the federal reserve, all that trash, is how America's might got out of control of the law, and became the Hobbsian Leviathan controlled by foreign rulers that it is today.

>>1835273
It can seem like an obsession from the outside. Media loves it cause it gets ratings to be pro or anti gun. 1% are obsessed, a little less than half own (or admit it) most don't. If guns are the most important issue to you, you shouldn't have one. If you don't believe in or think you need a gun, go out and get on today. They are there to protect against tyranny. A confluence of global events, famine, loss of land, resources, water, etc. caused by climate change IS going to cause a holocaust in the next century. This is when not if. Being well armed and in a mountainous western nation will increase the odds of your progenies survival. Self defence is to an extent bullshit (though I do carry). When the undeveloped world comes streaming in to take our food, water and land it will be better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Cuckoo, maybe, give it 50 years and see. I'll be dead, but my son may survive.

>>1835371
Well shit, gotta lobby for the right to carry a halberd with me.

>>1835273
Literally how the revolutionary war started. We started shooting at the British when they came to confiscate, muskets, shot, and powder from concord.

Our country was born from the struggle for the right to keep and bear arms, of course we're a little obsessed with it.

>>1835838
Rather than some African country's military being able to beat the US military and militia then being able to do better than the US military,
it's a more likely scenario that either you in a fit of rage shoot your own son, that someone else takes your gun to shoot your own son, that you accidentally shoot your own son, or that your son commits suicide with your own gun.

Okay not baiting:
Ive read some arguments about protecting home from evil people or the government. It somehow makes sense for the evil people part in your country. But against your government? How would you protect yourself from the military with a simple gun? it sounds like a placebo to calm your nerves and feel superior/save.

>>1835987
The idea is to make them government afraid of them, because scared people never do stupid things.

>>1835987

Are you seriously wondering if technologically inferior insurgencies have ever defeated a government?

Do you really think the US Army would fire on it's own citizens without running the risk of more and more citizens taking up arms against them?

>>1835998
usually through parts of the military betraying the goverment. They equipment would be the base for the resistance. or in todays world, some third party would help you out and import heavy machines. But just your little 9mm?
>Do you really think the US Army would fire on it's own citizens
Of course i dont think this would happen in any reasonble timeframe. But some anons used this as an argument.

>>1835273
>Constitution
>Anglo-Scot borderland culture
>Frontier culture
That's the gist of the genealogy (memeaology?) of American gun culture.

>>1836014
If you know how to use a gun: congratulations, you can now become a soldier!

As a fellow Swiss I can understand that:
a) Having guns widely spread trough the population is an effective means of keeping the power in a state divided, which is always relevant in a republic
b) it is somewhat military relevant to have an armed and trained populace if you got bad neighbors (less relevant if your neighbors are actually Canada and Mexico)
c) There is no sweeter thing in life and death than to see a tyrant fall by the hands of free man

What I do not fully understand about the US gun culture is the acceptance of it's use as a legal mean in the hand of civilians in public.
Like in Switzerland it is perfectly normal to equip a 14 year old with a full fun army loan weapon, free amo and train him/her to hit a target on 300m with iron sights. Shooting is a national past time, and if you are into collecting, you can have the finest autos ever built once you done the paperwork and bought the safe.
However, you either need to be LEO or be rigidly regimented and licensed private security contractor to carry a gun in public.
We believe that we as a state must guarantee the law and peace of the land to all our citizens with the legal means we agreed on. We do not carry, and getting caught with a gun in public is problematic, a shooting with you at the trigger will most likely lead into months of remand and a trial.

Now in the US it is accepted law that normal Citizens can carry open and even concealed in public places, and they are entitled to use their weapons in case of instant danger. So yes, thats a bit puzzling to me looking at your 400M+- giant of a nation. How does this work? On the one hand, the nation you built should, provide you with security and peace, thats what you built it for in the first place, on the other hand you want to have the freedom to be armed in public and if need arises to defend yourself and your property with lethal weapons. I can understand that this was the right thing 100 years ago, but how does this work in modern times?

another try:
>>1836120
>a) Having guns widely spread trough the population is an effective means of keeping the power in a state divided
How? Even if you own guns, the military has the power monopol. Your handgun wont change anything, if the opposite has much more effective weapons.
>c)...
this is what i thought. care to give examples?

bonus:
>b.)
isnt the ability to shoot, one of the easier skills to pick up? and a soldiers gun is important. But the total load of a soldier includes much more than just a handgun. And i think you can mostly ignore any wepaons that civilians can use.

>>1835582
>militia
The only people who could possibly believe that's what they meant are either fools or arguing in bad faith (don't care if it's true because it's what they want anyway).

Think of it this way, the antifederalists were extremely wary to create a powerful government even after the failure of the articles of confederation. If they were to create one, though, they would need protections: hence the bill of rights. The BOR was the promise against violation of individual rights necessary to calm the fears of a government too powerful and capricious. I mean, they had just fought a war against the same and would hardly want to fall into the same trap with their own.

With this in mind it's hilarious that people can contort themselves to believe that the second of a series (until the very end) of amendments created to protect the rights of individuals to temper government power is somehow not for individuals but instead a way to defend or arm the government itself. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone even really believe that shit? Or is it just a flailing argument from an ideology that can't come to task with its historical delusions?

>>1835339
For the same reason european countries want to get rid of it. It puts power into the hands of the people as opposed to the government. Anybody can die by a gun, bourgeoisie or not, so don't tread on me.

Mafia

>>1835317
So baby boomers are to blame once again.

another try:
>>1836164
the goverment has the power monopol. You, even with a gun, will not be able to match the military of your country. how does it change anything?

>>1836179
"Power Monopoly" What did he mean by this?

>>1836179
The posse comitatus act makes it illegal for the domestic deployment of the military. If you want to use military force against American civilians you'd need the approval of congress. Without it, those jets stay on the tarmac.

Besides, you have no understanding of asymmetric warfare. The rebels wouldn't make 'camps' or anything, so those jets and tanks wouldn't actually have any targets. That is, unless you don't mind incinerating dozens of innocent people in the hopes that you nabbed a rebel when you send a hellfire into his neighborhood. That'll look very good on the evening news: burning and destroyed American neighborhoods. I imagine you'll win hearts and minds and definitely not undermine the legitimacy of your government doing that.

The police would be the ones actively fighting the rebels, and we all saw how Dallas went down. One man managed to kill five cops and wound five more.

>>1835303
AS opposed to other countries that just, magically appeared?

>>1836200
>I imagine you'll win hearts and minds and definitely not undermine the legitimacy of your government doing that.
If you're already at the point of civil war, doing that to cull some "terrorists" won't hurt your legitimacy at all.

>>1835940
Yeah no, that's a bunch of bullshit based on faulty statistics.

>>1835273
In order to ensure a tyrannous state that intends to take away individual liberties is never formed, the citizenry requires leverage against the state that inherently prevents it from abusing power.
Guns are the citizen's leverage.

>>1836243
What's the likeliness that the state of Gabun overwhelmes the US military and captures Washington in the next 50 years, compared to the likeliness of somehow a gun leading to a death of a gun owner's relative in the next 50 years? You seem to know, so give me some percentages.

>>1836232
Yeah it will, and you will wind up creating 10 more angry rebels for each person you kill with such attacks.

>>1836255

They are both equally unlikely.

What's statistically more likely then both is a massive movement of refugees from the latin american nations to our south once their farms dry up in the wind, such a movement will cause massive amounts of civil unrest that the police will be incapable of coping with. If you don't want your descendants to be armed and ready for when this situation occurs you are stupid.

>>1836150
>How? Even if you own guns, the military has the power monopol. Your handgun wont change anything, if the opposite has much more effective weapons.
Reminder, we have a militia army, my neighbor drives tanks, my ex co worker is a jet pilot and the baker down the street is a major in the infantry.

Switzerland is small republic in a bad neighborhood, nobody will fight for us and our freedom, so we got to do it ourselves, we need militia soldiers because we can not afford a large standing army, so we have a small staff of pros, and many militia. Our constitution is made to prevent the use of the army against it own citizens, the fact that the citizens are the bulk of the army ensures this.


>this is what i thought. care to give examples?
Duke Leopold II of Austria
Charles the Bold
King George III
>>b.)
Well that's we train the people in every job in the army, every weapons system is paid for and operated by citizen soldiers.
Most commonly you are trained to use rifle, pistol, hand grenade, grenade launcher, Panzerfaust, ATGM and 81mm mortar, communications, tactics and urban combat, that is if you are normal Fusilier. So yes, I guess that is detrimental to a coup.

>>1836269
Why not just arm yourself when it actually is necessary? I don't think your descendant will appreciate a 50 years old, outdated weapon. They'd just buy a new one when they actually need it.

>>1836269
>They are both equally unlikely.
One is more unlikely than the other. Being hit by one lightning strike is very unlikely. Being hit by three lightning strikes in a row is very unlikely. Just because both are very unlikely, they aren't equally unlikely.

>>1836278
The idea is not just to preserve firearm ownership rights now, it is also to create and maintain a culture that values firearm ownership rights so that my descendants will both know how to use firearms and also have ready access to said firearms when the time comes to use them.

Oh and that refuge flow from central and south america could easily wind up happening in my lifetime, as nobody knows for absolutely certain when the tipping point for farming will be reached in the tropics and sub-tropics.

>>1836292
You could also just reinforce the police forces, considering that that's their job in the first place.

What's the point of a government if the government doesn't have a monopoly on power?

The social contract requires that the government is the sole owner of power.

>>1836335
>The social contract requires that the government is the sole owner of power.
Wrong, the social contract requires that the people are the source of all power and that only institutions that are choose by the people can have power delegated to them as long as the people see it fit!

>>1836335
You are a servile child. That is not the point of government. Any sufficiently powerful organization is indistinguishable from a government.

>>1836335
>social contract
Well, if one side doesn't break the contract then the guns will be unnecessary. To you, the ideal is a world in which one party is entirely powerless if that contract is broken.

>>1836305
Police can't effectively protect people in this country as it is now, when they are already "reinforced" as it is. They sure the fuck won't be capable of said protection once this shit goes down.

>>1836152
you know if they really meant it for individuals, why bring up a well organized militia? Or a militia at all? It is, by definition, meant for a group and not an individual. I am very second amendment but you are being facetious

>>1836373
"no"
t. supreme court

>>1836382
How so? Even this court, the most conservative in a century, says the right can be infringed. So that little phrase is garbage.

>>1836372
>when they are already "reinforced" as it is.
Are they? Police spending height seems like a joke to me, and that many police forces are private doesn't help either. They are poorly trained and poorly equipped.
In other countries it'd be unthinkable that someone can become a policeman in 30 days of training, like you can in some US cities.

>>1836373
If they really meant it for collectives, why bring up "the right of the people". The people who wrote it were pretty clear in what they intended with the 2nd.

>>1836408
>Are they?
Yes. The cops have all sorts of fancy hardware that the government gives them from military surplus. We have more police now then we did before as well, training is a bit of a wash though.

That said, I wonder what sort of training you think they'll need to keep a bunch of starving third world peasants from ransacking our border territories?

I assure you that whatever police training eurocops receive is wholly inadequate for the hard and downright vicious things that are going to be necessary over the coming years.

>>1835273
Because that's the weapons we have. Had technology not advanced we'd be advocating for swords and the right to bear swords.

Reminder than gun control is a liberal capitalist scam to keep the working class at the mercy of the bourgeois state

>>1835590
>But a lot of people do misread that as "Official government-run military" which is clearly a statist subversion


True, but the militia comes up elsewhere in the constitution, as where Congress is (Article 1 section 8)

>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Previous to the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, arms were supplied to the militia by the states through public arsenals. The Constitution turned that authority over to Congress. The 2nd amendment simply says Congress cannot use its power over the arming of the militia to disarm it. Neither the Constitution nor the 2nd specifies any individual right.

>>1836152
>With this in mind it's hilarious that people can contort themselves to believe that the second of a series (until the very end) of amendments created to protect the rights of individuals to temper government power is somehow not for individuals but instead a way to defend or arm the government itself. It's mind-boggling.

The 2nd is clear that it exists because a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. You are kidding yourself if you think it's there to secure the free, not the state. The purpose of the militia is spelled out plainly in (again) Article 1 Section 8:

>To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

>>1836255

Why is preventing some idiot or suicidal fuck from shooting themselves more important than the rights of everyone else?

>>1836913
Wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM

>>1835273


How did Europeans grow to be so efeet and cuckolded?

>>1836935
Close reading the amendments in isolation from the articles is just theatrics. As is the idea that having one English professor interpret one of the most famously ambiguously sentences in American culture gives any kind of finality and neutrality.

>COPPERUD: "The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia"

Wow, almost as if the amendment applies to some previous conventions and does not exist in a vacuum.

>>1835802

>you are experiencing starvation of your rights

Thats just ideology hacking your brain meats, associating itself with your conception of desirable goods, or things that 'just are'.

>government takes away any and all means of the populace being able to oppose its armed forces if it ever used them against it
>leaves guns to the masses so that they can buy one and feel themselves tough and dangerous and forget about the real danger
>it actually works
genius to be quite honest, the best thing to trick people is to throw them an ideological dogma bone (guns=freedom, citizenship, rights, true human status etc etc) and eat all the meat while they're gnawing away at the scraps.

>>1835457
>state=nation

no

>>1836408
>>1836305

In the current political climate, this is NOT going to happen. One of the key parts of BLM, in particular what came out of the Ferguson protests, is that the police are over militarized, and that the equipment they have is more akin to an occupying army than a "protect and serve" police force. The Obama administration recently restricted the sale of surplus military hardware to state and local police departments, and the trend will likely continue in that direction.

>>1835280
The constitution says an armed militia not everyone can own gunz

>>1835273
Because guns are cool.

>>1837169
this is not correct

>>1835291
He's an off-duty cop, so not exactly a normal example of an armed citizen, but that guy is amazing.

>>1835273

>America
>Steal a chocolate bar
>shoots you to death

>Islam
>steal a fruit
>have the option to be shot in the head or have your fingers cut off

Even islamic people are more humane than American gun nuts.

>>1835474
goddamn this makes me feel patriotic

>>1835464

Ironically the rightists are now voting for Trump who hates free-trade and wants to keep business to stay forcefully locked in the states.

>>1836179
The US military failed to defeat some illiterate rice farmers armed almost exclusively with small arms in Vietnam, they failed to defeat a bunch of illiterate goatfuckers armed almost exclusively with small arms in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course I can't go fight a tank and win. But I don't have to. I can wait for the tank to leave and shoot the infantryman who's enforcing the curfew.

>>1838344
>equating shoplifting with armed robbery

>>1838344
Theft is not okay.

File: 666.jpg (666KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 666x666px

>>1838344
Maybe people shouldn't fucking steal chocolate bars, ever think of that?

>>1835273
It's an urban vs rural/suburban thing, really.

Rural America has many reasons for why they like there guns. There are reasons such as hunting, or that the police may be half an hour away so a gun is your only real sense of security, but those are both minor reasons.

The main reason is self-reliance. In rural America, you are not considered "a man" until you can rely completely on yourself, such as being able to change your own tire, fix your own roof, hunt your own food, and, of course, defend yourself. To rely on other people isn't just undesirable, but it is considered a source of shame. This is also why they generally vote Republican, because they view it as shameful when the government is helping people.

These rural folk turn on their TVs and see BLM rioting in the cities and a shit ton of other crime. They worry that this will come to their neighbourhoods and small towns at some point, something they aren't wrong about.

That is why they need their guns, it is a mixture of culture and their way of life being threatened by urban folk.

>>1835273

How did Europpors grow to become so obsessed with guns and gun control?

>>1838675
WW1 and 2, and the ensuing instability of the Cold War, probably.
A couple weeks ago, some french anon on /k/ dumped a french firearms catalogue from the 1910's, and it was filled with the exact same firearms that Americans could buy.

>>1838366

Basically. It kinda looks like this.

*pre-Trump
>fuck liberals, they are ruining this country by interfering in free-trade and capitalism!
>lets vote against economic regulation, for our own good! Screw Obama!

*currently
>fuck liberals, they and their free-trade globalist agenda is ruining this country!
>lets vote for economic regulation, for our own good! Screw Obama!

File: AllIWantedWasAPepsi.jpg (254KB, 685x1024px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 685x1024px

>>1838344
fuck off

>>1839086
You're oversimplifying things.

People who are pro-Trump are against regulating domestic industry. But as soon as it's not domestic anymore, it's fair game for regulation.

>>1835411
Why are Murricans so obsessed with shtf collapse? You don't have that anywhere else.

>>1839209
>Strong emphasis on self-reliance.
>Momentum from the Cold War; SHTF seemed a lot more likely back then
>regional SHTF has happened, Hurricane Katrina, the LA Riots, the NYC blackout.

>>1839209
Most American normalfags don't dream about the world collapsing, you're just meeting all the socially maladjusted Americans on 4chan, who dream about shooting niggers with cheap Russian milsurp and having a sex slave harem.

File: iu-5.jpg (1MB, 3825x2812px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3825x2812px

Why has no one made a better rifle in 60 something years?

>>1839269
Not much room for improvement.
>light
>reliable
>accurate as far as an average soldier could ever shoot
>easy to mount accessories to
>powerful, but still a relatively large magazine capacity
Only real improvement that could be made is to invent quality caseless ammo, but even then it'd likely just be an M16 variant rechambered for the new caseless stuff

File: US ACR ammo.jpg (556KB, 4272x2848px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 4272x2848px

>>1839286
I remember the ACR program in the 90's having an M16 variant that fired duplex ammo.

>>1835273
This might be a /k/ related question, but where can I get those grips from?

>>1835273
Freedom to self defense and a way to deter invaders.

>>1839269
That's not a roller-delayed blowback action. What stupid shit are you pulling? Take your short-bus version of a long-stroke piston and go home.

>>1839373
I hope you're not about to pull out the "shits where it eats" meme on me.

>>1839373
>blowback

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was on /cm/.

>>1835273
The real answer is because of the influence of the gun lobby over the government, and the newsmedia's increased reliance on fearmongering in order to get ratings. It has very little to do with ideology, that's a post-hoc justification.

>>1839404
The influence of the gun lobby? But the NRA only spends ~$3 million a year on lobbying. Which is fuckin nothing. The National Association of Realtors spends ~$45 million a year.

>>1839404
Brah, if you can get a group of people to consistently turn out in every election and vote for people who advance your issue, politicians will support you, because it's clear, obvious, free votes.

It's the same principle behind unions, evangelical Christians, old people, and the Tea Party.

>>1839404
Michael Bloomberg's antigun campaign funding alone dwarfs the NRA's spending on lobbying.

The real answer is America just isn't going to give up their guns to a bunch of technocrat.

>>1839379
Nah. I was just giving you shit. Every platform has advantages and disadvantages, and roller-delayed blowback is a dead mechanism that had its time in the sun.

>>1836345
Why can't Ancaps understand this?

>>1839438
I mean, the G3 is still one of the more common battle rifles and the MP5 is still the king of submachineguns.

It's just that assault rifles and carbines have superceded both categories.

If it isn't an AR-15, some variation on the AR-18's gas system, or an AK, it doesn't matter.

Guns are the absolute best form of defense for fat people and women. You can see how this would appeal to Americans.

>>1835273

Read this:

https://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Remarkable-Became-American/dp/1595552847

>>1839450
>I mean, the G3 is still one of the more common battle rifles and the MP5 is still the king of submachineguns.

Well yeah, but fuck all has been developed using the action in recent years.

>It's just that assault rifles and carbines have superceded both categories.

They still have their purposes. Part of the success of the SCAR platform was the fact it was a genuinely modern offering in 7.62mm, and even HK started offering the 417.

>>1840475
I'd also recommend "American Rifle: A Biography".

>>1840481
>Fuck all has been developed using the action in the recent years
>What is HK416

And it has recently been picked up by the French military so maybe it will get even more traction.

>They still have their purposes
I agree with this, the AR-15 platform will never be small enough to be considered a PDW for pilots.
And there are .308 ARs/derivatives(SR-25/M110) on the market because there will always be a need for .308.

There are better alternatives to the AR platform, but they offer minimal improvements and are much more expensive to produce.

>>1838475
>armed almost exclusively with small arms in Vietnam
wew lad

>>1842051
Why does no one ever talk about the fact that the NV got advanced AA systems from the russkies as the war progressed? Its literally the reason we have such a huge emphasis on stealth and SEAD in the USAF now.

>>1835273
Revolutionary origins
Wild west/frontierman mythicism
Commercial branding
The fuckton number of years the US has spent at war in its brief history

>>1835325
What do you think gives the state power? The use of force. What the most efficient way of exercising lethal force for the average person? A firearm.
If the average person is capable of acquiring a firearm then it means they are more capable of defending themselves from any aggressor than a person who does not have a firearm.

So einfach ist das.

File: persuaders.jpg (260KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1600x1200px

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

>>1835377
>a gun isn't an ultimate protection tool and people can still easily hurt you, with or without a gun

Yes, but you can definitely kill someone with a gun. That power alone is what provides feelings of safety to many people.

>>1835802
>starvation of your rights
Newsflash, no one cares about their vague ethereal rights being usurped unless it can be seen to DIRECTLY impact them in a one to one correlation.

>>1836014
>But just your little 9mm?
American freedom to own arms extends much farther than a simple side arm friend. Furthermore, arming of the population is meant to deter against the police state needed to support an oppressive government. The US army can't be in every place at once.

>>1844040
Isn't it even specifically stated in the constitution that the US army cannot be used for policing action in the US?

>>1836120
>On the one hand, the nation you built should, provide you with security and peace

It is in the American blood to believe that the government, at its best, is simply screwing over someone else instead of you.

Furthermore, this may come as a surprise, but America is an incredibly rural nation still. There are massive portions of the country where the police force simply cannot reach in a reasonable amount of time to defend their homes and lives.

>>1844073
>It is in the American blood to believe that the government, at its best, is simply screwing over someone else instead of you.
But it is your government, you built it, remember?

>>1836305
>reinforce the police forces
There is literally a vocal political movement in the United States to reduce policing efforts and their efficacy.

Police are subject to the whims of local mayors and councils, the budget, and the tyranny of the political minority. Rights in the Constitution are significantly harder to alter and change, even with an activist court.

>>1836387
>So that little phrase is garbage.
Your opinion. Which is meaningless. Until you get on the Supreme Court, it means something.

>>1844040
>Furthermore, arming of the population is meant to deter against the police state needed to support an oppressive government

Literally the opposite of what the US Constitution says

>The Congress shall have Power To...
>provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

This is in the first fucking article. At least skim your primary sources.

>>1844086
What does that have to do with anything?
1776 was a few centuries ago, if you forgot, there aren't a lot of revolutionary war survivors left.

>>1841798
Isn't the 416 an AR-18 style short-stroke piston?

>I agree with this, the AR-15 platform will never be small enough to be considered a PDW for pilots.

SMGs still see intermittent use with the "high speed low drag" sorts simply because carbines will never be compact enough. Funnily enough the MP9, being initially intended as a PDW has seen more use in such a role.

File: second amendment english breakdown.gif (44KB, 827x628px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 827x628px

>>1836373
lrn2English
See also: The Heller case, which ruled that the 2nd is in fact referring to individual citizens.

>>1844124
>The Heller case, which ruled that the 2nd is in fact referring to individual citizens.

In 2008, when Dumbledore showed Tony the Bill of Rights' childhood memories. You would think if it was so clear to begin with, someone would have noticed in the first 200 years.

>>1844187
because most people took it for granted that militia meant everyone.

>>1844187
>A well balance breakfast, being necessary to the healthy start of a day, the right of the people to keep and bear fruit shall not be infringed.

Who has a right to fruit under those circumstances, the well-balanced breakfast, or the people?

>>1844196
Lol, no. The militia's composition and purpose have never been the ambiguity. They're described clearly in the Constitution itself and the many Militia Acts starting in 1792 that bridged the gap between "lol everyone's militia and Congress can tell them what to do!!" and "this is how we actually do it in wartime". The ambiguity is whether the 2nd's statement of purpose is a relevant part of it.

>>1844209
Except it's more
>A breakfasted public, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and bear breakfast shall not be infringed.

>>1844247
No, the phrasing is pretty much exactly as I put it.

>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.

I was off by a comma.

>>1844263
It's not about the comma, it's about the fact that breakfast does not necessarily entail fruit while militia does necessarily entail arms. The relations are not equivalent.

>>1844187
>somebody would have noticed
It wasn't even questioned until the 20th century rolled around. Before the prohibition era you could purchase explosives and machine guns without any kind of paperwork or background check at all.

>>1844274
Oh for fuck sake, are you retarded? The fruit was an example to point out the nature of the language used. The language used is pretty clear in that it suggests the right to bear arms is for the people, not the militia.

>>1844276
>Before the prohibition era you could purchase explosives and machine guns without any kind of paperwork or background check at all.
But how many people did?

I was under the impression that this thread is about gun culture, and not the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

File: old thompson ad.jpg (121KB, 413x578px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 413x578px

>>1844329
>But how many people did?
I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. There was no paperwork, remember? Nobody was keeping track.
Nobody knows how many guns are in circulation today. The ATF can only estimate because there's still no accurate records.

>>1843293
>as the war progressed
You mean when the war started? The NVA were using state of the art Russian SAMs from day 1 of U.S. involvement.

>>1844276
Presser v. Illinois was when?

>>1844385
Presser v Ill has nothing to do with the individual's right to bear arms. I bet you just furiously Googled for something and posted the first thing that sounded relevant.

>>1844116
Ah shit, you're right about it using the ssgp system.
I remember reading g a while back that it used a modified roller delayed action.

And yeah, people that say the SMG is dead is stupid. There will always be an application.

>>1844797
The SMG IS dead though. You can get an AR in 5.56 that is both lighter and shorter than a stocked MP5.

>>1844797
>And yeah, people that say the SMG is dead is stupid.
They ARE being phased out in favor of short barreled rifles, though.
At least that's how it is here in North America, I think most major SWAT teams have switched over to SBR's instead of ye oldene MP5.

>>1844875
>>1844808
The MP7 sees use and new adoptions. The MP5 is being phased out because it's pretty fucking old.

>>1844884
Not as much as SBR'd AR's, although that might have to do more with how popular the AR is, and the sheer amount of options for them.

>>1844808
>>1844875
>>1844884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-7#Users

Interestingly, the Vatican Swiss Guard is among them.

>>1844904
>>1844884
The MP7 is a PDW, not an SMG.

>>1844899
Of course not as much. For most applications, a carbine is better, but a rifle caliber carbine can never be as compact without suffering problems relating to the fact rifle calibers aren't designed to be fired out of tiny fucking barrels.

>>1844911
>select fire weapon in a pistol caliber

It's an SMG.

File: gunslinger at her 5.7.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>1844925
>pistol calibre
The FN Five-seveN was developed for the 5.7 round, not the other way, and that was after the P90 was developed.
I have no knowledge of any pistol chambered in the 4.6mm round.

>>1844944
There was a protype developed for it. Regardless, the designation PDW is a matter of what it's used for and not mutually exclusive with other designations (there are more traditional short-barreled rifles that have received the designation).

>>1835987
Imagine you are in charge of counterinsurgency operations: would you rather have:

A small amount of old shitty smuggled milsurp and load of homemade weapons (slambangs, favela pipe smgs, zipguns) in the hands of the civilians and insurgents

Civilians and insurgents armed with ARs, battle rifles, AKs, etc. with good optics, and a not insignificant ammount of body armour

>>1835377
>, a gun isn't an ultimate protection tool
It is unless you are drunk, blind, have no hands, or are literally retarded.

>>1835325
Because it's literally the only right that guarantees the others. It's the bed rock of American government.

File: 1475318178251.jpg (88KB, 634x802px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 634x802px

>tfw no guns because civil war and paramilitaries fucked it for the rest of us
Parnell had the right idea

>I have lately seen in the city of New York a review of the militia in which five or six thousand armed and trained men took part. If in Ireland we could ever have under Home Rule such a National militia, they would be able to protect the interests of Ireland as a Nation, while they would never wish to trespass upon the integrity of the English Empire.
>It was a foolish want of confidence that prevented Englishmen and the English government from trusting Ireland. They know Ireland is determined to be an armed nation, and they fear to see her so, for they remember how a section of the Irish people in 1782, with arms in their hands, wrought from England legislative independence.
25th Nov. 1876

K I L L
M E

>>1843984
>Yes, but you can definitely kill someone with a gun. That power alone is what provides feelings of safety to many people.

>worry about people out to get you (presumably with a gun)
>buy gun for self-defense
>now become the target of fear for some other dumb shit
>they buy a gun for self-defense, presumably against you
American gun culture is inevitably self-defeating. You buy guns to protect yourselves from the state while they sit back and laugh while you slowly start growing paranoid about niggers and "mentally ill" people ultimately requiring them to step in to do what you originally got the guns to prevent them from doing in the first place. Its mind boggling to me that the right is so fervent about the 2nd amendment yet at the same time defending the police and their slow militarization.

>>1845769
breddy sure you've constructed a strawman or are misinformed, all the gun totting 2nd amendment people I've met have been staunch libertarians who are against the militarization of the police and the police force itself

unless you're one of those "my nigga mike dindu nuffin wrong" sort of people

>>1845769
Honestly, you got it wrong. I don't worry about normal people with guns.

I worry about burglars, looters, terrorists, rapists, road ragers and whatnot.

And I'd rather have everyone armed than nobody, because if only criminals, terrorists and the government have guns than that's a totalitarian dystopia right there.

>>1837169
false
you have to remember that one comma

>>1838613
agreed

>>1838707
>ww2
>hitler takes guns from jews so he can kill them easier
>therefore gun control in rest of Europe
???

>>1837169

>t. I've never read any of the Federalist papers nor the 1903 clarification done by SCOTUS specifying the Organized and Unorganized militia (Unorganized militia being every able-bodied male 18-45 able to bear arms)

>>1837169
>A well regulated breakfast being necessary to the health of a free man, the right of the people to keep and prepare food shall not be infringed.

File: 5fc7e3b2b739df8f26b9660090bee8f9.jpg (114KB, 637x640px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 637x640px

>>1835273
hard concepts are hard to grasp - guns & liberty are easier however.

>>1846060
It seems that for many europeans and liberals, liberty and guns are very difficult concepts indeed.

>>1836215
We happened to do it right at the exact time where guns were really coming into their own, where ownership was widespread and necessary, therefore the spread was not as controlled by the state. The gun became very ingrained into American culture as a result

>>1835418
>They have these fantasies about the end of civilization where they can finally shoot people and get away with it?

are you impliyng they dont?

>>1844808
And 5.56 will never have the same energy sub sonic as 9mm or .45 out of a suppressed platform.
Sure, .300 blk does, that is if it ever gets adopted by a major military power in large amounts, But it never will.
There will always be applications for sub machine guns.