>there are still /pol/fags who don't believe in the right

>>134045045

killing bears to have furry arms sounds stupid

A right to bear arms implies a right to kill another person, as they would be meaningless if you never intended to use them.

Justice, i.e. deciding who should or should not be shot, should be a state/government decision. I think it's a really shitty situation, an example of being caught inbetween a rock and a hard place, because I despise the idea of a government controlling the people and I think government influence should be as minimal as possible. In the case of justice and violence, it is unfortunately necessary for the government to have a monopoly on it, because the alternative would just be too chaotic.

If you abolish law & order and allow anyone to make their own judgements on whether or not people deserve to die, you will obviously get nothing short of absolute chaos, that goes without saying.

If you leave it to being a private matter, justice will inevitably become the will of the highest bidder. Privatized justice and use of arms legitimizes things like hitmen, mafia "protection" and so on.

Like I said, I don't like the idea of either of them, but I think state control is the lesser of two evils in this case. Hopefully we'll be able to build an objective computer system for justice in the future, rather than allowing the possibility of corrupting that comes with allowing humans to decide things.

>>134045532
>Justice, i.e. deciding who should or should not be shot, should be a state/government decision
ok tell me that when muhammad is 3 inches in your wife and goat mate, oh right they wont show up in no go zones right?

>>134045045
Prove you have a right to exist.
Factual basis only.

>>134045532
>someone approaches you with a knife and starts stabbing you
>"well i don't know if he's guilty or not yet, let's not be hasty"

>>134045656
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness

>>134045740
Ask for factual statistical arguments
Get a 250 year old poem.
This is why no one takes you seriously. The point is, rights do not need factual arguments. Rights are self justifying.

>>134045864
>life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights
Reading is hard

File: guns.jpg (68KB, 800x950px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x950px

It is essentially one's gamble between likeliness of being shot by intruders or other type of criminals vs shooting yourself or others over your own BS.

Correlation is tricky, as people claim that even suicide happens less without a quick and easy way out that guns provide.

On the other hand... this map.

Some countries don't follow the pattern. They are often the ones the left and right will cherry pick for their cause, but I still think these exceptions are worth looking into. What is their secret?

>>134046061
>words on a piece of paper are a factual argument
No they are not. They are legal statements made 250 years ago. And if you're REALLY so retarded to point at this as your "factual argument" what's stopping me from pointing at the US constitution and /thread-ing?
Again. This is why no one takes you seriously.

>>134046361
What side of the argument do you think I started on you illiterate fucking retard

>>134045600
>>134045740

Don't get me wrong, I think the government in pretty much all countries is doing a really shitty job carrying out justice, and them alone having the right to carry out justice, also means that they alone have the responsibility to do so.

If someone threatened me or someone I care about with a knife, I would not hesitate to hurt or even kill them, and I know I would be breaking the law doing so.

Taking justice into my own hands is a shitty thing to do and it's understandable that it's illegal, but I just see it as me "breaking the rules a little", just like the government "broke the rules a little" by allowing a thug armed with a knife to roam society freely in the first place.

>>134045656
Why shouldn't we have one?

>>134046070
So, I live in the most armed country in latin america and never held a gun. I feel like a cuck. Need a gun.

>>134046567
>i don't want the gov to have power
>but i want them to turn my life over to the government
Literally a closeted authoritarian cuck, no surprise from Sweden

>>134046567
Perhaps there is a language barrier but it seems to me you're just talking shit. Self defense is illegal in most of the world? You are full of it Sven.

>>134046070
You have china. The answer is obvious there. Most deaths come from government, they don't report it. Black market is probably very small due to maximum punishment.

>>134045532
>A right to bear arms implies a right to kill another person,
Wrong, it implies a right to defend yourself. If you never have the right to kill someone, you implicitly do not have the right to defend yourself.

I mean, +1 for making me reply but your argument is so flimsy. You're saying guns are only used to kill and the only result of trying to stop a crime is to kill a person.

Whereas the current legal system notes that sometimes it is okay to kill but most of the time it is not.

>>134046607
That's the point. There's no "factual" argument for rights. They justify themselves.
>>134046440
I'm not making the point to show that you are wrong or right, I am making the point to show that your whole thread is started on a false premise and is really fucking gay.

File: mumy gets blacked.jpg (708KB, 1917x2230px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1917x2230px

>>134045045
Guns kill people. Isn't that enough reason?

>>134045532
>deciding who should or should not be shot, should be a state/government decision

t. statecuck

>>134046823
Then we have a vacuum where there's no argument for or against, but majority of people want to live anyway.
More seriously it's probably very important in creating a stable country/society, random killings are bas for business.

>>134046789
>>134046748

I see where you're coming from and I agree. There's this concept, at least in Sweden, and I think in the rest of Europe and also the US for the most part, where the person defending themselves have a responsibility to try their best not to kill their attacker. I personally think it's bullshit, but that's how the legal system works at this stage. If a robber comes into my house and I grab a kitchen knife and stab him 54 times, I will end up in prison for 20+ years for straight up murder, rather than self defense. At least that's how it is here, I assume it's a little more reasonable in the US.

I guess the purpose of making the law like that is to make it as hard as possible to commit murder and covering it up as self defense. But honestly, if someone comes into my home with a knife and threatens me, I think I should be allowed to stab him until he's mincemeat. The legal system may have the lone right to violence, but my promise of not taking justice into my own hands is on the condition that their promise to not allow criminals to threaten my life is upheld too. If they fail to prevent a person from threatening my life, I don't see why I shouldn't fail to not kill that person.

>>134046888
Sauce?

>>134047319
>There's this concept, at least in Sweden, and I think in the rest of Europe and also the US for the most part, where the person defending themselves have a responsibility to try their best not to kill their attacker.
There's no onus on a defender not to kill an attacker if they are a threat, again you are talking absolute shit.

>>134045045
Armed population is only necessary when
A- Sandniggers over 10%
B- Niggers over 15%
C- Overall docile shitskins' population over 20%

File: 1500087817719.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>134045532
Thank God someone from the rape capital of the world is telling others that they can't kill someone who threatens their home and family. I would shoot any mother fucker who walked through my door. I have 2 little girls and my wife. I wouldn't think twice and at ending someone's life. Your right to live ends the moment you step into someone's home with the intention to do harm to property or family. If that doesn't sound fair to you I'm glad my ancestry is dying off. If your not strong enough to attempt your own prosperity you don't deserve life.

File: 1500052967031.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

>>134045532
Thank God someone from the rape capital of the world is telling others that they can't kill someone who threatens their home and family. I would shoot any mother fucker who walked through my door. I have 2 little girls and my wife. I wouldn't think twice and at ending someone's life. Your right to live ends the moment you step into someone's home with the intention to do harm to property or family. If that doesn't sound fair to you I'm glad my ancestry is dying off. If your not strong enough to attempt your own prosperity you don't deserve life. >>134045532

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the US constitution because the founding fathers believed in and invoked the right to revolution in their war for independence from Eurocucks.

What this means, essentially, is that the people have a duty to overthrow their government whenever it fails to serve their interests. In order to do this, the people must be armed. This is why Americans have the right to bear arms.

This is also why most nations make it extremely difficult for their citizens to be armed. A state with a monopoly of force over its constituents has less to fear from the possibility of a revolution.

>>134048279
>he thinks 2A was designed to stop Jamal from stealing your TV

Typical naziboo retard.

1. Anyone 18+ should have right to own home defense weapons in thier home.
2. Carry/Conceal carry premit should be given to people that spend enough on shotting range. And keeping it needs enough hours per quarter on shooting range.

While I belive in right to defend your home and famili, carry should be privilege not right.

>>134049399
Even if you allow owning weapons for self defense, which I'm starting to agree with (considering you can own things like kitchen knives because your intention is not necessarily to murder people with them), I still don't really get the shooting range argument. Why do shooting rangers have to use lethal weapons in the first place? Soft air guns or paintball guns would work just as well if all you want to use them for is target practice.

>>134049820
So you are ok with someone without experience beeing able to carry ? No ASgay is not comparable with using real gun.

Enough practice on shooting range proves you can handle your gun, and decreases numbers of gun related accidents.

Trigger discipline, gun culture and self controll when to draw all come from spending time at shoting range.

>>134050549
Hmm, good point. I mean, if anyone is allowed to own a kitchen knife regardless of license or experience, the same should go for guns in my opinion. With the right intent they are both lethal weapons, even though guns are more dangerous.

But you make a good point about the discipline. There should definitely be room for training and learning how to handle a gun responsibly.

>>134051634
I feel like gun accidents have more lethality than knife accidents though, if and when they occur.

Kind of like the difference between being hit by a golf cart vs being hit by a car... the latter also requires education and license while former does not.

Someone please post the screncap of the Nippon post

>>134045045
I think said right should be witheld from certain individuals, sane people can have nukes for all I care tho

File: confused ape.jpg (22KB, 620x374px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 620x374px

>>134052003
>I feel like gun accidents have more lethality than knife accidents though, if and when they occur.
What does it matter? They're accidents, you accept the risk implicitly by using them.

Are you an adult or a small child?

>>134052003
Yeah, true. But the same thing could be said for heroin as opposed to marijuana or alcohol, and I still think heroin should be perfectly legal. The idea of the state telling you what you shouldn't do because of potential dangers is too authoritarian for my tastes. Accidents are just that, accidents. There's only one thing that the state should have any right to prevent us from doing, and that is intentionally harming others.

Guns are like peanuts. Intentionally shooting people other than in self defense should be illegal. Shoving peanuts down the throat of allergic people should be illegal. Carrying a gun because it could accidentally go off shouldn't be illegal. Carrying peanuts because they could accidentally end up in the mouth of an allergic person shouldn't be illegal.

>>134052325
Well right to self defense sould apply to anyone 18+.

But carry is oustde your home, when bystanders can get hurt. So in this case you should prove you are trained enough to carry gun in public.

>>134052202
Thats why I advocate for home gun ownership beeing separate from carry. You accept accident on your property. While in other case it can hurt bystanders.

File: natalia__poklonskaya-20170503-0002.jpg (75KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1080x1080px

This is mummy thread now!

File: 20dcd1f438a188107472.jpg (49KB, 940x626px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 940x626px

>>134056800
>>134045045
I'll convert to islam just to have 10 mummys as wives