Americans of /pol/. I love your 2nd amendment, but I see people being retarded about it from:
The Left - "hurr durr the national guard is the militia referred to"
The Right - "hurr durr the people are a militia"
Why not create several paramilitary volunteer people's militia forces tied to a state, for example: "The Delaware People's Militia" or "Californian People's Militia".
These groups could teach maintenance and respect for firearms and organise hunting, camping, survivalist training, community outreach (eg veterans and ghetto dwellers) and would instill protestant virtues of self reliance, responsibility and work ethic. They could also screen retards and crazies and prevent them from acquiring guns.
Turn over all shooting ranges and gun stores to the militia or groups sanctioned by the militia.
Guns are not a toy and should not be a consumer product, they are tools to defend a free society and a means towards a greater good. Just look at Switzerland, they have mandatory military service and a healthy gun culture.
Tell me why I'm wrong /pol/.
>>77264692
>Tell me why I'm wrong /pol/.
A fucking leaf.
>>77264692
SHALL
>>77265031
nice argument, but the leaf is right
>>77265031
NOT
>just create another committee and turn over your freedom to them
Yeah no. The problem is that gun culture is being frowned upon. If people grew up with guns and learned their importance while also respected their power they would understand them. Additionally, if our culture celebrated life, diplomacy, free speech, and cooperation they wouldn't feel the need to kill each other. If the culture was protected by immigration instead of destroyed we wouldn't have these problems. Laws don't change culture. People do.
>>77264692
>implying there is a gun problem in the US
See: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
In general the number of these mass shootings is so small in the first place that you can't even do statistical analysis with it. Nonetheless, the current data does not suggest there is a mass shooting problem in the US.
>the way to handle a constitutional amendment which has never been interpreted by the one entity with the power to interpret it (the Supreme Court) to be based either on the existence or the identity of "the militia" is to say that an organized reserve military force is not the militia so we'll create a 50 more organized reserve military forces and call them the militia
Is this that Canadian compromise I hear so much about?
>>77265184
INFRINGED
>>77264692
then have milta units and have barracks where the weapons you can own are stored 24/7 and you carry them on millita duty. Not even soldiers carry 24/7 weapons and for sure not when on home territory.
>>77264692
>I love your 2nd amendment, but I see people being retarded about it from:
>but let me proceed to tell you why its wrong
The militia IS the people. The Federalist papers were quite clear about this.
Canadacuck being a faggot.
Color me surprised
>>77265202
>The problem is that gun culture is being frowned upon.
The problem is you have a culture very similar to Islam that worships death. Why is there such a sick fixation with objects designed to murder? It makes ZERO sense
>>77265353
>then have milta units and have barracks where the weapons you can own are stored 24/7
Controlled by the government? Jesus christ its like you Germans are programmed to live under tyranny.
Gun culture in the US is thoroughly reactionary. A people's militia system would be fine.
>>77265343
UPON
>>77264692
make ammo more expensive.
>>77265487
Gun culture doesn't worship death you moron. It celebrates life and liberty, and the ability to defend both. No one ever wants to have to use their firearm in self defense, but I'd rather have one if I needed it.
>>77264692
Because tying the right to a politicized organization will be infringing upon that right.
Get organized in your local communities. Keep your families informed and prepared. Fight alone and die.
>>77265487
It's a tool designed to defend your rights.
>>77265549
where dose it stand government?
Triggered faggot? read again carefully.
Its a militia barrack so its guarded by the ppl like you did wirte it in you second amendment.
>>77264692
The literal legal definition of militia is any able-bodied citizen over 18. Didn't read past the first paragraph because you're clearly illiterate.
>>77264692
>Sane people blame muslims for the islamic-based shootings
>everyone else blames guns
Why not just ban muslims from having guns?
>>77264692
You have to give it to us democrats for solving this problem in a logical and ethucal way. You rightwing teabaggger closet homophobe racist bigits wont give up your guns because your small white dicks are scared of superior black seed that is taking over ALL your women and fantasize abiut shooting up gay clubs or blck churches. Lets put all the white gun owners in one state and drone bomb them. No mire white supremacist systematic racist sytem designt to murder blacks in the streets like a dog. Our islamic brothers have our backs. The latinos have our backs. The lgtb have our side. The democrats will win this election and every election afterwards. The time is up for white racists with little dicks. They can go back to Europe themselves or die in a ditch tomorrow.
>>77265671
>>77265692
A nuanced argument? ON /pol/?!!!
>>77264692
>Tell me why I'm wrong /pol/.
Read the federalist papers. I can lead you to the water. I cannot force you to drink it.
>>77265781
How would he want to force people with guns to go to Montana? They have guns!
Thanks for the replies /pol/.
Weren't the founding fathers referring to a state of States Rights over Federal Rights ?
Tying the militia to states ensures that they are not influenced by Federal politics and shifts focus from DC back to the state level.
>compromise
>associating the rebellion needed to usurp a corrupt state with the state
A
FUCKIGN
LEAF
>Protestant values
>Not fucking catholic
I want these heathens range banned.
>>77265918
by having more guns, pardox
whatever your views on gunz, the day after 50 Americans get rekt is not the time to ask them to disarm themselves. I get why trump said Obama has sinister motives, trying to weaken the USA the day after an attack how fucking stupid is Obama.
>implying the states would ever go to war against the fucking government again
You're actually fucking retarded syrupnigger.
>>77264692
>Tied to a state
That defeats the entire purpose of letting people have guns
>>77265918
Thats what the federal government is for or should be for. To enforce social justice. Send them all to montana or a conrectation camp like they did the jews and blacks. Make the whites learn what it means to be poor and slaves for people they oppressed for millenius.
>>77265737
well you can understand the confusion when the rule is so utterly retarded. what, for instance, does 'well regulated' mean, and what is a 'free state'? If a country cannot interpret its own constitution with clarity its laughable.
'There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void' -Thomas Paine advocate of the war of independence.
There is no gun problem. There is an education problem. That and minorities for the most part. Sure, a few white mass murderers, but those can be blamed on mental illness or society failing them. The unibomber was correct on all fronts, hence him bombing universities. He knew they were the breeding grounds for silly hive mind thought processes on the feminization of society. Then there is the rap culture that condones violence. Various other influences that can be considered detrimental.mSo no, we don't have a gun problem, we have a "society is full of dim wits" problem.
>>77265981
DEUS VULT
>Makes a suggestion
>Everyone loses their shit
What did he say that pissed you guys off so much?
>>77264692
Mhmm. Firearms. Right.
No where on that damn amendment does it say "Right to bear firearms."
It says "Right to bear ARMS".
All arms. All forms of weaponry. Knives, clubs, guns. Everything the military has access to the citizenry has a right to keep and bear. Remember, this hails back to the time where the citizenry WAS the military through these militias, until the government decided it would be more convenient to have a standing army.
To break your argument down, what happens to your shitty rule in the future when we have projectile future tech bullshit that is no longer classified as firearms? (laser weapons, plasma weapons, rail guns, magic cannons, and whatever the fuck else might happen) Do you re write the god damn law every time a new innovation comes out? No, that's tedious, retarded, and increases the opportunity for pork to slide in and rights to slide out.
The rule, as it is stated in the constitution, is simple, straightforward, and in your plain millenial english:
"The government does not have the right to make any law restricting the ownership or use of any weapons, as the security of a 'free state' is dependent upon its citizens being able to defend all of their rights, with organized force, if necessary."
There is literally no thing that prevents a government from taking your "rights" away from you (free speech, protection against unlawful search and seizure, forced quarter, and self incrimination) except the fact that each god damn person has the ability to make themselves equal to the enforcers of the governing body and defend themselves should the government decide to remove these rights by edict.
God made some men bigger or smaller than the others, but Mr. Smith and Mr. Weston made them all equal.
>>77264692
>Turn over all shooting ranges and gun stores to the militia or groups sanctioned by the militia.
they already are
the militia is everybody
>>77264692
Isn't your country on fire right now?
>>77264692
>"People's militia"
>Owns all ranges
>Tied to the state
>Guns are not a consumer product
This sounds like a fantastic way to implement overarching gun control, maplefag. And It doesn't even accomplish anything because it not only endorses a bogus interpretation of the constitution but liberals don't give a shit about the constitution anyway. Won't stop them from pursuing their agenda, will just give them more ammo in the fight.
>>77264692
>National guard is militia
>People's Militia
>Who's going to pay for this
>Creates another government army
OP go kill yourself you KEKADIAN
>>77266406
They're inviting muslims while giving dog blowjobs in a burning forest tbqh
It's really a sight to see
>>77265716
But why do WE NEED to have it in a militia barracks achmed? Seems clearly you like everything cucked now don't you? :^)
>>77266622
Is this loss?
>>77266784
he's less likely to be called Achmed than an American, don't forget Trayvon US is 60% white.
>>77265981
>>Not fucking catholic
The American founders were pretty much all opposed to Catholicism
>>77264692
>The Right - "hurr durr the people are a militia"
Yeah, they actually are - the unorganized militia.
t. Militia Act of 1903.
>>77265659
Ayyyy, a schuss is already 50 rappen fuck off
>>77264692
>These groups could teach maintenance and respect for firearms and organise hunting, camping, survivalist training, community outreach (eg veterans and ghetto dwellers) and would instill protestant virtues of self reliance, responsibility and work ethic. They could also screen retards and crazies and prevent them from acquiring guns.
They are called gun clubs you stupid Canadian. Stop run your mouth without any fucking research. And the NRA is the biggest one of them
>>77266324
He's a dumbass
>Why not create several paramilitary volunteer people's militia forces tied to a state
You have the right to own guns as long as you work for the government. Plus he is pretty much describing the national guard.
>These groups could teach maintenance and respect for firearms and organise hunting, camping, survivalist training, community outreach (eg veterans and ghetto dwellers) and would instill protestant virtues of self reliance, responsibility and work ethic.
Private groups already do literally every single one of these things, in America you could probably find any of these for free.
>They could also screen retards and crazies and prevent them from acquiring guns.
This is already the law you retard
>Turn over all shooting ranges and gun stores to the militia or groups sanctioned by the militia.
You can own guns and shoot guns but the state has a monopoly on the guns and the shooting ranges
>they are tools to defend a free society
Which is why only the government should have guns
>>77266998
>bongistan
>knowing anything about the founders of freedom
>implicating that the US is God's last chosen country and that it needs to be maintained by giving no ground to faggots, communists, and heretics
>>77265981
DEUS VULT
>>77266622
>giving dog blowjobs
Its like none of you guys have any basic problem solving skills.
He's making sure our country will start undergoing Islamisation.
Think about it, our refugee acceptance rates have been upward 400% since dude cuck came into power.
And? Guess what? Some of these mudslimes can't find women. Or just prefer to fuck goats.
Did you seriously think Canadians were the ones going to fuck animals here? God no, its the mudslimes. Dude weed is first letting them get some fellatio from goats, next its penetration.
We're going to be a country that worships the "Religion of Peace" in a few years. Goat fucking and Polygamy will fucking skyrocket.
Feel free to sceencap if you want, the part when Canada underwent Stage 1.
>>77264692
that's just adding more government meddling into it. less, not more.
>>77267336
>This is what amerifats actually beleive
sides are past europa
>>77264692
*AHEM*
Actually, no the Right is, well, right on this one:
The Second Amendment makes it clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s pretty clear, right? For those who think that the right only applies to a “militia,” I have good news: That includes everybody. When Founding Father George Mason was asked who constitutes the militia, he responded that it “consists now of the whole people.” http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm
"10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
So the militia is all able-bodied male citizens over 17 years old and female citizens who are in the National Guard.
CANUCKISTAN BTFO!
>>77267417
But muslims are Canadian, Ahmed.
>>77266157
>From england
>Can't understand written english
"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."
The operative clause starts at the second comma. The right, of who? the people, not the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It couldn't be more explicit that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in the people, not any version of a militia. There is nothing confusing about it.
>>77266909
It's okay Mohammed; better 60% white than declining in white percentage in bongistan any day.
>>77264692
>hurr durr the people are a militia
They literally are according to Federal Law.
It's called the Militia Act of 1903.
And the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia".
>>77264692
No.
That's the last thing the federal government would ever allow. You're much more likely to have all guns banned and people forcefully killed.
>>77264692
1. "Well-regulated" means "well-equipped" and "well-trained"
2. The need for a well-regulated militia is why the people's right shall not be infringed. It is a reason, not a condition.
3. It is not "if". It is not "when". It is not "as long as". It is "because". Even if a militia does become no longer necessary, it doesn't matter; the people's right still cannot be infringed
4. The people are a militia
5. It's the people's right, not the militia's
Also, >leaf
>>77266334
This is one of the most autistic replies I've ever seen
>>77264692
No. Fuck off leaf it says shall not be infringed. I don't give a fuck about militia or whatever but in a free society if I have the money and want own a certain kind of gun than like anything else I should be able to buy it and enjoy. Otherwise it is not a free society and then why even have laws?
What's next we start banning electric cars because they cause too much pain and suffering to big oil? How about we ban private spaceflight too because it causes harm to government contractors?
Lets just ban everything that hurts peoples fee fees and have a v for vendetta nightmare nanny state like the Britbongs.
Fuck off. Drugs shouldn't be banned as it is now you want to ban more things? Fuck no.
Sick of some arbitrary group of burecratiic criminals dictating to me how to live life. Fuck no.
You want to do something to fix it?
Ban
The fucking
Muslims
>>77264692
No.
>>77268050
Have you read your own?
>>77266998
except of course for the catholic ones, and the ones who didnt have a problem with them.
>>77264692
>Canadian Constitutional lawyers
I think something similar would be nice but it wouldn't override the 2nd amendment.
>>77266334
What the fuck are you on about
>>77264692
Concern trolling should be a bannable offense.
>>77267642
yeah 60% and declining compared to 95% and declining is much better, especially in a shithole like the US.
>>77267634
Apparently its you who cannot read. That anon never said anything about the rights of people to bear arms, just that the amendment fails to define well regulated (regulated by whom, in what order and on whose authority) and also what a 'free state' is if the government was the oppressive party. Keep up Jamal.
>>77266334
well said fellow patriot
>>77268050
the amount of shill in your post is unbearable, please kill urself quickly you cancerous traitor
>>77264692
I think the issue is people think the 2nd amendment is absolute regardless of technological advances. Pic related is the type of gun they had in mind when they wrote the amendment. I'm a gun owner and even I think the rules and laws should be much more strict. It's ridiculously easy to walk in and buy an AR with as much ammo and magazines as you want. Takes about an hour. I'm not saying it will stop all gun violence, but at least make it more difficult.
>>77269196
forgot pic
>>77269196
It's been a while since I've updated my gun control folder.
>>77269196
I think the issue is people think the bible is absolute regardless of technological advances. Pic related is the type of bible they had in mind when they wrote the bible. I'm a bible owner and even I think the rules and laws should be much more strict. It's ridiculously easy to walk in and buy a bible with as much words and pages as you want. Takes about an hour. I'm not saying it will stop all interpretations, but at least make it more difficult.
>>77269434
>Pellet gun
>firearm
Pick one
>>77264692
>make volunteer groups
>volunteer militia groups decide who gets guns
>the government sends agents in to take control of the groups
>anyone who doesn't believe what the government wants you to is denied guns for being "Unstable."
Wow it's like any sort of regulation of guns can be taken advantage of and that's why it shall not be infringed?
>>77269196
>>77269235
Try googling "Puckle's Gun", and stop with your limited understanding and knowledge.
>>77264692
Virginia prior to the Civil War had a state militia where all white male citizens were required to serve at least part time.
I don't see why we shouldn't bring that system back (albeit it's expanded to all male citizens regardless of color). It will probably help our voter apathy since suddenly everyone is has a vetted interest in the survival of the state.
>>77269929
>Air gun more powerful than contemporary muskets, with more penetration, quieter, and smokeless
U wot m8?
>>77268895
Both questions are completely irrelevant, as I very clearly stated, muhammed. Try reading again, friend. I know these new latin characters are hard for you after reading arabic chicken scratch your whole life. There is only one operative clause in the amendment and it doesn't use the words well regulated or militia anywhere. Asking what those words mean is like asking what "a more perfect union" means in the preamble. Maybe neat for history research, but completely irrelevant for determining the law.
>>77264692
>Tell me why I'm wrong /pol/.
You're wrong.
The whole point is to give the people the power. Adding dumb regulations does not do that and would not stop what happened in Florida.
>>77269196
Is that what you tell your liberal friends so they keep inviting you to their cocktail parties? cuck
>>77264692
>Solve its gang problem using what ever methods are necessary.
>Sort its healthcare system so that mentally ill people are looked after properly (search youtube for "Charlie Zelenoff" that's the kind of guy who doesn't get treated in the US and he's an Elliot Roger waiting to happen).
>Don't import Muslims.
These steps would probably reduce mass-shootings by 90+%.
>>77269196
>>77269235
"you don't need 30 rounds"
So why could yo get a 30-round rifle in 1646?
>>77269196
>>77269235
>>77264692
WE
THE
PEOPLE
A well regulated millitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (people being the key word here) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
How exactly does a militia form if ordinary citizens are not allowed to by guns you fucking imbecile. The 2nd amendment is clearly written to arm the people of the united states in the case that the government has gone against the will of the people. So many mental gymnastics it's insane.
>>77264692
imbecile
you need a bullet
>>77270973
>>77271013
>imbecile mind....
>>77264692
>Just look at [Insert European Country Here]
Great argument.
The only problem I see with this is that this could then be used to control guns only to the privilege elite. You can deny people entry into the militia, and thus, deny them ownership of weapons.
>>77270160
Again, you fail to comprehend the founding documents of your own constitution. It clearly states that a well regulated militia is neccessary for the security of a free state and so a well regulated militia is an operative clause, that of being neccesary to said state. Fucking hell why do you suppose no one takes American education seriously? Christ every time my mum has had an american transfer into her class/school they've been basically retarded compared to their British fellows.
>>77272320
>a well regulated militia is neccessary for the security of a free state
Except that that is not the whole sentence now is it?
It is the conditional part of the whole sentence.
>>77271201
>>77264692
We already have actual militia groups. The feds just classify them as domestic terrorists because those are the people that are willing to stand up to them.
>>77269196
>I'm a gun owner
first thing liberals who don't own guns try to say
you're all lying beta nu-males
>>77272612
>Requires citizens to own guns
No. Just no.
>>77264692
>Tell me why I'm wrong /pol/.
because you're a shitposting leaf
sage
>>77273132
Yes, switzerland, your government does.
Because your country relies on militias for the defense of the nation. Should a war occur you WILL be conscripted into the military, and you ARE expected to know and understand how a firearm works.
That is why Switzerland has compulsory military service. Your nation expects to defend itself with EVERY swiss citizen, not just the volunteers.
You can choose not to keep firearms at home, but civilian ownership of firearms and a strong gun control are critical to the national defense of your country whether you want them to be or not.
>>77264692
Because we've already done that. There are literally hundreds of volunteer militias in the U.S. Lefty refuses to recognize them under any circumstances.
>>77273533
Thank you, fucking leaf, for explaining the armed forces I serve in since 2004.
>Requires citizens to own guns
Implies gun ownership is a requirement, which it is not.
>>77272710
This^
>>77267126
What? I pay 35 at the shooting range (sg 550 round).
Is it 50 if you buy it privately?
>>77273533
Requires them to have, not own.
>goddamn leaf
>tfw someone who has english as their second or even third language is better at using it than someone who has it as their ONLY language.....
>>77274214
>SG 550 round
5.56 round or GP 90 you mean.
Also: GP90 is usually 0.50 CHF, other 5.56 ammo is usually cheaper.
>>77274245
You're just as dumb as the leaf because you're just as wrong.
>>77265981
DEUS VULT
>>77273533
It really doesn't require you to own a gun. You can do a replacement service, do military service without a gun, pay a fee instead of doing service, be a woman and thus be exempt from conscription or just leave your gun at the closest armory.
>>77273132 is right. You're not required, but almost all conscripts take it home. Also: they no longer give you ammo to store at home, but every village has a shooting range where a couple thousand rounds are stored, so don't fuck with us.
>>77274511
I meant GP90 at the shooting range. I paid 35 cents for per round for the ammo I used to adjust my sights when I shot the obligatorisches.
>>77266334
Saved, continue preaching the truth fellow patriot.
>>77264692
Why not you suck my dick? I could even give you a safety course first.
>>77274606
Really? So where do you keep your StG-90? Not at home? Because that's where my cousin keeps his. Oh yeah, he's Swiss you retard.
>>77275030
That's a good price then..
Yeah, you don't get your "Taschenmunition" anymore to fight yourself to the mobilisation sector. But there's really nothing that keeps you from buying 5.56 from your local gun shop and keep it at home. Personally I only keep 500 9mm para at home, don't feel the need for more...
Or you could just read the Militia Act of 1808 and realize that the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is actually the US Military in general.
In the late 18th and early 19th century, the United States did not have a formally organized Army beyond a few standing units, and national defense was largely dependent upon State run citizens militias to be called up as needed. As a consequence, it was necessary for the people to have access to firearms, since the early Republic could not afford to equip a standing Army in its own right.
>>77275241
Yeah, at home.
Not a requirement though, which makes your statement false.
Your "cousin" suuuuuuure...
>>77264692
Canada really needs to be IP banned.
It's just sad at this point.
>>77264692
The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment refers to the Militias of the Several States.
>>77264692
There are already numerous groups that teach firearm safety and such, and there is no need to form something and call it a militia when the coutrts have already ruled, repeatedly and conclusively, that the "militia" referred to is the people as a whole.
That said, more teaching of gun safety is a fine thing. Were it up to me, it would be mandatory for all citizens to learn how to safely operate a gun, in case they ever have to do so, If nothign else, "I know how to pick one up and unload it without shooting the cat" would be a Good Thing.
That said, while reducing accidental deaths and hopefully reducing paranoia, knowing more about how to use guns properly would have zero effect on gun crime beyond making the criminals slightly more proficient.
>>77275241
>>77275468
kek at Australian trying to claim he might have some non criminal genetics.
>>77264692
signing up to a state militia before you can purchase a weapon is a nice idea. if shit hits the fan you are obliged to defend the people of your state against any enemies, including that of your own country. different from signing up for the military, but in times of peace you have access to militia clubhouses and shit, personal shooting ranges, go to gatherings and make bro-tier friends. once signed up you can purchase personal firearms and are enabled to go about getting a concealed carry.
olawd that sounds nice. a downside would be a decrease of patriotism toward the US and more patriotism for individual states themselves which may cause conflict and realistically civil unrest. normalfags kill each other over the difference between a football team. imagine the conflicts that arise between the difference of states, this time those frat boys feeling like they are personally responsible for representing their state.
>>77265981
Deus vult
>>77275468
Yes, my cousin. In Ticino canton. Where they speak some weird-ass version of Italian.
>now waiting on some kind of BS about them not being """real""" swiss.....
>>77275794
>kek at an American having an opinion of my country, or on my family's origins.....
>>77264922
Says the med pack
>>77264692
>tied to a state
see you're missing the point
>>77275870
This is in fact exactly what happened in 1861. Its why formal State militias were disarmed after the war. Congress was too busy passing the 13th and 14th amendment though, and never got around to repealing the 2nd Amendment. They figured it did not matter since there were no State militias anymore. They never believed 5 Supreme Court Justices in the 1970's would reinterpret things to mean that everyone can have access to guns at all times for any reason.
>>77275386
Do you have any idea why you have to pay more for ammo than I do? Do you have to pay 50 cents at your local Schiessverein's shooting range or only when you buy it at a gun store?
>>77265314
This, with the proviso that there IS a gun violence problem among inner-city "youts" who shoot each other with handguns.
The left has given up trying to address this real and serious issue because it is hard to talk about without sounding racist, and liberals would rather let lots of young black men die than risk being accused of sounding racist.
That issue would not be addressed by ewither the Left's desire to grab scary looking big guns, or the Right's somewhat-insincere-sounding interest in better mental health care, since young black shooters mostly use handguns and are mentally stable, if acculturated.
>>77264692
>protestant virtues
You lost me there
>>77264692
You just described a militia. So the left is correct and /pol/ is once again proven mentally retarded.
>>77265781
Just send all the liberals to New York City, and other great urban centers where guns are outlawed and there is no shooting at all!
>>77276226
Maybe your local shooting assocciation pays for some of the ammo, to give an incentive to go there and not the next one, I don't know.
>>77265945
>Tying the militia to states ensures that they are not influenced by Federal politics and shifts focus from DC back to the state level.
True enough, but again, you do not understand what "militia" means, in context, so your proposal makes no sense. How can you tie the people as a whole to the states?
>>77276670
Guns are not outlawed in New York City. You can still buy and legally own them. Its hyperbolic statements like this that block any compromise, because people take rules like background checks, registration, and so on as "hurr durr, you can't own guns in X, infringed!".
No, you CAN own guns. You just can't go to the wal mart and buy an automatic pistol with a Gift Card and your word of honor that you are not a Felon in New York City.
>>77276627
according to that faggot you can only own a gun till you're 45. so no thanks.
>>77277014
Except the faggot is wrong in the first place, because militias supply their own personal weapons.
>>77266157
>'There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void' -Thomas Paine advocate of the war of independence.
And thus the abillity to amend the COnstitution is a part of the document. If you do not like what it says, amend it -- an admittedly involved and tedious process, but a perfectly legal one, and if the suffragettes and the prohibitionists and the abolitionists could all do it, the gun-grabbers can to.
The problem is that they do not want to do this legally, they want to declare an existing right enumerated in the Bill of Rights null and void because muh feelings." This seems a dangerous precedent, given what other rights are enumerated and specifically recognized in there.
>>77276994
You can't "just can't go to the wal mart and buy an automatic pistol with a Gift Card and your word of honor that you are not a Felon" anywhere else, either.
Fuck, I've been to the USA once and even I know better than you how that shit works.
>>77266363
>>77275030
>It really doesn't require you to own a gun. You can do a replacement service, do military service without a gun, pay a fee instead of doing service, be a woman and thus be exempt from conscription or just leave your gun at the closest armory.
The militia is supposed to be able to fight enemies both foreign and domestic. That includes a tyrannical American government. So it makes no sense for the government to be able to control access to the militia's weapons.
>>77267336
What are you on about? The United States is Babylon. You retards kill 3000 babies a day and start wars all over the earth. There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING Godly about the US.
Also mandatory
>Catholicucks
>not heretics
>>77264692
>Why not create several paramilitary volunteer people's militia forces tied to a state, for example: "The Delaware People's Militia" or "Californian People's Militia".
The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>>77268895
>That anon never said anything about the rights of people to bear arms, just that the amendment fails to define well regulated (regulated by whom, in what order and on whose authority)
see
>>77268147
>>77277496
We're talking about Switzerland. Can't imagine a scenario where we get to fight a tyrannical US government...
>>77276994
Even walmart has to do federal background checks by law.
The Feds allowed this Muzzie fucktard to slip through the cracks and are deflecting to second amendment so we don't see them hung for it. The fucking Obama administration changing the argument again. Its not much different from what happened when the gun running scandal came into the light.
>>77265781
>>77266132
>>77264692
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>77265565
That's what we have now. Eat a kike dick, Commie.
>>77264692
>Turn over all shooting ranges and gun stores to the militia or groups sanctioned by the militia.
Sounds a tad too much like communism faggotry, so thanks, but no thanks. My guns are fine with me doing as we are, no need for a leaf to care about what a law-abiding legal owner who would only shoot in self-defense does in the privacy of his own home, is there? I mean, you insist on staying out of people's bedrooms because you don't care what they do, so please, stay the fuck out of my gun safe.
>>77264692
Go fuck yourself.
The language in the second amendment is clear if you're not a retard.
SHALL
>>77269235
Yes and the state had the same weapon. What is your point? You honestly think the FF make the right so you could defend yourself with a black-powder pistol? Are you really this retarded?
>>77269196
I think the issue is people think the 1st amendment is absolute regardless of technological advances. Pic related is the type of press they had in mind when they wrote the amendment. I'm an avid reader and even I think the rules and laws should be much more strict. It's ridiculously easy to share any opinion or idea you want. Takes about an hour. I'm not saying it will stop all thinking that the government does not like, but at least make it more difficult.
>>77264692
Because all men 18-45 are already part of the unregulated militia.
>>77264692
I'm not opposed to the idea of licenses similar to a driver's license where you demonstrate competency. In my state to hunt below the age of 14 you were required to take a hunter's safety course and it was fantastic. We learned firearm safety, basic wilderness survival, first aid and applicable laws as well as a trip to the range. It really instilled a respect for firearms that I think many gun owners lack. I'm sure most opposition to this is tin-foil hat privacy concerns, but it would at least be a better line than 'haven't been caught committing a crime'.
>>77275030
>>77275386
Can you guys use the guns for self defence/hunting or is it just for storage in case a war breaks out?
>>77264692
The very last edit to the constitution was a comma removal.
Punctuation is extremely literal.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I really don't get how this is so fucking hard to people.
>>77264692
Mind your own business meddling milkbag.
>>77275429
So get rid of the Armed Forces. They aren't needed since the people can own guns. Just add training to the "well-regulated" part.
You can't just remove a right because with some reasoning it could be party obsolete.
Who would you want to defend your country?
10 million trained + 300 million gun owners
or
10 million trained.
It's a big country and you wont be able to put a soldier infront of every house. So you make sure you make a soldier in every house.
>>77278234
Theres no open or concealed carry for avarage joe. It's a gun culture of national defence, not self-defence. Of course you can use a rifle for hunting, but grounds and wildlife is heavily regulated, since we don't have much wilderness left and are very densly populated. You need a hunting licence etc.
Using your gun for home defence is risky business. There has to be no other choice, no chance to reatreat and immediate threat to life. We don't have castle doctrine laws
>>77272320
>It clearly states that a well regulated militia is neccessary for the security of a free state and so a well regulated militia is an operative clause, that of being neccesary to said state
Interestingly, it it does NOT say that the right of the state to keep and bear arms is protected, or the right of the militia to keep and bear arms is protected... it says something else, doesn't it? It prohibits the government from grabbing arms from who?
Hint: Starts with a "P" and rhymes with "people."
The second amendment calls for a well-regulated militia, not an unregulated disjointed armed-populace. Anytime they bring up gun control, people say the second amendment can't be infringed upon, yet the amendment itself calls for regulation. It promises the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't promise the right to acquire them expeditiously at a level of convenience you're comfortable with, nor does it stipulate what constitutes an "arm". There are plenty of arms that are regulated beyond ownership, I daresay firearms are therefore not untouchable.
>>77278095
Your brand of idiocy denies the concept of any technological advancement. You are implying that the founding fathers of America were convinced that they had reached the peak Technological achievement and no further advancements would occur beyond that point.
Example: the founding fathers had no idea the information age would happen and never intended the first amendment to apply to the computer or internet.
Your brand of idiocy is iconic
>>77278628
ah oke thanks. Your country seems so cool to live in. The government actually trusts you (gun and referenda) and realise they work FOR you.
>>77278733
ERMAGHERD DE RETARDAYSHUN IN YOOR POST GAVE ME CANSURR
Here, a reply in image form so I dont have to type shit again.
>>77278822
>when someone does not realise something is a sarcastic rebuttal of what they relied to......
>>77278733
Do you understand the legal concept of "DeFacto Infringement"? Making them overly difficult or impossible to obtain for law abiding citizens by law or regulation would be infringing on their rights.
>>77279096
Man this is so true
>INTERNET HAS FREE SPEECH
>But only single loaded black powder guns are protected by the 2nd amendment
>>77276994
>Its hyperbolic statements like this that block any compromise,
Sorry, I should have typed THIS IS IRONY after my post. I am glad to see, though, that you included the guy who wanted to send all gun owners to Montana under your condemnation of unhelpful hyperbole.
>>77264692
Well without people, who will be the soldiers in the military/militias?
You NEED people, able bodies people, to be soldiers of war. Without people, there is no military/militia
>>77277663
>Can't imagine a scenario where we get to fight a tyrannical US government..
I stand amazed at the poverty of your imagination.
>>77278628
You fuckers need to start dwarfing it up and making massive underground cities.
>>77278995
Read the rest of my post then, dumbass. It goes beyond "militia". The right to keep and bear arms says nothing about the purchase of arms, the availability of arms, nor the type of arms that is covered. I could say you have the right to keep and bear a unicorn, but it it isn't available, that isn't my problem.
People don't own nuclear arms. Or rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or grenades. Should they? Of course not. But those are technically arms, and the wording of the second amendment doesn't preclude them. Either our inability to own nuclear arms is an infringement on our rights, or the amendment is rather flexible. If it is the former, then the amendment needs to be reworded. If it is the latter, then guns aren't explicitly protected.
>>77265981
Deus vult
>>77279096
herp derp. Friendly fire
My bad brother. My bad.
>>77264692
i had a father who taught me all that shit.
>>77279210
How would it be an infringement? The amendment only says you have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't stipulate which arms. We currently aren't allowed access to flamethrowers and nukes, but we don't consider this to be an infringement.
>>77277948
>You honestly think the FF make the right so you could defend yourself with a black-powder pistol?
Founding Fathers did not MAKE a right at all, they saw certain rights to be inherent and inalienable, and chose to recognize a few of the more important ones in the Bill of Rights, whioch concludes by reserving all additional rights to the people and the states, the single most ignored restriction on federal power in the constitution as amended.
>>77272499
>>77278636
The statement states firstly that a well regulated militia is neccessary for a free state and secondly that the people have a right to bear arms; thats all I was arguing. I know its a sensitive matter for americucks but try to stay relevant to the point in hand.
>>77280028
>currently aren't allowed access to flamethrowers
we absolutely are
>>77279770
People _do_ own rocket launchers, flamethrowers, and grenades.
Should they? Why _shouldn't_ they?
And yes, the 2nd.A. refers to ARMS, not "firearms". There is no law stoppig you from owning a nuke, but the fact no-one wil sell one to you and the fact it woud literally cost you billions would be a greater deterrent to ownership."we haven't banned guns", but if you cant provide a "valid reason" that they will accept, then no guns for you. And its funny how donating large amounts of money to political causes smooths things over in that regard.
>>77280263
>."we haven't banned guns", but if you cant provide a "valid reason" that they will accept, then no guns for you. And its funny how donating large amounts of money to political causes smooths things over in that regard.
This part was referring to the way things are here on criminal island, btw.
Technically, you CAN own a machine-gun suc as a MAG-58, but getting the Class "D" licence though, that's a whole other story.
>>77278822
>Your brand of idiocy denies the concept of any technological advancement.
Not at all, MY brand of idiocy absolutely recognizes and cherishes it, and does not try to use it as a way to deny basic rights because technology grows, whether it is better firearms, or printing presses, or whatever.
>You are implying that the founding fathers of America were convinced that they had reached the peak Technological achievement and no further advancements would occur beyond that point.
Not at all, they clearly understood that things would change over time, and allowed two processes to amend the constiotution if that were to become necessary. However, in the Bikl of Rights they DID explicitly recognize certain fundamental rights that the people possess and which the government should be specifically enjoined from infringing upon. Even as things changed.
>Example: the founding fathers had no idea the information age would happen and never intended the first amendment to apply to the computer or internet.
Wait, I want to be clear, you think that the government should be allowed to infringe on free speech on the Internet because it is a new technology that the founders did not foresee? Really? OK< stake your ground out there if you want to, but I suspect you will find that it makes fewer people endorse your position.
>Your brand of idiocy is iconic
I am, and always have been, iconic.
>>77280028
Flamethrowers are completely unregulated, you dip. They're not "arms" they're farm equipment.
Stop discussing things you don't understand. Just shut the fuck up, and learn.
>>77280629
Oh wow, so you're saying the simply redefined them as something other than arms, and now they aren't covered by the second amendment? Weird how that works.
>>77280629
Fun fact: they're even legal HERE, though we are forced to licence them and other such gay shit.
>>77264692
>tied to a state
Where your hypothetical is terribly faulted
>>77280895
They were never firearms, since they do not discharge a projectile, and thus are not covered by your NFA or controlled by the BATFE.
>>77281076
I didn't say they were firearms. I said they were arms. Now they are defined as farm equipment, apparently. And they are banned in some states because of this. This is how easily the second amendment can be broken: just change the definition of "arms" and the whole thing would fall apart.
>>77265202
>Laws don't change culture. People do.
Aaaand who are those people?
>>77280895
Flamethrowers are not arms, you Cowwadoody-playing retard.
>>77264692
Shall not be infringed
Also
>A fucking leaf
>>77273533
>flag
>let me tell you about your country, dummy.
Color me shocked.
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's all I need to say. The Bill of Rights must never be changed, under any circumstances, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor. Our Constitution is not a living document, and it isn't just some '200 year-old piece of paper'. It's the foundation for our country, and it is an absolute, unchanging list of the rights that the American people MUST have.
>>77281238
They are not arms, they are tools
>>77264692
Mental health problem =/= gun problem
>>77281902
Wait... everyone keeps telling me guns aren't made for killing... they are tools for defense and hunting. The second amendment doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools, just arms. If all these people telling me guns are tools are correct, then are they therefore not covered by the second amendment?
>>77264692
This kills the leaf.
>>77281749
>Our Constitution is not a living document,
Do you know what "amendment" means? You do know the constitution we have now contains stuff that wasn't there originally? How is it being changed if it isn't a living document?
Just bring back the draft.
>>77280028
it's an infringement because you are denying access to arms for citizens who should not legally be denied access. You have denied their right to keep arms by denying them access to them period. Defacto infringement and unconstitutional.
>>77264692
Shut up, faggot.
>>77282069
Nobody is saying a gun isn't a tool, you fucking retard, they're saying a flamethrower isn't a gun, i.e., not a firearm.
Are anti-gun fags illiterate too?
>>77281902
They were in WW1 and WW2
you can still buy weapons grade flame throwers, faggot.
>>77282275
So the government is infringing on my right to own a nuclear arm by telling me I can't?
>>77282191
None of the original ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) have never been changed, and must never be changed. I was talking about those.
>>77282339
>the right to bear arms
>right to bear arms
>to bear arms
>bear arms
>arms
Not firearms necessarily.
>>77265781
Why don't gun haters just move to some other paradise where they're already banned?
>>77264692
Tbqh if i was your president i would so this, establish a voluntary militia for each state ran by that states citizens.
>>77282339
Okay, so a gun is a tool, and a flamethrower isn't a firearm, so the second amendment doesn't apply to either.
>>77279770
which is why it also says "shall not be infringed" Banning the purchase of arms sure as hell infringes on that
>>77282491
They're not telling you you can't.
But:
a) you can't afford one.
b) nobody has one to sell
c) noone would sell it to you
>>77264692
America doesn't have a gun problem. It has a nigger, spic, and muzzie problem.
>>77282709
If that is there is overwhelming support for gun control.
>>77280100
They are being relavent ... You shit bong.
You made a point (a quite flawed point that left out clear and pertinent portion of our founding documents) and they made a counter point (that your argument was SHEIT because it specifically omitted the pertinent part of the document specifically so that you could gain your argument)
Fuck off ... You won't subvert our ideologies with an ideology that has seen the British empire shrink until it is consumed by barbaric and clearly non-British forces
>>77264692
Congress can pass a bill requiring a note from either a firearms instructor or a psychologist / psychiatrist / other doctor simply stating that you are of sound mind before you buy a new semiautomatic rifle. It's the best case scenario because it might actually work and isn't a massive hassle for people and doesn't create a national firearm owners' registry.
If Congress simply does nothing Hillary will probably manage to force through another AWB or worse by 2018 after that year's inevitable mass shooting hysteria.
>>77282491
During the period of the founding of the republic, black powder by ordinance could not be stored in large quantities by residences or businesses. Powder Store houses were set up in more remote areas where if they were to explode, they wouldn't take half the city or town with them.
Explosive arms are to dangerous to be stored in populated areas so they are stowed separately. Simple enough? Nukes are so volatile and destructive that they are handled directly by the federal government. Same reason you cant build your own handy personal nuclear generator.
>>77264692
The people are the militia.
Everyone who buys a gun volunteers.
The right shall not be infringed.
Let me know which point you are having trouble understanding and I'll break it down for you.
>>77282822
Just to take this to the extreme, if we took all the guns in the world and melted them down, and stopped manufacturing them, how is that an infringement on your rights to keep and bear them? If I said you had the right to keep and bear a unicorn, does the fact they aren't available mean your right is being infringed?
>>77283154
None of that is relevant, really. The amendment isn't worded in such a way that precludes ownership of excessively dangerous weapons.
>>77282709
We already have them.
They're private organzations- not part of a master federal listing.
If 2 neighbors have firearms, they become activated as a militia to defend their town in a shtf scenario.
Do you think that all our militias in the past were doing drills on the weekend BEFORE the French invaded.
No.
They formed afterwards to defend the nation.
>>77282949
correct
>>77282798
Here is your (you) you fucking inbred mongrel. Get fucked by demons in whatever hellfire they reserve for intentional retards.
>>77283422
Explosives existed during the revolutionary period and specific ordinances existed to keep them stored away from populated areas. Those same ordinances are the foundation of modern laws regulating explosives, and massively destructive weapons. They didn't need to include those restrictions because common sense of the day was to keep the highly explosive materials away from the populated areas. Same rules (and new ones) still apply.
>>77283221
>if we took all the guns in the world and melted them down, and stopped manufacturing them
Well, we have the right to own guns. If someone physically took all weapons, melted them into scrap, and prevented the manufacture of more firearms, my right to own a gun is essentially taken away or invaded. If I want a gun or try to make one, it's my right.
If I had guns and someone forcefully took them and away from all citizens, I think that basically is infringing on rights
>Unicorns
Unicorns don't exist. They never have. Guns do exist. The 2nd exists.
>>77283221
>If I took your gun and everybody else's gun away, then forbid the production of new ones, how is that infringement
uhh, anon, rethink this.
>>77264692
A
FUCKING
LEAF
>>77264692
>Americans of /pol/. I love your 2nd amendment, but
Whatever else you have to say, I automatically know it's wrong. Your flag only confirms it.
Also, you're a fucking liar and a coward. "I love x, but" is just a faggoty way to say you don't like something and want it heavily changed.
Actually reading your shit, 10 U.S. Code § 311. Read it carefully. Then read the 14th Amendment. Then fuck off.
>ctrl+f
>10 U.S. Code § 311
>1 match
>>77267578
Thanks Ausbro, but the 14th Amendment guarantees all persons equal protection under the law. This means all US citizens are part of the unorganized militia, not just the men.
correct me if im wrong but it was my understanding that a militia can be defined as a group of people who serve the public and if we impose government control on the second amendmant the government could then regulate free trade by labeling businesses as groups that serve the public and BOOM socialism.
>>77284095
>Well, we have the right to own guns.
Whoa, back up right there, hoss. You don't have the right to own guns. You have the right to keep and bear arms. And of those arms, you only have the right to keep and bear the ones that exist.
>If someone physically took all weapons, melted them into scrap, and prevented the manufacture of more firearms, my right to own a gun is essentially taken away or invaded.
Your right isn't taken away at all. The object simply doesn't exist anymore. I have freedom of religion, but I can't practice a religion that doesn't exist, and the government doesn't recognize every belief system as a religion. I have the right to vote, but I can't just walk down to the polling place and cast a vote when there isn't an election.
>If I want a gun or try to make one, it's my right.
You right is to keep and bear arms, not to manufacture them. All I'm saying is that the second amendment is worded very poorly.
>If I had guns and someone forcefully took them and away from all citizens, I think that basically is infringing on rights
>>Unicorns
>Unicorns don't exist. They never have. Guns do exist. The 2nd exists.
And if they stopped existing, you'd still have the right to keep them and bear them. There just wouldn't be any.
The second amendment needs to be reworded, whether to ban guns, or clarify what is or isn't covered. If I can twist it this easily and point out the flaws, the supreme court could do the same, whether for good or bad.
>>77264692
Here you go OP:
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
>>77283221
You people seriously belong in mental institutions.
>>77285337
Well done/Thread
>>77285535
Thanks for your concern. At least you know I'm never going to flip out and shoot someone.
>>77285124
>If I can twist it this easily and point out the flaws
So, you're twisting it by outlining a completely hypothetical scenario that will never happen. Whoa, back up right there, hoss.
I can twist pretty much everything with an imagination, too
What if i had no tongue and couldn't talk? Is my first amendment infringed XD? What if words didn't exist anymore?????? WTF
>>77285735
Considering how often mass shooters turn out to be democrats, I'm not convinced.
Better to lock you up where you're no danger.
>>77264692
>Well regulated militia
A bunch or armed angry dumb hicks is hardly a well regulated militia
But gun nuts conveniently chose to ignore/forget this part.
>>77286357
>>>/reddit/
>>77285772
>So, you're twisting it by outlining a completely hypothetical scenario that will never happen. Whoa, back up right there, hoss.
Who said it would never happen? I mean, it is definitely impractical, and super unlikely, but that doesn't mean it just flat out can never happen.
Also, it doesn't have to happen. You could literally redefine "arms" and break the second amendment. Semantics is all it takes. That's what lawyers do.
>I can twist pretty much everything with an imagination, too
>What if i had no tongue and couldn't talk? Is my first amendment infringed XD? What if words didn't exist anymore?????? WTF
The first amendment is the freedom of speech, not the freedom to talk. There are plenty of mutes, and they have free speech. If words didn't exist anymore, you'd still have the freedom of speech, just like someone that uses sign language does.
>>77285124
>Your right isn't taken away at all. The object simply doesn't exist anymore.
What's gonna stop me from making one?
>You right is to keep and bear arms, not to manufacture them. All I'm saying is that the second amendment is worded very poorly.
It's not worded poorly, you're just a tard who likes to argue semantics.
>>77264692
Because the Amendment, according to the ones who ratified it, intended it for two purposes: self-defense and state militias as a way of defending against standing armies including the United States Army.
It is entirely a check on Tyranny. Good luck convincing anyone on the pro second side that there is no risk of Tyranny from our government in the current year.
>>77287303
>Also, it doesn't have to happen. You could literally redefine "arms" and break the second amendment. Semantics is all it takes. That's what lawyers do.
It wouldn't matter how clearly it was worded. Psychotic control freaks and nancies like you wouldn't heed it anyway. That's what we have the guns for :^)
>>77286731
>"Oh shit I don't have an argument so I'll just buzzword"
>>77287929
Also because I accidentally deleted a line; those State militias could just as easily become tyrannical as the U.S. government.
>>77287411
>It's not worded poorly, you're just a tard who likes to argue semantics.
That's literally how law works. Look at all the challenges to Obamacare.
>>77265781
You're going to relocate me to Montana with a bunch of like minded people?
Sounds wonderful desu.
>>77288004
>Psychotic control freaks
Says the gun advocate.
>>77288057
>"
>oh shit he didnt have an argument so ill just use a buzz word
ftfy
>>>/facebook/
