Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control? All I ever see is "guns aren't necessary" or "they're scary"
>>77597925
>is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Really, it comes down to ideological arguments such as "citizens ought to, and must, be weaker and subordinate to the state. Such is the nature of the relationship between citizen and state."
Other arguments could be "An armed revolution is only harmful in the wrong run, and one of the state's primary goals is to assure it's further existence."
Keep in mind, there's plenty of simple and stupid rhetoric on the side of pro-gun (although I am pro-gun), like "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
SHALL
>>77597925
Honestly if you look back before we started doing gun regulations gun homicides were inconsequential, it only boomed due to prohibition, war on drugs and after bouts of 'common sense' gun control. I don't even believe a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun, if you think they're too dangerous to have a gun why did you let them out of prison?
Need if for camping in North America, or you'll get butchered by a bear, mauled by a moose, hunted by a pack of wolves, or even eaten in your sleep by a pack of rabid beavers.
>>77597925
Without guns there is a bigger chance the gubberment can just role in with armed troops and take your house and family away
Today a piece of legislation was thrown aside that went up against the mass spying the NSA does.
American people cannot defend themselves on paper, they can't protest so guns are their only protection
>>77598450
addendum: gun violence has been on a downward trend the last 20 years despite gun laws becoming more lax overall with increases seemingly only occurring in areas with strict gun control.
>>77597925
>All I ever see is "guns aren't necessary" or "they're scary"
Fuck off, kid
>>77598632
INFRINGED
>>77598558
how do you check this
>>77598684
THE
The Founding Fathers knew that fully automatic weapons were a thing.
They wanted people to have them, along with cannons, both of the direct fire and shrapnel producing high explosive kind.
Thats why they didn't specifically mention them in the text of the Constitution, because those all fall under the moniker of "arms."
>>77598716
STATE
>>77597925
The one on the left should read 'as defined by 21st century marxists who hate America and have never used a gun in their life'
>>77597925
No, any restrictions is too much, I don't care about 50 people dying due to criminals.
>le political cartoon
enough of these shits, 99% of them are I AM SILLY strawmen and the last 1%, like this comic, are simply painting a caricature and saying "YOU SEE! THIS HYPERBOLIC IMAGE I MADE IS REALITY"
It's bad enough political cartoonists feel the need to label absolutely everything because they think everyone is an idiot except for them and their latte sipping friends, but their cartoons just aren't poignant or funny. Even looking at older political cartoons from 50 years ago or even 100 years ago it all seems to revolve around "big stupid doodyhead I don't like poops in his mouth and plays with his tiny pee pee"
That's it, that's the extent of depth in a political cartoon.
>>77598684
SPICS
>>77598407
NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77597925
Non. As long as gun exists gun control will be used to create disadvantage for those who won't be able to own them.
>>77598540
The government is not your enemy, the citizenry are, by definition, subservient to the state. Defending yourself on paper is the only lawful thing to do.
>>77597925
>is there any reasonable argument for gun control
Americans are retarded
>>77598821
>T. Gun Grabbers
>>77598716
LIBERALS!!!
>>77597925
>implying minuet men would not have used ar's if they were available
>>77598884
I support gun rights for other reasons than "lmao muh revolution :^)" and "lmao the plebes ought to have power :^)"
The law is the law, and you are a citizen of that law. If you rebel against that law, it's state, it's government, and it's nation, then you are no longer American and I have no sympathy for you.
>>77598821
>The government is not your enemy
You must be new here.
>>77597925
First amendment as defined by the founding fathers: printing press and local stump speeches.
First amendment as defined by the NRA: assault blogs and livestreaming with worldwide reach clips.
#Banthefirstamendment
>>77599214
Are you a citizen of the united states? If so, then it's not.
Fucking anarchists.
>>77597925
Guy on the right seems more operator though fampai
>>77597925
It is a losing argument, that is why liberals resort to
>You don't need that many guns
>Think of the children
>They are weapons of war
>Common sense regulation
etc. Literally every fact in the book is against gun regulation.
>>77598450
>I don't even believe a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun, if you think they're too dangerous to have a gun why did you let them out of prison?
That's something I never considered. Thanks for bringing it up!
>>77598713
Hover over the colored ID tag
>>77598874
>Britbong
>>77598713
Buy a 4chan gold pass
The only arguments for gun control are emotional.
There is nothing fact based to support it.
Also, do not reply to this thread because it is a shill thread because of the single posting id of OP
>>77599328
Your friend wouldn't try to disarm you.
And when was the last time a friend snooped through you email or forced you to do something you didn't want to do under penalty of prosecution?
That's some friend you got there.
>>77598594
Holy shit that's brutal
>>77598632
UNINFRINGED
>>77597925
If you had nothing on you except clothes would you be able to kill 50 people in a very short time?
>>77599595
I never said they were my friend, only that they aren't my enemy.
Do you honestly believe that the citizen and the state have an equal relationship? The former is subordinate to the latter, and that is how it has been, is, should be, and always will be.
A friend doesn't force me to do things, a superior does.
>>77598349
>it comes down to ideological arguments such as "citizens ought to, and must, be weaker and subordinate to the state
I've literally never seen a gun control advocate say this.
>>77598450
>it only boomed due to prohibition
holy shit, a post that isn't completely fucking retarded!
>>77598755
Some things are too ignorant to bother arguing with. You should probably ask your social studies teacher about it, assuming you're not being homeschooled, which I get the feeling you might be...
>>77598821
"subservient" isn't the right word, but the government does have a duty to keep people safe, which includes preventing rebellions and such.
I mean, I haven't heard anyone arguing for the right to own nuclear weapons.
>>77597925
The only one I've seen was put forth in the dissent to DC v. Heller, which most gun grabbers have not read. It says not that there is no individual right to bear arms, but that the government is allowed to regulate it ("A well REGULATED militia...)
What do you make of this?
>>77599670
>would you be able to kill 50 people in a very short time?
Challenge accepted, aquafresh. Let me just get in my car and drive in a crowded area brb
>>77599182
>I support gun rights for other reasons than "lmao muh revolution :^)" and "lmao the plebes ought to have power :^)"
Then you don't support them even by lefty standards (George Orwell, socialist, believed in gun rights).
> If you rebel against that law, it's state, it's government, and it's nation, then you are no longer American and I have no sympathy for you.
What if the law is unconstitutional? The 2nd Amendment is the final check-and-balance.
>>77597925
The only reason for gun control is liberal cowardice. If they want to fix the problems in america make the punishments for murderers worse and the punishments fort violent offences worse. Start executing the shit stains who are ruining the nation and force people who are unemployed to do actual work for their benefits. As it stands the problem america has is a crime problem not a gun problem. Criminals should be punished without mercy and as swiftly as possible. There should only be three punishments, hard labor, corporal punishment, and death.
>>77599858
that the definition of mass shooting was changed recently to fit the liberal agenda?
>>77597925
no
fuck the kikes, they just want a monopoly on force
they help us though. everytime they push more awaken
>>77598734
>The Founding Fathers knew that fully automatic weapons were a thing.
>>77599777
get out of the US you eternal cuckold.
>>77597925
Look at the shooters names..
Build the wall, increase the Coast Guard and deport all the (non-white) Hispanics & African-Americans... and your "mass shootings drop 70% at least.
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
Not really.
Gun control is a purely feel good set of laws which are done to appease the useful idiots that want to live in "theme park" societies where everything that is dangerous is either strictly regulated or banned.
A good example of how stupid gun control is, can be seen with the UK.
The UK is touted as being the poster child for gun control, but the typical useful idiot tends to forget that the UK is a violent country with our without guns. It currently has a homicide rate of around 1.0 per 100k people which is way higher than most Western European countries that actually have higher gun ownership and laxer gun laws.
It's not about the set of laws, it's about the society and I sure as fuck would prefer to have the right to have guns than to live in a violent society without being able to defend myself.
>Increase background checks
>Require (actual) safety and training tests regularly
>Make it harder to get a gun
>Encourage everybody who is able to get a gun to be armed at all times
>Offer training in counter-terrorist shooting to concealed carry owners
>Fewer people to go on rampages, and more people to shoot them in their fucking face if they do
>>77598558
im gone for 4 days and miss a new meme.
great.
I might as well be years behind now.
>>77600137
hnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng
>>77600179
it's stupid anyway like most memes on /pol/, don't worry
>>77600179
>1 post by this ID
>>77600107
I know what time travel is, but we can't time travel currently.
>>77600323
I'm not sure what you're implying.
>>77597925
> Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Only on distant islands.
>>77599804
>subservient
Subordinate might be a better one, but the meaning is the same. The state is the superior, and the citizen is the inferior.
>>77599903
Who says I'm a lefty?
>What if the law is unconstitutional?
Then that falls under the purview of SCOTUS.
>The 2nd Amendment is the final check-and-balance.
When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility. "The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric, a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.
>>77600116
>wahhh someone who actually understands and accepts the nature of how civilized nations operate doesn't buy into my "le """freedom""" rhetoric"
If I'm a cuck, then you're an anarchist.
>>77597925
No. It's basically all mentally ill liberals screeching about things they don't even understand.
>>77597925
>Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Maybe suicides. People that really want to kill themselves will do it anyway, but there are impulsive suicides and without a gun they'll likely fail. Of course, that assumes having those people around is desirable to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
>>77597925
The only real argument you need against gun control is 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. If they say anything else about them, continue to shut them down by saying that as many times as you need, because that's all you need.
If you prefer to fuck around with cucked liberals arguing about this shit, ask them how the war on drugs and the war on terror is going.
>reasonable arguments FOR gun control
In a perfect world, you wouldn't need guns. That's the only argument for gun control. Since we don't live in a perfect world, well, that should tell you everything you need to know.
If someone wants to know the path toward a perfect world, start by mentioning the abolition/minimizing theism.
>>77600530
Nothing wrong with removing yourself from the gene pool.
>>77597925
As a canuck, I think a reasonable argument for gun control is that you ensure that gun owners are educated and know what they're doing. I think Canada has some really dumb gun laws, but one of the things I absolutely agree with is the mandatory firearms course. It takes ONE day and it ensures that you're at least basically knowledgeable about gun safety.
I think the US needs that. The act of having to sign up for a course a month ahead of time and spend a full day doing it is enough to deter most retards/dindus/psychopaths
>>77597925
I see no difference between the two except the progression of time
>>77600406
Well you paki retard. I'm saying we know certain things exist, we just don't know how they work or what it will look like.
Try using your fucking brain for once
>>77598594
holy fuck, that's why black people do't go camping? No in all seriousness thats sad, I thought the "bear" issue in the lower 48 was overhyped though man shit, I assumed only browns were really dangerous and blacks scare easily/spray would be good. Maybe he got near cubs? Anyway note to self, buy a .357 b4 camping
>>77600418
Someone should paradrop a load of Sten submachine guns into the Abbo reserves of Australia.
Then we'll see how fast the Australian population demands self defense firearms.
>>77600570
>because that's all you need
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is on the same tier as "NOT AN ARGUMENT"
It's an empty, idiotic rhetorical slogan that has no relation to the issues of gun control, for or against.
>>77600170
>let the government know who has guns so they know who to go to first should tyranny happen
Great idea, no way that could ever go wrong.
>make archaic safety tests that are either too stupid to have someone fail or too expensive for most people to do
Owning a gun is not like driving a car. You have no right to drive a car, but you do have the right arm yourself. Technically you shouldn't need any particular license to buy a firearm, just an ID to prove that you're over the age of 18.
>make it harder to get a gun
Yeah, legally, so that the illegal gun market flourishes?
>Encourage everybody who is able to get a gun to be armed at all times
Everybody smart or rich enough is armed already. Government restrictions and regulations only make firearms more expensive and time-consuming, meaning poor people can't access them as easily as the rich. It's a class war, not a race war.
>offer training to concealed carry
Why not just NOT have concealed carry permits at all, and let people carry their gun however they want? Why do I need some piece of paper to put MY firearm INSIDE my jacket?
>offer counter-terrorist classes
I'm pretty sure they already do.
>fewer people go on rampages
Rampages are already rare as it is, fampai.
>more people to shoot them
These rampages happen in "gun-free zones."
You have some nice-ish ideas if you're just beginning to think about guns, but you need some work to refine them.
>>77600665
>I'm saying we know certain things exist, we just don't know how they work or what it will look like.
ok and how is that relevant to me posting that image?
It would be easier to "use my fucking brain for once" if you made a coherent point, or is the mozlem semen soaking into your brain, Hans?
>>77600406
haha IMPLYLO REN
>IMPLYLO REN
>>77600530
Good argument but wouldn't it be easy to derail the debate into banning trains and bridges since they're also used for suicide? Suicidal people will always find a way.
>>77598349
>implying the phrase shall not be infringed is dumb
>>77600137
But those diabetes calves. Ew no. There's thick and then there's fat. She's fat.
>>77600657
Especially since so many DO NOT HAVE knowledgeable parents to show them the "ways of a firearm" at a young age.
Unfortunately for most, all the new firearm owners got their lessons from CoD on how guns work.
I swear to every deity out there, if I become a Premier of my Province, that shit is being added to the school curriculum under the guise of Social Sciences.
>>77600870
It can be turned around by saying that trains and bridges are absolutely vital parts of our infrastructure.
Likewise, you can turn it around by saying that you need guns to hunt (and self defense)
Likewise, they can turn it around by saying that hunting is pretty much only a leisure activity, and that no one "needs" to hunt for food or for sport.
>>77600107
>>77599858
In Stalin's time, whenever a new decree was passed, the newspapers were flooded with news people being arrested for breaking said law. When another decree was passed, these earlier "crimes" would suddenly stop being reported on in the news and people would apparently start breaking the latest decree en masse. There are interesting parallels in today's time with rape culture and mass shootings.
>t. Solzhenitsyn, A.I. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago (first edition, published by Harper & Row). p87
>>77599182
>The law is the law,
And orders are orders. So climb into this cattle car, there are showers waiting for you at the end of the trip.
>>77597925
>Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Yeah. They're potentially dangerous, and should be kept out of the hands of children, felons and the mentally ill. At the very least without proper supervision. That said, you don't need to go full-Britain in terms of what people can own, and you don't need to go full-Euro in terms of what people can use them for. Protecting your own or other's property or security should be an accepted reason for law abiding, sane citizens to own firearms.
>>77600870
I'm not really sure what the statistics are on people that attempt suicide. I would guess most would just try it again later and eventually succeed anyway. In Asian countries that have no guns, people kill themselves at ridiculously have rates just fine.
I suppose guns disappearing would lower suicides for a while since more suicide attempts would initially fail, but it'd probably go back to equilibrium later.
>>77601044
And again it can be turned around again since hunters are needed to keep down the population of certain animals that no longer have predators in the wild because of human intervention in the first place.
>>77601046
Benjamin Franklin personally supplied a Girandoni to Lewis and Clarke
>>77601019
Thick++
I don't consider them "fat" unless the waist exceeds the breasts/hips.
>>77601203
ridiculously high rates*
>>77600427
>When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility. "The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric, a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.
AHEM:
>"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003
>>77597925
If i had to play devils advocate, "blah blah blah keep them out of the hands of gangsters and domestic abusers" about half the homicides are comitted by blacks, although they make up aroung 15% of the population. studies show 80% of victims knew their offender, so its not likely a random stranger will murder you for your wallet. Usually it's blacks ghetto shit, stupid white feuds, and domestic murder, which can usually be avoided if you aren't a complete idiot. but yeah maybe do something again about strawman purchases/crack down on domestic people (with evidence please)
>>77600427
>Who says I'm a lefty?
I'm not calling you a lefty, I'm saying that leftists even had better views on firearm ownership and its purpose than you.
>Then that falls under the purview of SCOTUS.
And if the SCOTUS is disbanded, removed, or deliberately acts against the interests of the American people?
>
When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility.
Yes, and this revolution has occurred because the state has already stepped outside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
>"The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric
"It hasn't happened yet, ergo it never will" is not an argument.
>a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.
I don't want the revolution to happen either, the difference is that I am willing to fight it should the state become tyrannical.
Hardly anyone wants to die, pal. The difference is dying for your beliefs in freedom, and dying under the reign of a tyrannical state.
>If I'm a cuck, then you're an anarchist.
You don't, though. You only understand how Europeans see Daddy Government. The government does not exist to control the people, it exists to protect the rights of the people. The government is either EQUAL to the people, or LESSER than the people.
If you can't understand that premise, that the government exists to SERVE your needs (and not welfare needs, but the need to protect your rights from OTHER nations and criminals) then you should move out and live in the UK or something.
I'm mostly libertarian, so the anarchist name-calling isn't as effective as you probably thought.
>>77600712
i dont understand how you can make your argument
>when you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside the law and civility
then go back and say that a major clause in a very brief law of america's founding document and supreme law is insignificant
>>77600998
It really is; it's a dumb catch-phrase like "NOT AN ARGUMENT".
It has no bearing on the goods and bads of an issue, and is effectively saying "because this is written down, it's absolute and can never be changed"
It's the same as saying that because the first amendment exists, censorship is bad. While censorship IS bad, it's not because of the 1st amendment.
Likewise, gun control is most of its forms is bad, but NOT because the 2nd ammendment exists.
>>77601170
A state can be considered an enemy when it is actively, willfully, and directly harming the quality of life for its citizens.
>>77601205
That can also be turned around by saying that should only be done by state-employed parks-workers, conservationists, and the like.
>>77601211
And?
>>77600138
>A good example of how stupid gun control is, can be seen with the UK.
Don't forget their Minister of Parliament that got shot on the street just the other day.... with a handgun (lol).
>>77601381
So the founding fathers were aware of the possibility of firearms with a higher fire rate than muskets.
>>77601361
>and is effectively saying "because this is written down, it's absolute and can never be changed"
Isn't that basically the intention of the US constitution and the Bill of Rights though?
>Likewise, gun control is most of its forms is bad, but NOT because the 2nd ammendment exists.
No, the 2nd amendmend exists BECAUSE gun control (or at least total gun control) is a bad thing. That's why it was drafted... Also, the 2nd Amendmend is one of the FEW ones that ACTUALLY has it's fucking reason for existing right in the text: 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state' is LITERALLY the reason why 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'
>>77600323
>>77600665
>30-round rifle from 1646
>Over a hundred years older than the USA itself.
"we just don't know how they work or what it will look like"
>:^(
>>77598713
How new are you?
>>77600247
Made your pic more australian
>>77601481
I see what you mean now, yes. You could have made it slightly more explicit though.. I didn't immediately realised you meant to say that air guns fire faster than muzzleloaders.
>>77601626
Sorry you autist. I don't know what every gun looks like in the history of mankind.
>>77599777
Our government is specifically set up so that this is NOT the case.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
The founding fathers knew that government should fill the role as an organizer and protector subservient to the people, not as a master, and they drafted the Constitution to reflect that.
>>77601613
It's possible to amend it, but getting the necessary support would impossible (2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of states).
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77600657
There's a mandatory course?
I never did one. Then again I've been shooting since I was 3.
>>77601689
It was more just trivia for the guy I was replying to.
>>77601643
ta cunt
>>77600427
Which is most likely how the founding fathers of this country felt, being rational human beings.
You speak as though people wish to be violent without provocation and reason. The revolution that ultimately yielded the US was fueled by the citizens being subjugated by a government which did not represent them.
The second amendment is the fourth "check" in the system of checks and balances in the setup of the US government.
> the supreme court can counter legislation enacted by congress as violating the constitution (also executive orders, maybe?)
> the congress and senate can enact legislation, levy taxes and approve the budget they also hold the ability to impeach the president, they are the body that can formally declare war
> the president can veto legislation grant pardons and appoints people that congress approve of, commander in chief of the US armed forces, can start a war without congressional approval but not declare war
> and if they all start being dicks about it at the same time and start acting against the interests of the people, the citizens have the right to take action even if the "law" enacted by the the offending government forbids them from doing so
>>77601211
Proves they were aware of the possibility that firearms can be made that fire multiple rounds at speed. As a matter of fact any one involved that had military service would have known that.
>>77597925
I laugh a hearty laugh when I hear any American argue against guns. The only reason they have the freedoms to do what they like is because:
1. We fought the BritBongs with guns 240 years ago
2. We still own guns
Guns are for hunting, self defense, and shooting at the Government. Disregard anybody who advocates for "Common Sense gun control that doesn't hurt hunters and target shooters". They're purposely leaving out a very critical aspect of why we own guns.
>>77601296
In that example, it can be said that the government (being the public officials) have rebelled of their own voilition against the state which they represent, and have ignored its supreme law.
>>77601321
>"better"
>And if the SCOTUS is disbanded, removed, or deliberately acts against the interests of the American people?
Depends on if the constitution was amended for such a thing to happen or not.
>Yes, and this ... Bill of Rights.
Not necessarily; only a few public officials have, the government, while the state by itself can be nothing more or less than the constitution.
>The difference ... of a tyrannical state.
Who decides what is tyranny or not? I live my life for the sake of law and order, and would only consider a revolution against the government and state if they proved ineffective.
>everything else
No matter what you say, the state is GREATER than the people. That is the very nature of authority and just coercion. How the government is influenced by the people differs from nation to nation, but the state is always superior to the citizenry.
>does not exist to control the people
By definition, it does; the people are not sovereign under the state.
>it exists to protect the rights of the people.
It exists to protect whatever rights it grants to the people, and whatever rights the people wish to be granted. Natural rights are nothing more than a fairytale.
>SERVE your needs
The citizenry are a resource, of course it's a major function of the state to prevent intrusion upon its territory and to maintain rule of law.
>>77601339
It's not insignificant, and I never said it was, only that the way it's used in political debate is rhetorical.
>>77601613
>Isn't that ... though?
Absolutely not; every part of the constitution is open to amendment.
>No, the ... infringed'
That's literally what I just said; saying that gun control is bad because of the second amendment misses the entire point of the second amendment.
>>77600427
You're just an ignorant boot-licker. The government isn't our government anymore, its not American. It doesn't care about due process or any of our rights, its a globalist imperial system, it is not American. How many foreign governments and institutions have donated to our politicians? The government won't even admit that our allies attacked us on 9/11, because they're just in league with them and aren't American.
>>77597925
You know; I hear a lot about leftists saying that the second amendment was written in regards to thinks like muskets.
Now, I wonder what would happen if a shooting happened with a musket. Seriously, those fuckers can do enormous amounts of damage. What would the left say then? Are they going to start screaming for musket bans?
God, just imagine. So much double think.
>>77602325
>>77602156
Also It feels really good to walk in to a shop, have my ID checked for Age, and walk out with ammunition.
Freedom isn't free, it costs about $0.20 a round.
>>77597925
Trump is a gun grabber.....so now I'm a gun grabber! Simple as that! FUCK THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
MAGA!
Gatling guns and cannons were owned by private individuals and banks during the 1800's there was no issue then.
>>77597925
This image really confuses me.
What does it matter how many guns the NRA guy has? He can only shoot one at a time no matter how many he's carrying, and the 2nd amendment makes no mention of how much ammo people should have.
Are they implying that collecting is bad somehow?
>>77597925
What our intrepid cartoonist fails to grasp is that the musket on the left was the time's apex of firearms technology.
The British were just as terrified of it as our modern elites are of the AR15, because of the way in which it was used.
Both represent an armed populace.
>>77597925
Well I live in one of the most dismantled countries in the world and I don't think its a issue. Only the police is allowed to wield a gun and I trust them, had no issues. Its pretty neat that I can go out night, and not worry that a party will end up in a shooting.
>>77601755
>Thomas Paine
kek; why are you so eager to accept the rhetorical word of some man? Is it because it sounds good?
Government it not an evil, and is a good in nearly every form; it is an intrinsic part of civilization.
>The founding fathers
Were divided on the matter and their positions; they were not a monolithic entity.
Likewise, regardless of how the government acts, it's authority is always superior to that of the citizenry. If it were subservient to the people, law could not be enforced.
>>77602072
Who says the interests of the people are necessarily good people? If suddenly 70% of the people in the US turned communist overnight, would them leading an armed revolution (since the government isn't acting in their interests) be good or right?
The plebes are fickle and volatile, and I don't trust them.
>>77602325
On the contrary, the government, state, nation, and citizenry are the most American you can be.
>You're just an ignorant boot-licker
If me calling libertarians "anarchists" doesn't offend them, do you think calling me, a statist, a "boot-licker" is going to offend me?
>globalist imperial system
Are you saying there's something wrong with imperialism?
>it is not American
What is "American", then? What you say? What people who agree with you say? What the founding fathers say, despite being long dead?
I think No True Scotsman should be renamed to No True American.
>>77600427
>Subordinate might be a better one, but the meaning is the same. The state is the superior, and the citizen is the inferior.
But that's wrong. The government exists to serve the People by our consent. We are the State.
>>77600674
Wont work, because it`s not guns, that make violence - it`s people. Build bridge to australia and it will go full sweden in a decade.
This is why japs refuse building bridge to Russia - they will be overtaken by illegal chaiks in a decade.
>>77602847
>Wont work, because it`s not guns, that make violence
Our abos are violent mate, if they had guns they'd be nigger tier.
More gun control = less gun stock in market = harder to illegally acquire a gun
This factor really isn't very hard to grasp, and has nothing to do with left vs right. You could argue this increased incidence is worth it in the name of individual liberty etc., and that may certainly be true, but this effect exists regardless of fallacious examples like switzerland where you have a gun from mandatory service but aren't allowed to take the bullets home
>>77602840
But that's wrong. The state exists outside of both the people and the government; the former being the citizenry subject to its authority, and the latter being those public officials who utilize its authority for the good of the nation. The state is entirely self-sustaining.
>>77602954
>harder to illegally acquire a gun
>>77597925
No. There is no logical reasoning at all for gun control. It's already show that the more armed areas are safer since you're less likely to do something when there is people that can shoot you all over. And we are at the point that we can't just ban them, there is so many in circulation that a huge black market will be created and only criminals will be armed.
>Europe adopted strict gun control and shootings went down
Yeah, and stabbings went up. Instead of mass shootings, you have people running in with swords. Studies show that while the strict gun control lowered gun related deaths, crime rate stayed about the same.
>America has the highest amount of gun deaths in the west
What the kike media doesn't tell you is that 60 percent of those deaths are suicides. And most of the remaining 40 percent is thug gang bangers killing each other. The more prevalent problem here is our nigger problem.
Also, that is not how the founding fathers defined the 2nd ammendment. They envisioned the citizens being just as strong as the government, because that is the ultimate symbol of freedom. If they came back today, they would he disgusted with how much more powerful the government has become and probably try to overthrow it.
>>77602838
>If me calling libertarians "anarchists" doesn't offend them, do you think calling me, a statist, a "boot-licker" is going to offend me?
No, I don't think it will offend you, I'm just calling you what you are as a useful descriptor.
>Are you saying there's something wrong with imperialism?
No, I said the government is a globalist imperialist system and no longer represents Americans. The government owes more to foreign governments than it does to the people. They're attempting to institute a world state, that is incredibly Anti-American.
>What is "American", then? What you say? What people who agree with you say? What the founding fathers say, despite being long dead?
Respect for the founding ideals of the country, duty to fellow citizens, duty to the constitution, and not subservience to anyone, especially not foreign governments and world organizations. You're attempting to dismantle identity with sophism and statism. Doesn't work. Our ideals are too strong, Americans won't submit.
>>77602192
>Depends on if the constitution was amended for such a thing to happen or not.
If the Constitution was amended to get rid of an entire branch of government, I'm pretty sure there would be some objections.
>Not necessarily; only a few public officials have, the government, while the state by itself can be nothing more or less than the constitution.
Then the government is fractured, and people will fight for whichever side they believe in (like the Civil War, perhaps).
>Who decides what is tyranny or not?
It's simple, actually. If your natural rights (outlined in the Bill of Rights) have been removed or restricted (infringed) then you are living under a tyrannical state.
>No matter what you say, the state is GREATER than the people.
That's why I advocate for lesser government, because people like you just need a boot to lick in order to feel safe. The American state and people are not unequal because the American people have the 2nd Amendment and can vote in a republic.
Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, or fail to represent the people's votes, and you have yourself an unequal and tyrannical government.
>By definition, it does; the people are not sovereign under the state.
Under what definition? And this is under the assumption that the people don't overthrow the state.
>It exists to protect whatever rights it grants to the people
Ubercuck mode activated! The state does not grant rights, the people have these rights by virtue of being alive.
>Natural rights are nothing more than a fairytale.
Where'd you learn that, at your wife's boyfriend's house?
>The citizenry are a resource
Yup, a resource with natural rights that shall not be infringed by a valid US government.
>>77602954
>More gun control = less gun stock in market = harder to illegally acquire a gun
There are already over 310 million firearms in private hands, stopping the introduction of new firearms right now is unlikely to significantly decrease the ability for criminals to illegally acquire a gun.
I will argue that limiting the ability for a regular person to buy a firearm will decrease the statistic of Defensive Gun use, which as a low estimate occurs 60,000 times a year and a high estimate over 1 million times a year.
What a laughable nation America is.
A man who has been investigated by the FBI could walk into a walmart and buy a military style assault weapon and ammunition. Hopefully Hillary can fix some of the laws that allow these senseless attacks to happen. Drumpf certainly won't, in fact he is politicizing this event by blaming Islam to fan the flames of xenophobia which has kept his pathetic campaign afloat.
The blood is on the hands of homophobic, racist, sexist, right wing christian bigots who have spewed hateful rhetoric for years, real Americans know this and they will make the right choice in November.
>>77602954
>libtards believe this shit
And if we print more money we'll all be richer, right?
>>77597925
AND IT ALL COMES TUMBLING DOWN, TUMBLING DOWN, TUMBLING DOWN.
Don't stand on ammo crates next time, you retard.
As if the fathers wouldn't have leapt to use something like modern rifles in their struggles against the British
>>77603426
What is due process, faggot.
>>77602838
>Government it not an evil, and is a good in nearly every form; it is an intrinsic part of civilization.
>>77603426
>trying THIS hard to get replies
>>77603426
go away, circus flag
>>77597925
Not if you have the founding fathers understanding of what government is here for, no.
There are tons of 'reasonable' arguments in the mind of the totalitarians, however.
Please guys, why did you reply to this thread.
The 2nd amendment, as defined by the founding fathers, is an evolving amendment that takes into account the arms of the modern day. Making sure the civilian is always able to update his weaponry and defenses to account for an evolving threat.
Lib cucks however would have it so you can only have a fucking musket. As if that would defend you against someone that barges into your home with an ak 47 hoping to enrich your wife on the peaceful religion of Islam.
>>77603341
>They're attempting to institute a world state, that is incredibly Anti-American.
I, personally, am in favor of the one-world-American-Empire; the existence of multiple nation-states, and thus an anarchistic international stage, is the greatest threat to global order and law.
>everything else
"what I say", then.
>>77603369
>f the Constitution was amended to get rid of an entire branch of government, I'm pretty sure there would be some objections.
Yes, but it's also perfectly legal and constitutional.
>natural rights
no
>lesser government
It doesn't matter how little government you have; unless you entirely abolish the government, the state is superior to the people.
>under what definition
The definition of what the word "sovereign" itself means. The American citizenry is subject to American laws. They are subordinate to the American state.
>oh no, someone disagrees with my 18th century philosophy, better call him a cuck
You can have your natural rights when God himself sends down a choir of angels to protect them.
>natural rights
There's that phrase again.
>>77603590
ebin, are you half-illiterate or what?
Gun control does not affect crime rate, positively or negatively.
Therefore, there is no reason for guns to be illegal.
It's that simple.
>>77598594
It looked way more fun in The Reverent.
>>77601748
So you just shitpost without any knowledge or facts? It's mentioned in almost every gun thread.
Images like that make me want to tar and feather whoever drew it.
>>77603844
The constitution doesn't grant rights you idiot, it protects natural rights.
In nature, as animals, we have always had the right to say what the fuck we want, do what the fuck we want, and use what the fuck we want.
The constitution is a contract between the government and people saying "we will not take away the following natural rights"
>>77603129
You didn't refute my point that our republic was established to serve the People by Our consent. The fact that the government not only exists to serve Us but also by Our consent shows that we are not subservient to the government but the exact opposite--the government is subservient to the People.
>The state exists outside of both the people and the government.
Not in our Republic. Since the State exists to serve the People by consent it follows that the State is the people. Public officials can only acquire and use their authority by the will and consent of the People. These taken together show that the state is not self-sustaining but exists on our consent.
>>77599777
I know they probably only teach bullshit in school these days but go look up a schoolbook from earlier times and you'll find that the relationship was actually supposed to be the reverse - the federal government is lawfully subordinate to the states that created it, and they in turn subordinate to their people.
From the very beginning, of course, the war party has been working tirelessly to overturn that relationship. Which is why you are taught so many lies in school now. The war party created the "public" school system, that was no mistake ;)
>>77602838
> "Who says the interests of the people are necessarily good people? If suddenly 70% of the people in the US turned communist overnight, would them leading an armed revolution (since the government isn't acting in their interests) be good or right?
The plebes are fickle and volatile, and I don't trust them."
You want to live under an authoritarian regime then. You use a lovely deus ex machina there with that "whatif" scenario so I'll counter with a caveat that "whatif": all the communist kids were right and we finally found TRUE communism and it worked? That's the great part about democracy, (should we be able to salvage our political system that is) the people can work together to try something out. If they are mature enough, they can even come together afterwards and say "that was a terrible idea and we aren't doing it anymore."
And if one of the things the American people "try out" ends up trying to become authoritarian (which you argue on the side of with statements like "Who says the interests of the people are necessarily good [for] the people.") the people have the right and the ability to fight for their interests against those who "have their best interests in mind." Even if they are wrong.
This country is founded upon man's ability to be defiant, not subservient. That is freedom.
>>77602954
>but aren't allowed to take the bullets home
Are you literally retarded or just trying to manipulate the facts to fit your agenda?
The only thing that has changed is that the Swiss army
e does not GIVE you ammo FOR FREE since 2010, because they felt it was wasteful. Swiss citizens can still buy as much ammo as they want with their own money as long as they are 18.
>>77600657
How does educating gun owners reduce black murders? How does educating gun owners stop one guy from killing a lot of people? You only need to educate people if the majority of deaths by guns are accidental which they aren't.
>>77597925
So the second amendment as defined by the founding fathers is "indistinguishable from the modern soldier." Thanks for making our point for us.
>>77604317
Well, I would say it's good to make sure people know the absolute basics.
Because then it does prevent the retards from killing themselves or others accidentally (such as people not knowing about chambering a round), while also making sure some imbecile that could prevent a mass shooting knows how to take off the fucking safety.
>>77604073
>natural rights
Don't exist; you're confusing natural ability with rights.
>>77604113
You aren't understanding what I'm trying to say here; the state being superior to the citizenry is absolutely necessary for any form of law to be just whatsoever.
>>77604131
If that is true, then the United States was founded on a lie and on false prepositions; I feel no qualms in rectifying that mistake.
>the war party
There is nothing wrong with war.
>>77604161
>you use a lovely deus ex machina
So did you, what with the "every part of the government simultaneously going against the people"
If anything, your example shows that freedom is nothing more than a sham, something to let the unwashed masses defy their betters and to ruin their nation.
If that makes me authoritarian, then I do not deny it. Sometimes other people really do have your best interests at heart, and you're just too stupid or blinded by ideology to see.
>>77600767
This was pretty well thought out. Thanks for adding to the overall discussion.
>>77603844
>Yes, but it's also perfectly legal and constitutional.
Okay, and there's still an infinite amount of ways for our government to be unconstitutional.
>no
notanargument.jpeg
>
It doesn't matter how little government you have; unless you entirely abolish the government, the state is superior to the people.
Prove it, shill?
>The American citizenry is subject to American laws. They are subordinate to the American state.
No, they are no subordinate until they are entirely subject to each whim of the state.
You can vote, you can own weapons, therefore you have leverage.
Following the speed limit and licking a boot are different things.
>
>oh no, someone disagrees with my 18th century philosophy, better call him a cuck
>is totally okay with being inferior to a group of people he's never met
>objects to being called a cuck on an anonymous internet forum
It is not my fault your political views place you as inferior.
>You can have your natural rights when God himself sends down a choir of angels to protect them.
Are we going to make this a religious argument? There's plenty of instances in the bible where Jesus advocates for self-defense.
Besides, who needs a choir of angels to protect my natural rights when I have firearms.
>There's that phrase again.
It's still true, no matter how hard you hate it! :^)
I'd like to remind you that you're totally free to NOT have your natural rights at all, it's just that I'm totally free to continue to have them.
>>77603844
>I, personally, am in favor of the one-world-American-Empire; the existence of multiple nation-states, and thus an anarchistic international stage, is the greatest threat to global order and law.
Why not come out and say that from the beginning instead of using communistic sophism to try to claim to be American? The world American in your sentence makes no sense. You're a traitor. You realize what you're advocating would be the end of Humanity?
Anyway, everyone knows you won't be able to do that since you wont be able to take our guns away. You couldn't control fucking Afghanistan, no way you'll ever be able to win against an armed citizenry.
>>77604660
>Don't exist; you're confusing natural ability with rights.
It's the same shit, those were interchangeable in the 1700s.
>>77604744
>end of humanity
The way I see it, the continued existence of nation-states is what is holding humanity back.
>>77604767
the those people in the 1700's were stupid fucks
>>77599777
People existed before government, so the government must have arisen out of the people or over the people. People created the government and should be the master. Any civilized society has a government answerable to the people alone.
Nice digits tho
>>77605051
>the those people in the 1700's were stupid fucks
Doesn't fucking matter, the way they worded the document was to protect those inherent rights. Everything in the constitution is assumed to be an inherent right someone holds as a person, and the constitution guarantees their protection.
>>77605055
>People existed before government
The natural state is not a preferable state, and in order for law to have authority over people, the people must be subordinate to it.
t. Hobbes
>>77605130
No one has inherent rights, only those natural abilities which we have decided to be rights. They are subjective.
>>77603790
OP here
I'm against gun control, but I was curious if the left had anything else other than "muh feelings"
>>77604660
>he state being superior to the citizenry is absolutely necessary for any form of law to be just whatsoever
How are they just if the laws aren't established by the consent of the citizenry to serve the citizenry? The fact that these laws must be established with the preceding two conditions shows that the state is subservient to its citizens.
>>77604660
How is freedom a sham if you can use the one common means of achieving power that confers legitimacy? The capacity for violence is the power upon which all other power is founded. Show me a state that does not have a monopoly on violence within it's borders and I will show you a failed state. Why don't gang's overtake the police? Because the police are more capable of violence than they are.
America, due to the probability of schisms within the military, is the only developed nation I can think of where the people have the ability to rise up against their government should it become tyrannical. That is the sacred right upon which all others are founded.
Why doesn't the UN matter? Because it does not have a great enough capacity for violence. Without the use of force you cannot attain legitimacy.
>>77605273
It is necesary for the citizenry to accept the laws initially, but that still does not change the fact that they are subordinate to the laws, and that the state is free to punish anyone who revokes their citizenship yet remains on the state's land.
>>77605335
I totally agree, might makes right. I don't believe the people should be mighty, because the people are stupid and shallow.
>>77605253
Regardless, the continental congress in the late 1700s decided that they were natural inherent rights that we are all born with, given to us by God or otherwise, and that they should be protected in case of corruption in the government.
They were never meant to be taken away, hence "shall not be infringed"
>>77604660
>There is nothing wrong with war.
Spoken like someone who's never been called to fight one.
>>77605445
And the American people and government have the ability to amend and redefine the constitution.
Your point?
>>77605422
Ok, as long as you acknowledge you want to live under an authoritarian regime that is fine.
I believe that is an un-American sentiment though.
>>77602419
Hilariously, a black powder Musket isn't considered a firearm (completely unregulated).. YET a pellet air rifle is, in Canada.
>>77605792
What is American is dependent on what Americans are.
>>77597925
Dindus dont have the mental capacity to be responsible with firearms. Murder statistics prive this to be true; therefore, all dindus should be banned from owning firearms.
Refute this.
>>77605422
>It is necesary for the citizenry to accept the laws initially, but that still does not change the fact that they are subordinate to the laws
They are subordinate to the laws because they established them--not the State.
>hat the state is free to punish anyone who revokes their citizenship yet remains on the state's land
This is a non-sequitur. How does this show that the state is superior to the citizen? The state is vested by the People with the power to enforce laws, but this relation just goes to reinforce the relationship that the citizen is superior to the state since the citizen is granting that power to the state by consent.
>>77605530
Yes, if 38 out of 50 states agree
Which will never happen to a single one of our original bill of rights, because there will always be at least 15 or so states that aren't completely cucked.
It's made so incredibly hard to alter the constitution because it's not supposed to be altered.
>>77597925
You can't ban guns because it's ingrained in the American culture. Here it works fine because we don't give a shit about guns. The thing they should do is create some limitations, psych evals before purchase etc. Make guns harder to obtain, but don't ban them.
>>77598821
Wrong way around son.
The state is by its purpose subservient to the citizenry it is built to represent.
Saying that the citizen exists for the purpose of the state is like saying that drivers exist to drive and fuel their cars.
>>77605952
And the state's authority is what makes those laws just.
>>77605988
>not supposed to
According to who?
>>77606103
But that's correct, Drivers exist solely to drive and fuel their cars. Once you stop driving and fueling your car, the driver ceases to exist (although not the person)
Here in México we have gun control and just look at how deep we're into the shithole
Guns don't kill people, shit people kill no matter what
>>77605999
>Someone says they believe they have the right to shoot someone invading their property
>NOPE, mentally unstable, wants to kill people that come to his house, no gun for you
This is the problem with psych evaluations. There will be occasions where perfectly sane people have their rights taken away.
>>77606270
>According to who?
The continental congress
>shall not be infringed
>>77606389
>The continental congress
Is long dead and buried.
Should we still act according to Nixon's or Taft's wishes since they too were once in power?
>>77606496
Nixon and Taft didn't literally create this country.
>They're dead though
Not an argument.
What would be wrong with
>1) gubernment publishing actions that would lead to an individual getting on the No-Fly List or terrorist watch list
>2) preventing anybody on those watch lists from purchasing a firearm legally
I know there's a high likelihood that somebody like Omar could illegally still buy an assault rifle and order a round of shots for everybody on the house, but that seems reasonable to me.
>>77606593
So? Does a father or mother have absolute jurisdiction over their children, throughout their entire lives?
Chaining ourselves to our dead only limits the nation; their thoughts and ideals ought be taken into account, but not taken as law.
>>77606730
That's the opposite of what's going on here m8.
The constitution talks about what the government CAN'T do, and the jurisdiction it CAN'T have over people's lives
>>77606730
The constitution limits the governments power, discarding it is tantamount to bending over and accepting serfdom
>>77606820
You're missing the metaphor, in that the founding fathers are the parents and the government is the child.
>>77606909
Who said anything about discarding the constitution? Unless you are meaning that the constitution itself, in its present form, is absolute perfection and ought not be modified.
If that is the case, then you are a fool.
>>77604660
Rights are taken away by government, not bestowed by them.
>>77597925
i dont think the founding fathers were statues
>>77605909
We are loyal to the American people, not an institution. There is an American philosophy set forth by the founding fathers of this country. I feel our deviance from this philosophy is the greatest source of misfortune our country has suffered.
You are using the identity proof to be technically correct rather than arguing honestly. So let us go back to the intended definition of an American: White Landowning Male. This removes the uneducated as they cannot maintain their property there is booksmart and there is management of resources smart this is the latter, this removes the useless again by property, this removes the muh feels crowd by eliminating women, this removes minorities by race. There, /pol/ utopia enough for you?
An educated ruling class with freedom for those who can exercise it and none for those who cannot. The fools will have their decisions made for them and the women shall not be able to enact detrimental legislation pushed by appeals to pathos. This is an authoritarianism I can get behind. Honestly I feel we should remove the white part, as there are exceptional individuals of all regions, but America is fast becoming the last bastion of bastardized European culture so it's a toss up.
>>77606640
>Give government the ability to arbitrarily turn off the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments
>Reasonable
My reasonable argument is you cannot enforce it. American's are not like Europeans or Australians, we hate government and fight eachother every day.
How do people not understand this? If you try to take my guns, I'll use them on you. Every single Gun Owner will. Or we'll burn your police station down once it's dark and take those guns.
Hell most cops would be on our side, the ones in my town anyway. And I've never met anyone in the military who was against guns. The army simply won't enforce it if it's legislated.
The fact is only weaklings want the guns gone, and they're too weak to take them. Ironically they'd say you should enforce the gun ban buy pulling guns on anyone who won't give them up. So fuck off.
>>77607080
The constitution as it was in 1791 WAS perfect, it outlined the rights the citizens have (that shall not be infringed) without granting more and more power to the federal government as the later amendments do
>>77607080
>You're missing the metaphor, in that the founding fathers are the parents and the government is the child.
No, you're missing the point.
The founding fathers created a country that would have an inherent defense against corruption in the constitution. That would prevent government from becoming too powerful. It is a contract between the state and the people.
In this situation, the father is the founding fathers, and the language they speak is the constitution, shared from one generation to the next. That language cannot be erased, even if you add other languages to it.
>>77606270
>And the state's authority is what makes those laws just.
No. What makes laws just is that they were established to serve the people by their consent.
>>77598594
Man that was fucking grizzly.
>>77597925
>2 posts by this id
do reddit kikes seriously think we can't see these shitty troll threads from miles away?
>>77607106
Rights are bestowed by authority, and cannot exist without it.
>>77607208
>entire post
I entirely agree with you, in that freedom is a good that can only be properly exercise by some, but yet ultimately bound by authority.
>>77607260
All you're doing is making the argument that Americans are violent, barbarous anarchists.
>>77607360
>anything is perfect
kek
>>77607367
>that would have an inherent defense against corruption in the constitution
Then they failed, and miserably at that.
>>77607374
If laws depended entirely on the people's consent, and the state could not attempt to preserve itself, then the law itself is volatile and subject entirely to the whims of the people. This ought not be allowed.
>>77597925
Felons should be prevented from acquiring arms and so should those with mental health issues.
Fully-Automatic weapons should be banned (I know they are). This seems to hit the balance. I know some people want individuals on the terror watch-list and no fly list restricted but there's a due process issue. If due process could be introduced then I'd support this as well.
t. Pro-Gun Brit
Read DC v. Heller if you haven't already
>>77597925
>Granlund
ETERNAL SWEDE
>>77607561
>If laws depended entirely on the people's consent, and the state could not attempt to preserve itself, then the law itself is volatile and subject entirely to the whims of the people. This ought not be allowed.
Why not?
>>77607592
>Fully-Automatic weapons should be banned
Why? What makes factory produced automatic weapons any more dangerous than the same bullets being fire from the same barrel?
>>77598755
Fucking niggers, man.
>>77601321
>I'm not calling you a lefty, I'm saying that leftists even had better views on firearm ownership and its purpose than you.
You mean take them away and only allowing the police and government to have (whom they view as racist) Fuck off.
>>77607561
>Then they failed, and miserably at that.
How have they failed?
>>77607561
>Rights are bestowed by authority, and cannot exist without it.
Rights are inherent and cannot be removed, authority can only preserve on infringe access to those rights
>>77607692
>Why not?
Because the people are stupid and self-interested.
>>77607814
Do you really think your founding fathers would be proud of the America today?
>>77607837
Rights are a subjective construct, and authority is required to ensure that all people observe them.
>>77597925
gun control is only reasonable if there is a dangerous population that you don't want to have guns (the jungle) and you are exempt from the rule.
>>77599804
Gun control advocates don't say it directly because it is a difficult argument to make if you preach equality of all men (or all people.)
It is actually an Imperialist position that the Empire (Super State) must control as many activities as reasonable for the proper function of civilization.
Let us know if the gun control advocates every make real progress on disarming any government. They don't seem to care about government violence in war time at all, though I figure at least a few must be thinking how fuck up state approved violence really is.
They nearly always focus on the citizens right to bear arms which they believe must be restricted for safety.
Why so quite on Nuclear Weapos, Bombers, Tanks, real machine guns in the hands of soldiers?
They must approve of government violence more often than not, to just ignore it so often.
>>77598821
>The government is not your enemy
T. Athens Georgia Ballot Stuffers
T. Lyndon Johnson Senatorial Ballot Stuffers
T. Andrew Jackson, Trail of Tears extraordinaire
T. Palmer, McCarthy, Hoover etc
T. Franklin 'Round up those Japs boys ' Roosevelt
>Citizens are by definition subservient to the state
Here is what sets apart the US government from all other goverments :
Our Federal Government, its officers and employees, are all subsiverient to the constitution, which recognizes rights that go above and beyond and even precede the government itself.
>>77607208
All of this in reference to government and voting.
>>77605522
>Eisenhower
>not a staff officer
Ask Patton
>>77607955
>Do you really think your founding fathers would be proud of the America today?
They'd be proud we're still following the first two and most important amendments they wrote I'm sure.
They'd be disappointed at the liberals constantly walking all over them though.
>>77607955
>and authority is required to ensure that all people observe them.
Authority provided by the people with those rights, it's called freedom you communist shitbag. The state should exist only to organize debates between private citizens, not as the colossal pseudo-corporate entity it is now
>>77602838
>Thomas Paine
>Just some man
Pick one.
He was one of the foremost thinkers and advocates at the dawn of classical liberalisim, and the father of the US Revolution.
Read "The Rights of Man" and then try to just call him some dude. He was a visionary of his time and his writings have shaped the very attitudes that have allowed the entire western world to become what it is today.
>>77597925
Arguments for gun control and hate speech are not about their stated topic, they are sneaky attempts to undo the Constitution.
The genius of the Constitution is negative rights, that is, innate rights without criterion marked by government restriction. It is the government that is restricted here and not the citizenry.
You cannot have gun control or hate speech laws without completely erasing that concept.
>>77598594
Who the fuck is videotaping and why is the guy an indian?
>>77608005
McCarthy did literally nothing wrong, and the only thing Jackson did right was fucking over those damn redskins. Try harder.
>>77608047
Liberals are as American as you or I, anon; after all, that's democracy and freedom :^)
>>77608108
The people cannot provide the authority, because they are subordinate to the state.
Freedom is a meme held dearly by the plebes in order to make them feel more important than the actually are, or have any right to be.
>>77608199
I prefer Hobbes tee bee aych mi familia;
>The rights of man
Man has no rights, only that which he gives to himself and others give to him.
>>77608367
>Freedom is a meme held dearly by the plebes in order to make them feel more important than the actually are, or have any right to be.
t. Stalin
So do you plan to lick the boots of every solider or just the one that bashes your skull in for not picking up the can?
>>77602192
>the government grants rights
A government cannot grant rights, it can only protect them. If rights are legislated into existence, they can be legislated out of existence. This completely defeats the purpose of a right; namely that everyone deserves that innate privilege regardless of what laws are in place. This makes the rights we invoke natural rights. Where do these come from? They have always been understood to be "endowed by our Creator." If you have no God, you have no rights.
>>77607561
>Americans are violent, barbarous anarchists
Yes. You're right. Now go fuck off to your communist paradise.
>not an argument
I'm not making an argument, this isn't the country for you.
>>77607736
I don't think full auto weapons can be justified in a self-defense situation and the potential harm one can do, outweighs the practical benefit of peaceful citizens owning them. For the same reason I wouldn't support grenade ownership, missile launcher ownership etc.
Can you think of a (common) self defense situation in which an automatic weapon can do the job better than a semi-auto?
Reason being I can only see the automatic being beneficial when wanting to fire into crowds and groups of people. Which is hardly ever going to be legally justified self-defense.
>>77607955
>Because the people are stupid and self-interested.
And Public Officials aren't?
>>77608465
>t. Stalin
Communism is also a meme :^)
>or just the one that bashes your skull in for not picking up the can?
Why would you litter in the first place? That's against the law, and is just plain rude.
>>77608566
>communist
>paradise
Pick one, famalam.
>I'm not making an argument, this isn't the country for you.
Luckily for me, I and others who think like me can attempt to make it so :^)
>>77601046
>be soldier
>spend 2 minutes shoving/ramming a wad and ball down a barrel
>fire one shot
>repeat as everyone around you is being torn apart in 2 minute intervals
>abraham shouts ''''fuck man imagine not having to ram this shit down the barrel like this man''''
>isaac yells back ''' ikr dude, too bad we're at the very peak of technological advancement on flinging lead at each other haha this is so fucking efficient why ever change am i rite lmao '''
>>77608108
Excellent, and notice that statists think that "authority" is a synonym for "power."
>>77608047
They would point out the danger of letting our Federal Reserve (A Private Central Bank) control the issuance of Fiat Currency.
That would get them killed by the bankers minions.
Read up on why Andrew Jackson kill the bank. The attempt on his life failed.
Every notice how most people these days only know that Jackson was an "evil white male?"
How dare whites practice conquest? That's so unfair to all the brown people. It's as if the bankers need cheap labor from poor brown people in order to be rich or something.
>>77608587
>Self defense self defense self defense
You're still thinking like a Britcuck mate, think like someone with freedom. You don't NEED a gun, you have the RIGHT to a gun. If you want a missile launcher, than by god you can have one.
>>77608654
I'm just going to stop responding now, cause you're clearly either completely retarded or literally a member of the NSA/FBI
>>77608367
>Hobbes
>Man has no rights
Nigga, he was the one who formed the concepts of "inalienable rights" that were framed in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the people's DUTY to overthrow a government that was not protecting those rights.
tl; dr you dont know shit about 18th century philosophy
>>77608628
>all people are equals
For the most part, yes, public officials of are a finer clay than their lessers. What matters is finding those leaders that care more about the nation than themselves.
>>77608705
>Jackson
Was a fucking faggot, the central bank is the single greatest causes of our prosperity, and Hamilton was right.
>>77608759
>I'm just going to stop responding now, cause you're clearly either completely retarded or literally a member of the NSA/FBI
There is literally nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the plebes for their own good.
Now pick up that can, citizen.
>>77605149
I'm not arguing for anarchy, and I agree that just coercion is the basis of law, but the point im making is that the purpose of the Government and the laws it creates are to serve the interests of the people who created it, not increase its own power. The Government must bend to the will of the people even when it is against its own interests/power.
>>77608854
>There is literally nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the plebes for their own good.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S. Lewis
>>77608870
And I argue that is bad, and that the people should not have such a powerful say.
>>77608811
Oh no, you caught my memery :^)
>>77597925
No, there aren't. Every single anti-gun thread and post that gets posted on /pol/ gets shot down, yet, they still post the same liberal talking point arguments over and over again because their fragile egos will not allow acceptance of common sense and facts.
Their arguments consist of:
>You'll never win against the government
>You don't need a semi-auto to hunt
>You don't need X rounds in a magazine
>Gun control works just look at this 90%+ white country that banned guns
>All mass shooters are fucking white males
>Only rednecks and hillbillys own guns
Literally nothing of substance or logic.
>>77608973
Lewis is a cuck.
>>77597925
the meme that the founding fathers didn't anticipate advancements in firearms technology is the shittiest libtard meme and i wish it would stop
>>77604718
BTW, why amerifats think stepping on lego is painful? I played lego from my 6 to 12, stepped on it every other day and felt nothing remotely resembling pain.
Is it some kind of meme?
>>77608560
>tfw even the ugandan guy gets it, yet Brits, Germans, and retards from Melbourne don't.
>>77597925
>is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Here's a damn good reason against it:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lo0OxrXLo
Pretty wise Latina there, tbqh.
>>77608987
>memes
>>77609046
Epik may mays won't save you from your precious state genociding the undeserables
Im pretty dumb desu. But not dumb enough to not own a few guns. You have to be really stupid if you dont own at least one gun.
>>77608678
More like 20 seconds per shot for a well practiced soldier.
The musket made the armored knight obsolete and represents a major turning point in history. A farmer armed with a musket was now a very serious threat to a professional soldier.
Before the musket, armored cavalry held the massive advantage in battle field combat.
The musket was taken very seriously when it was in wide use.
>>77598821
Bullshit. Anyone who agrees with me should join the anarchist commune I'm a part of.
>>77597925
i dont really get how those two pictures are different, like what their argument is?
>>77601361
>A state can be considered an enemy when it is actively, willfully, and directly harming the quality of life for its citizens.
Such as by unilaterally restricting citizen's rights.
>>77608560
Wrong, if anything, rights are those that apply equally to all people regardless of situation, while privileges are contextual.
>>77609211
memes.
>>77609230
But I WANT my state to genocide the undesirables, such as >>77609261
>>77607561
If you can try it, it is your right
The person who sees what he can do beholds it, that's why rights are a construct and natural rights exist
When something new happens you don't need to wait for a law to use it
Laws are there to take away rights. Even the bill of rights is there to take away the freedom to oppress the citizenry as they please.
The social contract is not the same thing that gives you your natural rights
>>77609176
Venezuela in general is a great argument against leftism of all kinds.
>>77609258
Muskets (and by association guns) are the single greatest invention of all time and directly allowed the creation of modern democracies ruled by the people instead of oligarchies ruled by those with the most men
