I consider myself very rightwing, but I honestly can't rationally justify why assault weapons being legal is a good thing. Doesn't it just make it easier for terrorists to kill large numbers of people quickly? I would never advocate the nonsense they have going on in Europe with confiscating spoons and such bullshit, but why does any person need an assault rifle, even for self-defense?
>>59962702
Define 'assault weapons' and 'assault rifle'.
I know this is bait, but whatever. Define your terms.
It's to resist a tyrannical government, genius
>>59962702
> Assault weapons
> Legal
Do you perhaps mean semi-automatic rifles, literally who let Obama on /pol/
>mfw Assault weapon = Rifle with black paint and add ons
Just because it looks scarier doesn't mean it operates any differently
>Second Amendment protect citizens from a tyrannical government
To much xbox and mountain dew huh?
need to educate an amerifat on his onv values.
>mfw
>>59962702
>very right wing
>swallowing left wing buzzwords
>>59962702
>thinly veiled 'guns r bad ur bad for wanting them because my feelings say so' thread
Shitpost. Hidden.
>>59962897
What does that even mean in a modern context? I believe people have the right to protect themselves from criminal aggression in all contexts, but how does one defend himself from the government?
>>59962702
>need
There's that word again
>>59962702
I consider you a fucking idiot, you should be embarrassed
>>59962702
"Assault weapon" is libshit meme parlance.
If we can't trust citizens with them, we can't trust our government with a monopoly on them.
>>59962842
Anything that can be shot just holding the trigger down OR by rapid pressing of the trigger. So things like PUMP SHOTGUNS are not assault weapons.
>>59962842
>I know this is bait, but whatever.
faggot
>>59962842
This.
I know what you're getting at, but come up with a workable definition first. Be sure not to automatically include handguns.
>>59963085
>Anything that can be shot just holding the trigger down
Fully automatic weapons are pretty much 100% illegal to own.
>OR by rapid pressing of the trigger
So handguns are assault weapons?
>>59962702
So fucking tired of hearing assault weapons. Faggots like you have no problem with Garands, K98s, and SKS rifles, but if it's black and fires a truly cuck cartridge, you're afraid of it. Trust me boy, you don't want insurgents using true "assault rifles".
>>59963085
>Nearly every firearm in existence
Fuck off.
>>59962702
Niggers are big, black and scary so should we call them Assault humans?
>I'm right-wing
>but I hate (thing that right-wingers support)
Fuck off nigger
>>59962842
A general term concerning most but not all semi-automatic long-arms.
Your turning into a Little American, creatures that seem to be breeding like flies - suck it up, live with the risk. Europe is what you get when a population think danger can be legislated away - ironically more risk.
>>59962702
Why should the police be the only ones with guns?
>>59962702
*Puts on normalguy mask to hide SJW deformity*
>I consider myself very rightwing, but I honestly can't rationally justify why assault weapons being legal is a good thing.
>>59962702
No, because terrorists don't care if assault rifles are legal or not - they never acquire them legally anyway. AK47s aren't legal in France but look at that.
Besides, why should it be OK to restrict non-criminal activity in order to prevent criminal activity? Do we ban cars to stop hit and run drivers? Do we ban alcohol to stop drink-driving and anti-social behaviour? Do we ban lighters to stop people smoking drugs?
>>59963085
>Anything that can be shot just holding the trigger down OR by rapid pressing of the trigger. So things like PUMP SHOTGUNS are not assault weapons.
So anything that's semi or fully auto? You realise that's basically everything right?
NOT
>>59962702
Criminals will always get their hands on guns.
Legal or not.
The funny thing about criminals, is they don't obey the law.
>>59962702
>assault weapons
please define
you're obviously falling for the group think that certain long guns which have particular stocks and multi round magazines but are not fully automatic
using the term 'assault" is a lame ploy to link useful and lawful weapons with crime and deviance.
>>59963403
>Why should the police be the only ones with guns?
Where did I say that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijaEVJ6LfnE
required /pol/ viewing
>skip to 23:40 if you must
>refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
this is the philosophical reason, if you really can't see through the various statistics on the subject that assault weapons are a non-issue.
>>59962702
>assault weapons
thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about
>>59962702
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
>>59962702
What is an assault weapon?
>>59963828
Its got scary black shit all over it and its got shoulder things that go up, homing baby seeking laser guided bullets, and a... PISTOL GRIP!
>>59963808
I'm not speaking about ordinary run of the mill crime. I'm talking specifically about terrorism.
>>59963652
>people shouldn't have 'assault' weapons
>civilian gov agencies have access to all types of weapons
The imbalance is already pretty severe, why exacerbate it?
>>59962702
>assault weapon
>need
>Doesn't it just make it easier for terrorists to kill large numbers of people quickly?
Gun laws sure stopped that happening in France
>>59962702
>Assault weapon
Do you even know about firearms, OP? I bet you use the word "clip", too.
>>59962702
In general, the jist of having a weapon boils down to being your own advocate.
Think about it for a second....
There is no one aside from yourself that is more invested in your continued existence.
Since this is true, you must be your own advocate.
How you carry that responsibility is literally the difference between life and death.
Hope this clears things up for you, OP.
>>59962702
>I consider myself very rightwing
You might want to reconsider bootlicking cuck
SHALL
NOT
BE
>>59963652
Because the only way to take away guns is to give all the guns to your police and military you idiot.
>>59964036
infringed
>>59963367
you can not ban something with a "general term". There has to be a specific line or functionality drawn, not just as other anons have mentioned:"scary black gun that kills ppl, ;( "
>>59963936
Like the terrorism in france, where AKs are banned, and yet the terrorists had them?
We should be more like France, seems to be working well for them.
>>59962897
Gonna be honest, an AK doesn't hold much power compared to nukes, assault helicopters, tanks, missiles, jets, and smart bombs
>>59964036
SHALL
>>59962702
>Right wing
>"Assault" weapons
You are falling for it BTFO
>>59962702
>I would never advocate the nonsense they have going on in Europe with confiscating spoons and such bullshit,
well when all the guns are gone and the bodies are piling up faster and faster that will be the next logical step. source: europe
>>59964253
Tell that to vietnam and our currebt multi staged war in the middle east with lesa people with less weapons
>>59964253
So why doesnt every country in the world instantly submit to whomever has the biggest number of nukes? Why are we not all a single super-nation when obviously not a single nation that doesnt possess the latest drones and jets cant defend themselves in any way?
>>59964253
The state would run out of money pretty fast if they tried that since they'd be destroying the business that generates the funds.
>>59964253
The government can't use most of those weapons on a populace it intends to suppress rather than outright slaughter.
>>59963936
"Terrorism" rarely happens and statistically kills a low amount of people. It only strikes fear in your tiny brain because the media shoves it in your face and tells you to be afraid and listen to the government. Hammers and cars kill more people than guns do. "Assault" weapons are a fraction of gun deaths. Banning them solves nothing other than taking citizens' rights away.
>>59964253
>inb4 tptb cant get away with nuking dirt nips in vietnam but will nuke its entire continetn infrastructure and people
>>59964386
>So why doesnt every country in the world instantly submit to whomever has the biggest number of nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
>>59964239
>>59963954
>Gun laws sure stopped that happening in France
What happened in France happened because of weak borders and over immigration. Without those negative influences, its hard to justify why the gun control wouldn't have worked. Obviously, the borders are a bigger priority, which is why I'm voting for Donald Trump. But if you have the border situation under control, then what is wrong with taking an extra precaution against the few that might slip through?
>>59964543
>every nation has nukes
Wew lad
>>59963936
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
>>59962842
>In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.
duh
>>59964592
I can build a ak out of a shovel m8 borders mean jack shit when you actually know what ur talking about
>>59964676
Nice source m8
>>59964253
>He really thinks the American military would be used on American soil
You actually are delusional
>>59964676
>ass salt weapons are not capable of doing anything assault-y but look kinda scary and have big clipz
You cant just murder someone a little, you cant just steal a car a little so why can you infringe a right a little?
It's all or nothing.
>>59964592
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXjnb55aAwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc8nP7CkUpA
With a few springs and a smaller pipe you can make one of those into a fully automatic rifle.
>>59964621
I never said that it would stop everything, just make it harder. I really don't see what is wrong with that by itself. I will never vote for Democrats for reasons I've already said.
>>59964592
>it is hard to justify why the gun control wouldn't have worked.
No it is not
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/70320/why-gun-control-cant-eliminate-gun-violence
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
>what is wrong with taking extra precaution
it would violate the 2nd amendment and due process/5th amendment
>>59963016
>how does one defend himself from the government?
with guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
>>59964792
Remove the law (democratically) or enforce it. You cant just do a part of any of those. It says "Shall not be infringed" until the amendment is removed so it shouldn't be infringend untill it is fully and democratically removed.
>>59964880
So would eliminating the right all together even more you could curb violence completly by banning niggers who gets to draw ths line m8?
>>59964880
There's no reason to believe it would make anything harder.
It's just as easy to make bombs as it is to make black powder.
IED's are just as deadly as any "assault rifle" in an area dense with people and a shotgun or bolt action rifle, which are easy to make are just as deadly as an assault rifle in an area with few people.
They want to stop GUN violence.
Not violence.
Just the GUN part.
They couldn't give less of a shit how dangerous the world is, they just don't want you armed.
>>59964880
>make it harder
If you were to deport all non-whites there would be white distributors to take their place. Plenty of white terrorist organizations exist in Europe with assault rifles.
>I really don't see what is wrong with that by itself
it would violate the 2nd and 5th amendments.
>shall not be infringed.
>>59962702
The great thing about Rights is that they are not subject to your feelings buttercup. We are born with them, they are not given by a government. When the government attempts to fuck with our Rights, it is our obligation to change that government. Obligation. Maybe you should actually read the declaration of independence, it is only a dozen sentence s long you lazy pleb faggot.
>>59964880
Have you ever noticed that shootings happen in areas where guns are regulated most? Have you ever asked Why that might be happening and if the laws really protected anyone?
>>59964253
>nukes, assault helicopters, tanks, missiles, jets, smart bombs
>doing any of this to your own people
>doing this to your infrastructure
>the US attacking any populated areas on US soil other than places out in the middle of nowhere
Hopefully these "Patriots" will occupy Portland.
>>59965109
THIS
SIMPLY WATCH OP OR ANY ANTI GU. DISCUSSION THE FACT GUN DEATHS ARE LESS THAN SIMPLE SHIT LIKE HAMMERS AND CARS IS IGNORED LIKE CANCER AND NEVER RECONCILED
The usual suspects are:
1. I can do whatever the fuck I want, fuck society, come and take them blah blah blah.
These people don't deserve your time, and are in fact the reason why police exist and have the power to enforce laws on people rather than just rationally debate with them about why they ought to comply.
2. To resist a government
These people at least have the beginnings of an argument. It falls apart when you realise two things. Firstly, no rebel group or army in the entire history of the planet has ever had a hard time getting small arms. Small arms are ludicrously easy to obtain because every police station, armoury, or gun store will have hundreds of them just waiting for your rebel gangs. Secondly, small arms are just one part of a war. Things like MANPADS and ATGMs are easily as essential as small arms to actually fight and win a war. Nobody owns these things, and you will never be in a situation where you can get access to these things but not small arms. So small arms to fight a gubbermint is nowhere near as compelling as some people believe it is, even if it isn't completely wrong.
3. It's fun and it doesn't hurt anyone.
This argument actually depends the most on the second part, and it's case-specific. If somebody can prove that their specific regime of gun control will minimise all harm while allowing for assault weapons ownership - whatever that means - then it's a watertight argument. But does such a regime exist? Certainly I've never seen it.
It's a complex issue and you only ever hear simple answers. Banning them isn't sensible unless you've considered all the options, but absolute unfettered freedumbs is equally imprudent.
>>59965175
Oh god that revolver on the bottom left. My neighbor has that. I fucking hate it.
What a steaming pile of shit.
>>59965315
Jews during the holocaust would like a word with you. By extension your entire post is btfo sorry m8
>>59962702
Guys, I have to go work out now. I'll make this thread again later if it dies before I get back, which is probable, given the present rate of traffic.
>>59965315
Vietnam and the middle eastern rebels would like a word with you
>inb4 they could not get away with glassing the vietcong or isis but will and get away with nuking its own
>>59964880
Columbine attacks:
>used "non assault" weapons
>15 dead 24 injured
San Bernardino attack:
>used "assault" weapons
>16 dead, 22 injured
Clearly the AWB didn't make it harder to inflict the same amount of damage.
>>59964719
"In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use," the Justice Department said at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/gun-language/index.html
>>59962702
Simply because there are already too many of them. It would be like arming an entire nation and then telling the law obeying citizens to give theirs back. Guess who gets to keep theirs?
>>59965315
>1.
>These people don't deserve your time
Actually,
>9th Amendment
>10th Amendment
>2nd Amendment
>5th Amendment
>9th Amendment
>10th Amendment
>9th Amendment
>2.
Is your argument that the 2nd Amendment isn't _sufficient_ for repelling a government? kek if it is
If your argument that it isn't _necessary_ for repelling a government, so what? It is written in the 2nd Amendment (and 9th and 10th) so that we would be as tyrant-resistant as possible.
>MANPADS and ATGMs are easily as essential as small arms to actually fight and win a war
No, especially not with Fabian tactics/insurgency
>So small arms to fight a gubbermint is nowhere near as compelling as some people believe it is, even if it isn't completely wrong.
See the Clive Bundy Ranch and the Battle of Athens, GA
this is real life bud
>>59965354
Can't handle a little power?
>>59965526
>americans are too cowardly and pathetic to withstand more than a decade of laughably low-intensity conflict
>they will somehow, as a population, grow balls of steel enough to withstand their entire world of modern comforts dissolving around them into a pool of blood
>but only the rebels, not the government or loyalists ;^)
o i am laffin
>>59965446
Yes, because a Jew with a rifle would be much less dead than a Jew without when 10 SS troops come for him.
And weapons are notoriously hard to find during a fucking war, amirite?
Your "BUT THE JEWS" moral panic doesn't work on /pol/, and you should know that. The Jews died because they DIDN'T fight, not because they COULDN'T fight. A bunch of camelfucking goatherders managed to scrounge up some guns and bombs, and you're telling me that the cunning mind of the eternal Jew was helpless against the might of the buffoonish Nazis?
>>59964676
So it's not an assault weapon if you use a 5 round clip?
>>59962702
Lmao dude you need ebin militias to tackle ebin dyrands. Look how those brave men in oregon are militiaing for the greater future!
>I'm totally super like you guys and part of your cool right wing club
>but I'm also against the core founding principle (2nd amendment) that defines who we are
Eat shit you fucking kike, you're not fooling anyone here.
>>59966028
>they will somehow, as a population, grow balls of steel enough to withstand their entire world of modern comforts dissolving around them into a pool of blood
aren't we debating whether or not they should be able to?
>hahaha you'll never be able to have a rebellion
Clive Bundy
Athens, GA
>Jew with a rifle
necessary but not sufficient
>>59963936
a few weeks ago when someone emailed a threat to LAUSD and subsequently shut down 1100 schools affecting over 600,000 students and their parents, that was terrorism. should we ban email?
>>59965987
>Actually, muh amendments
Actually, those amendments don't exist in Australia so suqq my diqq. Furthermore, quoting amendments is not an argument it is a cop-out. If you cannot justify something without retreating to "the law says" then you've only provided an argument for why the law ought not to say.
>especially not with Fabian tactics/insurgency
Ah yes, the sacred cow that is insurgency.
Insurgencies are infinitely less effective than mustering an actual army and fighting a conventional war, and people only engage in them because they have no choice. The fundamental goal of an insurgent is to stop being an insurgent and be a soldier instead, because a soldier might actually win the war when all an insurgent can do is hope to not lose it yet. Heavier weapons are essential to forming a conventional army.
Fabian tactics are highly contextual, not an "i win" button.
>See the Clive Bundy Ranch
A prime example of the failures of insurgency. Bundy never won that fight, he just postponed his loss. The feds will still be there in 20 years pursuing their agenda because there is literally nothing that Bundy or anyone else can do to make them go away. Bundy and the militia are trapped there forever, in the limbo of "we haven't lost yet, but things aren't going to get better".
if guns are dangerous by virtue then gunshows would be battlegrounds of death and destruction, yet they're some of the most orderly and polite places someone can go and enjoy.
Let's consider the following. Which is safer, A gunshow or disneyland?
>>59966319
>aren't we debating whether or not they should be able to?
We're debating whether or not Americans should be allowed to stockpile their guns on the vain hope that one day they might be a noble hero fighting the tyrannical government (and against the likely reality that they will a) lose that fight and b) accidentally shoot their daughter while waiting for it).
>>59964592
Confirmed for having no fucking idea about Europe. Blackmarket guns are fucking EASY to get hold of in most of mainland Europe, it's got nothing to do with borders.
If we're going to talk about borders though, let's talk about the US' huge land border with Mexico and what's going to stop Mexican cartels from smugging illegal guns over the border (>implying they don't already)
>>59966028
>Yes, because a Jew with a rifle would be much less dead than a Jew without when 10 SS troops come for him.
After the war we dumped the Jews in the middle east surrounded by Muslims, gave them all our surplus WW2 weapons and left them alone for the most part. They defended themselves pretty well.
>>59966525
>a
hahahahahahhaahahhahaha look at every modern war with a thousand sand people
>b
chlorinates the gene pool(also statistically 12 times more likely to use it in self defense)
ITT: OP in some online version of a boiler-room, being paid to post crappy propaganda:
>Open the post with a statement identifying as part of the audience you intend to influence, then pivot to the propaganda you're here to shill. Suggest that disagreeing with your position is somehow immoral.
0/10 you come across as fake and mindless.
>>59963016
whatever context you're in can be stripped pretty easily m8, can you really give up your right to defend yourself with the weapons of the time? someone else will have them. look at the nations who get fucked with, they have no nuclear arsenals. what nation has survived by having no defenses?
>>59966634
I'm impressed that you actually think you've made a point.
Go back and read my post. I never said that Jews couldn't fight, I said that they didn't fight. If the Jew is so fucking amazing with his rifle then why is he a neutered baby without it? Why does he find it IMPOSSIBLE to get one in any other way than a lawful process? Especially since, as people often chorus, criminals can always always always regardless of gun control always get guns if they want to?
The entire pro-gun argument is a network of logical inconsistencies because it does not stem from a single viewpoint it is a mishmash of responses thought up on the spot and then hopelessly bent to try and fit together so that they don't blow themselves the fuck out.
The only pro-gun positions I respect are the principled ones, where guns are a God-given right and fuck the consequences. I respect those views because they are internally consistent and genuinely held, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.
>>59966858
>hahahahahahhaahahhahaha look at every modern war with a thousand sand people
You mean the ones where America shat the bed and fled home with its tail so far between its legs it was up its own asshole after a pitiful 5000 deaths? The wars where Americans were such huge fucking cowards that a war that they only ever experienced through their fucking TV screens was enough to get them in full political retreat?
These are the Americans who are going to engage in the exact kind of bitter death struggle that they couldn't even conceive of theoretically because it is so alien to the American psyche before they were on the receiving end of it?
hahahahaha is the right answer, comrade.
>>59965997
I can't avenge my partners death with this PEA SHOOTER
>>59967244
>and fuck the consequences
What consequences?
>>59966419
>quoting amendments is not an argument it is a cop-out.
we have a free society and we are willing to err on the side of freedom (instead of 'security', even if it _might_ mean more death) because we fought a revolution for something you would consider menial. We value freedom as essential to the dignity of human life, and valuable in and of itself.
>those amendments don't exist in Australia
OP is from US which is why I used them. IDC if you auscucks care about your freedoms.
>infinitely less effective
Unequivocally false. I doubt you even believe that.
>the fundamental goal is x in all circumstances, so you can't use insurgencies for not x!
>contextual
>not an "I win" button.
so? The argument isn't whether or not we will win, but whether or not we should be able to--which was decided a while ago.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
>A prime example of the failures of insurgency.
He could win and he has been winning--has been insurgent--so far. He values a certain freedom more than citizenship, and so he is exercising his duty to defend it. That you would take away that opportunity is a disgrace.
>>59962702
Statistically speaking, there is no problem with "assault weapons" (anti-gunner definition) like the AR-15/AK clones. Actual homicides with them are rare to the point of statistical insignificance.
"Mass shootings" are also insignificant when you look up the real numbers. I can see why the mass media drama surrounding them would make people think otherwise but they really aren't something you rationally should worry about.
The vast majority of gun crimes... I forget the actual number, if you want it search for DOJ gun crime statistics, but something like 80% or more.... are 1 on 1 shootings with handguns.
If your goal was to curtail gun violence, then your priority should be handguns. Note that it isn't... and I can't believe no anti-gun legislator has looked up these numbers. Makes you question what the real goal is.
>>59966525
0/10
>ignores all previous specific assertions and evidence
>falls back from "I'm australian the amendments don't matter to me!"
even so,
a) An insurgency could work, and the possibility is worth preserving
b) Accidental gun deaths are extremely few and far between
>>59967621
>>59966525
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/
>>59962702
Don't lie to us, you are not rightwing.
>>59962702
Assault is an action not a weapon
>>59967555
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Since I know some of you are too lazy for google...
>>59967377
Irrelevant. That's the point. To that worldview, the consequences literally don't matter. Guns are a right, and that's the end of the discussion.
>Unequivocally false.
Yes, insurgencies, nto conventional armies, are the unequivocal and self-evident superior choice, so obvious even anon from 4chan can see it. This is why states all over the world have completely dissolved their standing armies in favour of a bunch of poorly trained and ill-equipped angry middle-aged men who may or may not turn up to muster.
Oh wait that never happened because it's fucking retarded and so are you.
>but whether or not we should be able to
Not being able to stockpile small arms will not significantly reduce your chances, because small arms are not hard to get, and not enough. You will never be in a situation where you have plentiful access to other necessities, like MANPADS, but not small arms.
>He could win
No, he cannot. His best case is not losing long enough to die of natural causes. The federal government will never ever leave him alone for as long as he or they exist.
This is what it means to be an insurgent.
The only thing is that insurgents have no ability to actually fight the government. They are Bundy, clinging onto life for just another day. To actually defeat the enemy you need to take and hold territory, and that requires a standing army. It requires you to be able to roll up to an oil field or whatever strategic location, kick the other guy out, and then stay there even when they come back to fight you for it. You can't do that if all you've got is grandad's rifle.
>>59967621
>An insurgency could work, and the possibility is worth preserving
An insurgency will never work without heavy weapons, and history shows this in the way that every single insurgency ever in the last 30 years has either stormed arsenals (Syria, Libya), been supplied by foreign powers (Ukraine), or failed.
You will never have heavy weapons but not small arms.
>>59964253
Is a Nuke a government? Are nukes making ridiculous laws? Does, tanks and helicopters pass those laws in voting?
No you brain dead dildo sucker. People do those things, and last time I checked, bullets still handle people pretty well.
>>59967866
Somewhere somebody is dumb enough to kill themselves in unmoving traffic as well
>>59962702
Eat shit, commie.
Woops.
>>59967432
see
>>59968118
>>59962702
Because terrorists dont go in to the gun shop, buy the gun with their earned cash, show the guy their ID or weapon license depending on country/state and do it.
Terrorist get some dodgy arab guy to give them it. Or illegally import it
>>59962702
>>59962702
>I consider myself very rightwing, but I honestly can't rationally justify why assault weapons being legal is a good thing
I see dozens of these types of shills posted on /pol/ every week. They pretend to be conservative then just go straight into shilling gun control like any commie bastard.
>>59962702
You're really fucking ignorant OP. Perhaps you should form opinions on things that you are well versed in, and leave forming an opinion until you are sufficiently well read on a topic. I mean seriously, there is no excuse.
I think the best thing would be if anti-gun people were banished from America forever. Maybe send them to Europe as refugees, since they apparently worship refugee status as something one step below divinity they'd probably cum in their pants at the chance to be a refugee. And since Europe also bans all guns they'd be happy there. Let those of us who actually accept the responsibility for our own safety and freedom live freely.
You cowards and bootlickers can go live with the rest of your gutless kind.
Such bait.
>>59963036
Exactly. All you guys need is tughter control on WHO can obtain one, i.e, Spazzy McGee can't grt an M4. Maybe you should have some kind of report program that people get paid for if they report illegal firearms or some shit.
As I see it, people with unregistered firearms commit the crime.
>>59968118
>This is why states all over the world have completely dissolved their standing armies in favour of a bunch of poorly trained and ill-equipped angry middle-aged men who may or may not turn up to muster.
Ahem,
>Switzerland
In any case, every person with any knowledge of military history can say that Fabian tactics give the insurgent a huge advantage over a standing army, which is why with less funding and armament, the Vietcong and Taliban were able to repel their respective invaders. Do you expect me to take seriously that you believe they would have been better off simply forming standing armies and fighting in an organized way? Or the Americans in the Revolutionary War? Or the Japs in WW2? Or the Filipinos?
also,
>psychological warfare
>he cannot
He can (and has) preserve(d) his liberty/property for his natural life. That is winning.
>Athens, GA
>You can't do that if all you've got is grandad's rifle.
To the extent that this is true, people should be able to own heavier weapons. And in the US, while we can't own everything, we can own artillery and aircraft.
Also we have state militias which could supply those, and who's to say that some government personnel wouldn't help in the revolt? George Washington was a british officer.
In every case the citizenry should be able to overthrow their government.
>again implying that somehow small arms are transient but slightly larger personal anti-aircraft weapons could never be acquired, even with state militias and private militias (the majority of which consist of veterans).
tl;dr
Americans _should_ be able to overthrow their government.
>>59962702
Riveting tale, Chaim.
>>59962702
>why is it a good thing?
Because it preserves our rights. What more do you want?
>>59969082
>>Switzerland
You mean the country that still has a standing army because it knows that it's fucking stupid to rely on the militia as anything but a last resort, and whose strategy if the standing army fails is to literally run to the hills to hide in the National Redoubt?
That Switzerland?
>Fabian tactics give the insurgent a huge advantage over a standing army
Then why do we still have standing armies? You can't answer this simple fucking question because it blows you the fuck out. Fabian tactics are contextual, only useful in limited circumstances, and most importantly they were pursued by one standing army against another.
>which is why with less funding and armament, the Vietcong and Taliban were able to repel their respective invaders
And the Boers got absolutely blown the fuck out, the Vietcong were forced to sign a peace treaty at gunpoint because they didn't win at all militarily but the US were too fucking cowardly to enforce their own peace treaty, and the Taliban STILL doesn't control significant parts of Iraq even after the US up and fucking left.
>Do you expect me to take seriously that you believe they would have been better off simply forming standing armies and fighting in an organized way?
They all tried that, Iraq had a large standing army and the NVA preceded the Vietcong. They only resorted to insurgency after they had been thoroughly defeated, and insurgency never delivered them a victory it just allowed them to drag out their loss until America gave up. Other nations with stronger will have defeated insurgency. Like, for example, the Boer Wars.
>Or the Americans in the Revolutionary War?
Got absolutely destroyed until they formed an army. They even had to implement conscription.
>or the Japs in WW2?
Their only hope was destroying the American pacific fleet. Hard to do that with nothing but a fucking rifle.
cont.
>>59969082
>Also we have state militias which could supply those, and who's to say that some government personnel wouldn't help in the revolt? George Washington was a british officer.
THEN WHY IS IT SO FUCKING IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE ABLE TO OWN A HUNDRED ASSAULT RIFLES?
Do you not realise that you are contradicting your own fucking argument? There is NEVER a situation where you have all the heavy weapons you need but not enough small arms. That's my point. That's why the "muh tyrannical government" justification of the second amendment is a crock of shit.
Nobody's taking away your ability to fight the government because you don't need your fucking arsenal of machineguns to do that. Well, that's not true. You do need an arsenal of machineguns, but you also need MANPADS and ATGMs, and if you can get MANPADS and ATGMs you will also be able to get your machineguns. If you can't get your MANPADS and ATGMs all the machineguns in the world will not save you.
>He can (and has) preserve(d) his liberty/property for his natural life. That is winning.
You have a fucking terrible definition of winning.
Winning means final victory. It means enforcing your terms on your enemies and being able to stop fighting and go home, secure in the knowledge that you are safe and your goals are met.
Bundy cannot do this. The second he stops fighting the feds will come in and fuck him right up the ass. He is locked into eternal conflict with them because he cannot beat them, and they will never tire or harassing him.
Bundy is the quintessential insurgent. He is totally fucking screwed unless help comes from elsewhere. All he can do is hold on and pray.
The necessity to be able to overthrow your government if they're shitty aside,
1. Gun control does not work
2. We should err on the side of liberty even if it did
3. Gun ownership is a good thing for personal protection
4. accidental deaths by firearms are not a serious issue
5. Certain rights are worth sacrifice
6. Wanting to ban only assault weapons is arbitrary considering they account for much less crime and death than 'less scary' handguns and most suicide is done with shotguns (almost any variety will do)
>>59969708
>Then why do we still have standing armies? You can't answer this simple fucking question because it blows you the fuck out. Fabian tactics are contextual, only useful in limited circumstances, and most importantly they were pursued by one standing army against another.
>this somehow BTFOs me
A circumstance for fabian tactics would be the kind of insurgency the Confederacy considered after Gettysburg, which is still possible and viable today. Obviously fabian tactics are not useful for Americans invading Iraq.
>>59969708
>Do you expect me to take seriously that you believe they would have been better off simply forming standing armies and fighting in an organized way?
>would have been better off
dude just accept that you've lost
>>59962702
It means they only want you to use wooden or plasitc spoons, while the dindus, terrorists, and other government goons have machine guns and RPGs. It means for you to be a good goyim slave, and slaves aren't allowed weapons.
>>59962702
>talks shit on assault rifles
>features picture of numerous deadly and legal weapons, none of which are assault rifles
dumb nigger
>>59962702
>faggots like this get to be Americans and I don't
There's no fucking justice in this world.
>>59970223
>would be the kind of insurgency the Confederacy considered after Gettysburg, which is still possible and viable today
The kind that they considered and rejected as being a worse shot than sticking to regular orders of battle?
Fabian tactics would have destroyed the Confederacy because the Union was far better resourced than the Confederacy ever was, and far more mobile too thanks to its railroads.
You have zero understanding of strategy or history and think that because you saw a bunch of Vietnam movies and have opinions about Iraq you're qualified to declare insurgency as the quintessential path to victory when literally every single person employed as a professional to win wars agrees that conventional armies are more effective.
The reason they are called conventional armies is because they're uniformly adopted as the way to fight, and that's because they are the best way to fight.
>dude just accept that you've lost
They did try that though. That's the hilarious thing. They BOTH tried to do that and it failed, and they engaged in insurgent campaigns because they had no choice. They didn't deliberately pursue insurgent tactics, they were forced to. Nobody CHOOSES to be an insurgent because it's the worst possible way to fight.
You're a fucking moron.
first, let's keep this argument in it's proper scope: You are arguing that we don't NEED assault weapons. Now then,
>>59970104
>necessary but not sufficient
>necessary but not sufficient
It would be much easier to raid a US armory with a lot of high-quality assault weapons than without them.
>There is NEVER a situation where you have all the heavy weapons you need but not enough small arms.
heavy weapons are helpful but not necessary to, for example, hold a civilian city.
>but you also need MANPADS and ATGMs, and if you can get MANPADS and ATGMs you will also be able to get your machineguns.
I don't think that aircraft would be particularly effective against insurgency, unless the US Gov't went around just decimating its own cities. You seem to think that we would fight this rebellion in Afghanistan or something.
>terrible definition of winning
regardless of semantics, liberty is worth fighting for and when it is the 2nd Amendment can help. If you don't think avoiding the seizure of property despite a 20-year long legal battle with the single most powerful entity on earth is winning, w/e
>>59970541
This.
The top and bottom of having a gun is that it makes everyone equal, a 14 year old with a pistol is just as dangerous as a professional boxer with a pistol. Without the pistol the 14 year old wouldn't last 30 seconds. That's where the difference lies, European governments have waited a long time to be fully in control, why would they even dream of giving that up? For the sake of someone's rights? Don't make me laugh, rights haven't been a thing for the last two centuries, unless you're a "minority" or degenerate obviously.
>>59970745
>The kind that they considered and rejected as being a worse shot than sticking to regular orders of battle?
No, they thought that peace would be a better option because they thought at that moment (perhaps incorrectly) that certain liberties--the war effort--were not worth as much human life as it would have.
>You have zero understanding of strategy or history and think that because you saw a bunch of Vietnam movies and have opinions about Iraq you're qualified to declare insurgency as the quintessential path to victory when literally every single person employed as a professional to win wars agrees that conventional armies are more effective.
>what kind of war
>what is insurgency?
>[citation needed]
http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/Research%20Tools/Guide_to_the_Analysis_of_Insurgency.pdf
>>59962702
You're not right wing you stupid mong. Hey I have an idea lets ban bombs, bombs that can be used to kill hundreds of babies with one flick of the switch.
Hypothetically, would you rather rob/shoot/commit act of gun violence where you know no one is allowed to have guns or say, where you know every person on the block has a concealed/open carry?
Irrelevant really, we have, in our constitution, the laws that create a "gun culture." I imagine our forefathers foresaw complications, but that the benefits out weighed the risks.
In other words, gotta smoosh a few lemons to make lemonade, nahmean?
But we (as of today) have never been occupied, invaded, or lived under true tyranny.
In say, Amsterdam, I'm sure people get tired of stoners and prostitues, but free trumps all that, IMO.
I don't agree with the nanny state. Just my opinion though.
>>59970745
also,
>You have zero understanding of strategy or history and think that because you saw a bunch of Vietnam movies and have opinions about Iraq you're qualified to declare insurgency as the quintessential path to victory when literally every single person employed as a professional to win wars agrees that conventional armies are more effective.
I am not saying that insurgents will win every time or even very often, but that it may be a phase of a broader revolution. While unlikely, if any unacceptable action by the government became impossible to defeat by non-violent measures, the option should remain.
>>59963181
We Americans can own fully automatics, they're just fuck expensive, and a bit of red tape to cut through.
We're talking 10K for some of the cheaper Class 3s
>>59962702
>I "consider" myself very right wing
>I honestly can't rationally justify why assault weapons being legal is a good thing
<------- The left wing is that way.
>>59970755
>It would be much easier to raid a US armory with a lot of high-quality assault weapons than without them.
Only in the context of some kind of surgical strike by trained professionals. If it's just a violent mob of regular Americans with their looted police weapons setting out to massacre a bunch of soldiers and take their shit then it doesn't much matter. It comes down to weight of numbers versus the resolve of the defenders and the foresight of the commanders. Whether they're armed with metal rods or rifles a whole bunch of those angry Americans are going to be slaughtered before they manage to beat enough soldiers to death to take control. It's unorganised chaos, with soldiers who don't know what to do and rioters who don't know what they're doing.
>heavy weapons are helpful but not necessary to, for example, hold a civilian city.
They'll be necessary to break the inevitable siege that city is put under though, and not starving to death from the siege-induced shortages will be necessary to holding the city.
>I don't think that aircraft would be particularly effective against insurgency
Then think again. Actual insurgents always talk about how gunships are their worst nightmare, for various reasons. There's plenty to read on the subject.
>unless the US Gov't went around just decimating its own cities.
This is war, not a picnic. The US government will fight it like it fights everything else, and if you think that'll only turn their people against them then you haven't read much history. The civilians will blame the fighting on the terrorists, if anything. That's what's happening in Syria. Society divides into loyalists and rebels pretty early on, and any bad things that either do are blamed on the other immediately.
>liberty is worth fighting for
Be prepared to die for it, then. A pointless insurgency will only be suicide, and the pursuit of retarded gun policies to enable it will cost even more lives in the process.
>>59971274
Underrated post right here guys.
Sage, Report, and move on
This board wouldn't be complete fucking shit if you retards would stop feeding the trolls
>>59962702
>I consider myself very rightwing
No you're not you lying sack of fucking shit.
>>59962702
When will people stop using Verbs ad Adjectives?
>>59963085
>so basically 98% of firearms
kill your self you pantywaist liberal piece of shit
>>59962702
Nice try OP, back to special education for you.
Bernie shills out in force today I see.
The timing of Obama's executive order is perfect for him and gun grabbers. Violent crime went up for the first time in decades last year because of BLM and cops being apathetic about or afraid to do their jobs. Get rid of BLM and get cops back to doing real policing, and crime will easily go down in 2016. What will be to blame for the drop in crime, at least in the media? It's not going to be the decline of BLM, that would be racist. It's going to be Obama's executive order on guns, and that means more gun control laws if we elect Hillary.
>>59971174
>that link
Go and look at the stages of a successful insurgency that link explains. It's on page 4.
What's the last one?
Is it conventional warfare fought by a force that mimics the conventional army opposing it?
It is?
However did I guess.
The entire point of insurgency is to turn into a government, complete with standing army, and your own materials agree with me.
>>59971403
>I am not saying that insurgents will win every time or even very often
Correct.
>the option should remain
Agreed, but the option is not safeguarded in any way by enormous quantities of small arms in civilian hands.
>>59971483
again you are assuming that only a certain happening will ever happen. Neither of us can predict what the diplomatic/military situation will be between the rebels and the government in a hypothetical rebellion. In any of those cases, it would be ~helpful~ if the rebels didn't have to raid some government place to get small arms and if there could be popular civilian participation, even with only small arms. How realistic it is that a rebel group would actually "win" (with whatever their purpose would be) is also dependent on what exactly they're rebelling against and their popularity and a bunch of other hypothetical stuff (ie irrelevant).
>Actual insurgents always talk about how gunships are their worst nightmare, for various reasons. There's plenty to read on the subject.
If the US Government is in the position of using gunships and airstrikes on US Cities, I think it's reasonable to assume they should be overthrown.
>>59971483
>and the pursuit of retarded gun policies to enable it will cost even more lives in the process.
>"assault weapons" account for <5% of murders
>gun control literally doesn't work
>etc
you're entrenched in a single hypothetical strain of argument because you lose any of the others--like "assault weapons r bad" "americans r too stupid to own guns " etc.
assault rifle here,
I just want to work and feed my family. Why is this country making it so hard for me to do that?
>>59971963
>Agreed, but the option is not safeguarded in any way by enormous quantities of small arms in civilian hands.
Maybe so but, certainly a better shot at success if you have raw materials on hand to begin with.
>>59971963
>Agreed, but the option is not safeguarded in any way by enormous quantities of small arms in civilian hands.
it is, even if slightly. In ONE hypothetical scenario wherein every single non-government employee took arms against the government, it would certainly be helpful if they had the option of AR15s and Barrett .50s in addition to handguns and hunting rifles.
>The entire point of insurgency is to turn into a government, complete with standing army, and your own materials agree with me.
ok and?
>>59972100
Titanium Spork here, I feel ya bro. I wonder why the britbongs hate me so much.
>>59962702
No you are a far left retard or a very shitty troll from /k/
>>59972017
>Neither of us can predict what the diplomatic/military situation will be between the rebels and the government in a hypothetical rebellion
It will be hostile.
>it would be ~helpful~ if the rebels didn't have to raid some government place to get small arms
If the people are so daunted by the prospect of beating police officers to death, or are so incapable of fighting that they cannot do this and take their shit, then your rebellion was doomed to fail anyway. It's not ~helpful~ because if you're willing to use those guns then you're willing to take the steps required to get them, and it's virtually impossible to fail at those steps if you had any chance of succeeding later on.
Basically, if you can't get small arms you wouldn't win anyway even if you had them.
>If the US Government is in the position of using gunships and airstrikes on US Cities, I think it's reasonable to assume they should be overthrown.
"The US government only does that because the terrorists force them to!" - said every loyalist ever.
>you're entrenched in a single hypothetical strain of argument because you lose any of the others
I haven't even engaged in any other lines of argument because unlike some other people I know how to stay on topic. I'm here to talk about insurgency and such. If you want someone to engage in pointless wide-ranging goalpost shifting then there are plenty of Eurokeks around to oblige you.
Are we in an arms race with our government?
>>59972174
That's my point. It's really not. When the violent angry mob rolls down the streets towards the local police station in its thousands then those police officers are going to run away or be beaten to death no matter what they do, regardless of how many guns the rioters have. That's exactly how it went down in Libya, and that's how it would go down across Europe if ever it went down. This would carry on until, equipped with those spoils, the rioters reached an armoury or depot and pillaged it as well. So on and so forth forever.
If the rebellion doesn't have the momentum to succeed at this early stage then it would never succeed later on anyway, even if it did have guns.
>>59972206
>In ONE hypothetical scenario wherein every single non-government employee took arms against the government, it would certainly be helpful if they had the option of AR15s and Barrett .50s in addition to handguns and hunting rifles.
The government would be so hilariously fucked in that situation that I can confidently state it would not be helpful at all, because the odds of success are already at 100%..
>ok and?
And therefore even insurgents agree that insurgency is a bad strategy, and becoming a de facto government with army in tow is the better option.
To be a conventional army you need heavy weapons.
So it all coalesces in a beautiful, impenetrable wall of logic
To fight effectively you need heavy weapons.
You will never have heavy weapons and not have small arms.
Ergo, you do not need huge quantities of small arms because without heavy weapons they are pointless and with heavy weapons you have them anyway.
>>59972503
>it will be hostile
were any shots fired at the Bundy Ranch? k
>If the people are so daunted by the prospect of beating police officers to death, or are so incapable of fighting that they cannot do this and take their shit, then your rebellion was doomed to fail anyway. It's not ~helpful~ because if you're willing to use those guns then you're willing to take the steps required to get them, and it's virtually impossible to fail at those steps if you had any chance of succeeding later on.
>Basically, if you can't get small arms you wouldn't win anyway even if you had them.
speculation.jpg
There are other serious flaws but I don't really need to go into them unless they're substantiated (with something other than shitposting).
>"The US government only does that because the terrorists force them to!" - said every loyalist ever.
They would (maybe? again this is all hypothetical) be incorrect.
>I haven't even engaged in any other lines of argument because unlike some other people I know how to stay on topic. I'm here to talk about insurgency and such. If you want someone to engage in pointless wide-ranging goalpost shifting then there are plenty of Eurokeks around to oblige you.
kek ok, so you're cool if we keep our assault weapons as long as they're clearly labeled, "useless in some hypothetical situations"?
>>59972288
Jesus you people are retarded
>or a very shitty troll from /k/
a shitty troll with 157 replies and counting?
fuck off back to /b/
>>59963016
>What does that even mean in a modern context?
it means: to resist a tyrannical government
>>59962702
Shut up faggot
>im an X-wing but i dont agree with Y policy typically X
These threads are fucking cancer.
>>59962702
>Doesn't it just make it easier for terrorists to kill large numbers of people quickly?
That has happened about... twice in American history? If that?
Is that quite an issue in a country of 300,000,000?
>>59973039
>were any shots fired at the Bundy Ranch?
Hostile in the sense that it will oppose the interests of the others.
>speculation.jpg
Exactly what happened in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
>There are other serious flaws but I don't really need to go into them unless they're substantiated
;^) you're so smart
>They would be incorrect.
Irrelevant. All that matters is that they believe it, because so long as they do they will slavishly support the government that blew up their neighbour's house, and the government will continue to do that kind of thing. The US government verymuch will fight a regular war on its own soil. It's not going to pull punches because of sentiment.
>so you're cool if we keep our assault weapons as long as they're clearly labeled, "useless in some hypothetical situations"?
In the context of this argument, yes. I don't care about the other issues at the moment. All I want to say is that "we need our guns to fight the government" justification for the second amendment is retarded.
>>59962702
No Seriously USA should not let everyone own a gun!
>>59972860
>The government would be so hilariously fucked in that situation that I can confidently state it would not be helpful at all, because the odds of success are already at 100%
>it would not be helpful at all
if you cannot conceive of a single instance wherein it would be helpful to have more and heavier small arms on the spectrum of 0-100% civilian support then you are not trying.
>And therefore even insurgents agree that insurgency is a bad strategy, and becoming a de facto government with army in tow is the better option.
ok but it would be possible for insurgents armed only with small arms to get heavier weapons
>it still stands that not every single rebellion would be an 'insurgency' and not even all 'insurgencies' would absolutely NEED heavy weaponry to succeed
>So it all coalesces in a beautiful, impenetrable wall of logic
hi Descartes, how are your theoretical daemons going?
>To fight effectively you need heavy weapons.
>You will never have heavy weapons and not have small arms.
>Ergo, you do not need huge quantities of small arms because without heavy weapons they are pointless and with heavy weapons you have them anyway.
lol that simply doesn't follow, there are several hideous implicit premises
you would need to supplement that with "you cannot get heavy weapons without small arms"
>>59962842
This meme is fucking retarded. You know damn well what they're talking about and you look retarded when you pretend to not know.
>>59973598
>if you cannot conceive of a single instance wherein it would be helpful to have more and heavier small arms on the spectrum of 0-100% civilian support then you are not trying.
If they're so obvious then provide one.
>ok but it would be possible for insurgents armed only with small arms to get heavier weapons
Of course.
>you would need to supplement that with "you cannot get heavy weapons without small arms"
You cannot get heavy weapons with a number of things, small arms being one of them. You will also need a big angry mob, a social movement that supports you, some kind of political organisation, and so on and so on.
And if you have all the other shit you'll find you really don't need small arms to start with after all, though you will need them by the end. They're easy enough to pick up along the way.
![[Triggereing_Intensifies].png](https://i.imgur.com/NQ46wmf.png "[Triggereing_Intensifies].png")
>>59962702
>I'm right-wing...* BUT* [libshit lies intensify]
>I'm a Trump supporter... *BUT* [libshit lies intensify]
>I'm pro-life and aginst same-sex marriage...*BUT* [libshit lies intensify]
you are a pathetic, manipulative lying faggot... you know why you have to resort to lying, treachery and deception?
Because no matter HOW much you twist and try to obfuscate history and reality... you'll NEVER TRULY be on the "right" side of anything.
EVER
>>59973405
>Exactly what happened...
oh really? Is there evidence that if they didn't want to kill the police they would never have succeeded?
you are grasping at straws
>you're so smart
thanks!
>Irrelevant. All that matters is that they believe it, because so long as they do they will slavishly support the government that blew up their neighbour's house, and the government will continue to do that kind of thing. The US government verymuch will fight a regular war on its own soil. It's not going to pull punches because of sentiment.
Actually there is a large community of members of the military and DoD who would join a rebellion or would have second thoughts about killing their mom. Of course, you wouldn't care because this is all speculation. (can't find military poll I saw earlier but here's this and pic related http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/poll-29-think-armed-rebellion-might-soon-be-necessary)
> All I want to say is that "we need our guns to fight the government" justification for the second amendment is retarded.
you seem to want to say a bunch of other stuff about how boot-licking the US is :))
>>59972677
It's not much of a race.
There are more than half a billion guns in civilian hands.
>>59973897
>assault weapon is a clear cut term
The only meming here is from you, my friend.
>>59973956
>You cannot get heavy weapons with a number of things, small arms being one of them. You will also need a big angry mob, a social movement that supports you, some kind of political organisation, and so on and so on.
>And if you have all the other shit you'll find you really don't need small arms to start with after all, though you will need them by the end. They're easy enough to pick up along the way.
>Of course it would be possible for insurgents armed only with small arms to get heavier weapons
at this point your argument is completely baseless
>>59973897
Are you kidding?
Even they don't know what they're talking about 99% of the time.
>>59963367
>Select-fire that fires an intermediate cartridge.
Anything else is a SMG, Rifle or MG.
That's the definition of an "assault rifle" faggot libtards want to name every weapon an assault weapon.
>Semi-Automatic rifle aka the scary AR-15.
You pull the trigger and one bullet fires after each trigger pull.
>Handgun
You pull the trigger and one bullet fires after each trigger pull.
Semi-automatic is a loaded term meant to scare people into associating semi-automatic guns with automatic guns which are already illegal to own.
>>59962702
Retard, you best be trolling.
>>59974683
That's the military definition. The legal definition is more broadly defined.
>>59974683
Canada with a VZ58. nice gun, anon
>>59973956
>>59977162
The legal definition ceased to exist in 2004.
>>59977939
Everyone needs one or 2 of them.
Unfortunately, they've gotten so popular, the price of them has doubled in the last 10 years.
>>59963181
Fully automatic weapons can be bought with ATF approval. Fun fact: Only 1 crime has ever been committed with a government issued automatic weapon and it was by a crooked cop in the 40's.
>"need"
>i consider myself very right wing
>"need"
I think you should stop deluding yourself.
>>59967246
The hell is that little shit anyway? A freakin .38? So tiny it hurts, man
>>59971422
So can Canadians, as long as they have a Prohibited license.
