Please can anyone explain a decent logical argument for no gun control.
I don't see how it makes a country safer overall, America just seems fucked with a school shooting monthly exhibit.
Australia banned guns and gun violence and murders went down in a fucking instant. TFW you live in a safe country where faggots don't murder each other with assault weapons.
The funny thing is, all statistics point to gun control working. Americans on suicide watch.
>>70514219
thought /pol and /k were hand in hand. Nice to see some decent points
>>70514098
>Muh safety
Fucking pussy there are things more important than safety you cuck.
>>70514098
>Guns
>Safe
Wow. That's just some retarded shit right there.
Gun control is: tyrannical people convincing dumb people to be incapable of defending themselves from tyranny.
>>70514098
You need guns to defend yourself vs niggers and Jews.
>>70514219
I like guns and think they serve as an effective nog remover.
Remember, most gun deaths in the US are black-on-black, so if you are for gun control, then you are pro-nigger.
This is the wrong board for you.
I own an AK, illegally, hows that for not giving a fuck about gun rights and gun control?
kiss my ass fascist scum.
>>70514098
HEIL ELLIOT, OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR
>>70514219
>Lotta guns went off the market
>murder and violence went down
k
What about the crime rate in total, kiwi. It's almost like you're trying to shit post
>>70514357
What tyranny?
>>70514098
If you ban guns, the good people who respect the law no longer have any way to defend against the criminals who don't. You can't depend on the police to protect you.
>>70514098
If we would just have retard tests so that retards can't own guns, we'd be in the fucking green but nope.
>>70514440
Has AK in Europe confirmed for ISIS
>>70514098
SHALL
>>70514357
>Gun control is: tyrannical people convincing dumb people to be incapable of defending themselves from tyranny.
pretty much this, ameriboo cowboys know the drill
>it's a europeans try and talk guns while US of A is sleeping
>>70514440
>kiss my ass
>>70514490
50-100 years down the line when a Muslim president decides to ethnically cleanse all non-muslim citizens
>>70514532
OOOGA BOOGA INSHALLAH ALLAHU AKBARRR!!
>>70514098
But America DOES have SOME gun control, Britbro.
>>70514371
Don't forget about the Queens Guard and their loaded fully automatic weaponry.
>>70514219
how about the spike in home break-ins recently? how about europe descending into a place where millions of foreigners who haven't contributed an hour's worth of effort to the host society are allowed to rape and assault freely because reporting it or prosecuting is prevented by the government?
god i love living in america, i was out drinking friday and some homeless dude was fucking with people and this white surfer shanked him in the alley next to the bar while i was having a smoke outside.
there is a need for violence in society, and your phobia of it is sending your countries into turmoil.
say hi to the refugees for me australia, your lefty government is going to take a lot in soon.
>>70514098
Better to have a couple of school shootings then to be ruled over by a tyrant to be honest.
Look at what's happening in Europe right now. The US Government wouldn't dare try to pull off that sort of crap, because the citizens would revolt.
>>70514219
>nanny state faggot
You realise crime rates were already going down right? And we still have pretty much the same level of illegal shootings?
Not only that, but why were our rights taken away due to one retard going on a mass shooting? Do you honestly agree with that?
>>70514495
at some point it is going to have to happen
>muslims in America getting hold of them
>more mass shootings ect
Surely cutting production lines and watching the prices skyrocket makes a bottom up removal of guns.
>>70514219
>murders went down in a fucking instant.
No they didn't you clown, they stayed constant. Because, surprise surprise, people who own guns legally rarely murder people.
Also, the events at Port Arthur are extremely suspicious. A literally retarded person managed to get a string of John Wick-tier headshots in the amount of time a competitive shooter would be proud of? And immediately followed by calls for gun bans? Nothing fishy going on there, clearly.
>>70514532
I wonder how many ISIS dudes there are on /pol/. There's bound to be a few of them I'd say, they hate Jews and are obsessed with conspiracy theories.
>>70514547
NOT
>>70514660
ye obvs but i meant general sale ect.
>>70514710
It's my right as a free man, fuck you
If there have to be school shootings, so be it
>>70514721
Because guns were never a right in the first place?
>>70514785
I also own a few grenades too, illegally
you jelly bongistani?
this is how free men roll,they do what needs to be done to protect their property and rights, despite bullshit laws placed to keep them down, not nanny prison state bitches like you.
>>70514754
that shit goes down once and there won't be a mosque standing in the south.
http://www.fox26houston.com/news/113724562-story
>>70514754
Or.... we could ban Muslims?
#Trump2016
>>70514906
>I also own a few grenades too, illegally
>>70514906
I think you responded to the wrong person, but yes I am jealous. Fuck this nanny state garbage.
>>70514838
So anything that isn't a right explicitly stated by the government can instantly be taken away? Do you think that's moral?
Whether it was a right or not, it hasn't worked at all in stopping illegal shootings. I have guns anyway, but I can't use them to defend myself without facing legal charges.
>>70514838
A right recognized by your government? Maybe. But governments are not the final determinants of rights or ethics.
>>70514098
Who is that supreme gentleman, OP?
>>70514934
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html
touche
>>70514219
Other countries that have lower crime rates generally don't have a good police force to begin with. They would rather lie and say that serial killers are an exclusively American problem.
>>70514688
>there is a need for violence in society
You'll wish for government protection when any violence is directed towards you.
>>70514989
The only true rights are natural rights, and gun ownership is not one of them. Whether gun prohibition is and morally wrong or not is a complicated question, but I'm of the view that the more power the citizenry has, relative to the state, the better, so for that reason I'm in favour of a well armed populace.
>>70515076
That's what everyone wishes for, because they're fucking paying for it. Unfortunately, government protection seldom arrives on time to save you, so you can either be a spineless cuck at the mercy of your attackers, or you can defend yourself like a man.
>>70514219
This is a load of shit, just because gun control works in one country does not mean it will work in another. America is literally built upon the idea of guns, they have so many goddamn guns it would be impossible to regulate, let's not even mention the fact that they are on the border with Mexico (how's that drug war goin?). Don't try to shoehorn your government's ideals into other countries, there are different circumstances in America.
I won't even bother getting into statistics, the picture speaks volumes.
>>70515076
>You'll wish for government protection when any violence is directed towards you.
The government doesnt really give a shit about you, law abiding citizen. The government is nothing but a mob putting their interests above yours , so long as they tax your work and you dont compete with their power, they tolerate you.
But if you think they're going to come running when some band of maniacs tries to force you off your property. We'll you'll find out just how untrustworthy your government really is.
>>70515161
>and gun ownership is not one of them
Do you know what natural rights are? The right to arms is a subset of the more general natural right to property. So yes, it is very much part of natural rights.
>>70515026
>some redneck leaves a fucking LOADED 45 in the car with a little kid
this is like when someone is barbecuing indoors because the weather is shitty and dies from carbon monoxide poisoning, terrible example
>>70515076
>You'll wish for government protection when any violence is directed towards you.
yes... how does that disprove that having a gun at hand during a home invasion makes you more likely to come away unscathed? what exactly is your argument Achmed?
>>70515255
Holy shit, is that real?
Oh my...nice digits too.
>>70515290
Can you grow illegal drugs and not get caught in Polan aswell?
>>70515161
>tfw a bunch of based super smart white dudes knew what the drill was going to be and people in other countries are still butthurt about it years later
when i see shit like germany letting in refugees, i say to myself and others, "good let them see how that works out," because i know it will backfire in the end.
if you honestly thought banning guns would make america better, through whatever backwards logic, you should be telling me "go ahead have your guns and get shot."
you're just butthurt that our culture dominates the modern world in terms of science, medicine, technology, and pop culture, and the fact that we own guns and you guys don't fucks with you. you hate it. you don't like that a culture that is different and values things that you don't is superior.
>>70515220
>>70515290
>>70515315
I wasn't claiming that violence in society in bad or you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I was simply expressing my belief that he'll probably be unsuccessful in protecting himself.
>>70515631
I think you misread what I wrote. I support gun ownership as a legal right, but I don't consider it to be a natural right.
>>70515292
I don't agree that the right to property extends to every exchangeable object.
>>70516097
We live in a very dangerous world, my protected manchild.
You never know when some mentally deranged faggot is going to step out of the shadows and try to kill you for your phone.
And yes every man has the natural right to protect himself with whatever means he sees fit, be it walking around in a juggernaut military class combat armor suit to having a black belt in judo.
>>70516319
Self defense is a natural right.
Property is a natural right.
What counts as property, however, is determined by jurists and legislators.
I believe that guns should be considered property, and that this should be protected as a legal right by a state's constitution.
How does this position belie any sort naivete? I'm literally saying I want people to be armed.
>>70516704
look here
>>70514574
You know why every murderess ruthless tyrant in history made it their first priority to disarm the masses.
it's called a dictatorship
kind of like what bongistanis and you bogans have
A state that tries to prevent it's "citizens" from having equal chance on the battlefield is a dictatorship. Because they are armed, but the fact of knowing the average "citizen" has a way to defend themselves is unsettling to them.
thats all there is to it.
>>70517012
Are you fucking retarded? Read what I wrote you stupid Slav.
>>70516704
>I believe that guns should be considered property, and that this should be protected as a legal right by a state's constitution.
>>70517101
no youre the retard thinking everyone in the world is retarded and naive to your sloppy imperialism
you fucking anglo piece of shit.
fuck I hate you cocksuckers
>>70517012
I said this a few posts up as well:
>>70515161
>I'm of the view that the more power the citizenry has, relative to the state, the better, so for that reason I'm in favour of a well armed populace.
The only people who shouldn't have guns are dumb fucks like you. You probably don't have the reading comprehension to fill in the registration though, so its all good.
Do you agree that each individual should own a mini nuke.
Keep in mind nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
>>70514098
Because there is gun control.
>>70517276
>Do you agree that each individual should own a mini nuke.
yes that would be pretty tacticool actually, and If I was canada's minister I'd do everything in my power to make every canadian own a mini nuke, for the sakes of keeping the state independent and sovereign.
>>70517276
To be honest, if people had the money for it, then why the fuck not? MAD works between countries, so why not angry neighbors?
>>70514098
Please can anyone explain why britbong faggots can't worry about their own shithole of a country and mind their own business?
>>70514440
>>70514574
>>70514654
>>70514906
>>70515290
>>70516319
>>70517012
>>70517176
>>70517484
POLAND NO!!!!!!!!! REFUGEES WELCOME!!!!
POLAND
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>70517486
Because some crazy or suicidal person will inevitably nuke everyone?
>>70517657
>everyone
>mini nuke
You do realize that a person can already legally own a mini nuke, if they have the money and time available? Same with tanks, grenades, etc etc. Yet have you seen anyone blow up a neighbors house with a tank? Crazy people can't afford nice things, thus it's a non problem. Why do you think the highest crime weapon (for guns) is the Hi Point? A sub $150 handgun...
>>70517740
You argument only works on the premise that they are cheap. What if one day they aren't cheap, or some new technology that is just as destructive but way cheaper is invented?
>Nukes are legal. Large scale production drives the price down. Pretty expensive still, but most fairly welloff families can afford one. Upper class surgeon or something finds out his wife is cucking him with the pool boy. Nukes city in a fit of despair.
>>70517993
Then awesome, everyone has nukes, and people go crazy with them now and then, killing themselves, and normally other stupid people. (like currently with guns). Where's the issue?
>>70514098
Not from America but keep in mind one thing; there are countries with way more guns per-capita and yet don't have regular shoot ups - why? it all comes down to the underlying culture. The problem in the United States isn't the constitution or guns but the violent culture that exists not to mention the whole 'rugged individual cow boy out on the range' BS that seems to be a steady diet since birth.
>>70517993
>Upper class surgeon or something finds out his wife is cucking him with the pool boy. Nukes city in a fit of despair.
That's a risk we'd all have to take, so long as every able bodied citizen can be mobilized in a pinch into nuclear suicidal bombers against foreign invaders.
We got to keep one step ahead of our competitors in this global race to be the king of the hill.
>>70518185
Okay. You're just an edgy retard, never mind.
>>70518235
Nah, as for the real answer, there are so many "what if what if" scenarios, it's impossible to describe them all. As for mini nukes, these would actually be under NFA regulation as explosives, at which point would be highly federally regulated, like tanks and grenades. I can guarantee you that they would never be mass produced, and even if they were with the threat of greater weapons, as you mentioned, no one would be fucked up enough to detonate one.
>>70514098
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a shitskin problem. We're safer than Europe once this has been accounted for.
>>70518307
>they would never be mass produced
just like the west was jibber jabbering on about "better dead than red" crockery, now look at us all , we all live under a communist star, posing as "democracy".
never say never.
>>70518307
This is why I think there should be a distinction between what an individual can own, and what a community can own, in order to mitigate the risk of individual fallibility. I have no problem with nukes being owned by the federal government, the states, and by county militias. Giving the power to destroy a city to one individual citizen, though, defeats the purpose of the US constitution, which was to prevent individuals from accumulating too much power.
>>70514219
mfw "assault weapons" are used in 0.00006% of homicides
>>70514098
Because criminals will get guns regardless of the laws dipshit... how many people go through all of the red tape and trouble to LEGALLY own a firearm, and then commit murder? ...there will always be exceptions, but we're not talking about that... we're talking about the MAJORITY of people. Gun free zones are ALWAYS where the worst shootouts happen because they're 1 sided. Get a clue shill.
>>70514219
The Jews know Australia is irrelevant... get the fuck over it!!
>>70518581
but muh feelings
>>70518581
If the chinks ever decided to go the USA route of letting firearms be available to most anybody, australia would fall to a pro-chink regime shortly after.
You'd be having a swift flag change and taking mandarin language lessons in no time. m8
>>70514098
Because my freedom trumps your desire for a false sense of security.
>>70514098
you have been cucked so much by the government that you deny yourself the right to not depend on it for the basic human need of self defence.
School shootings in america constitute 0.2% of all gun homicide, another 4% is committed with legal firearms, so that's 96% of gun homicide committed by dindus and crackheads with guns smuggled over the border, so any law restricting the law abiding citizen of the right to own guns is simply making it easier for people who will not follow the law, which are the people who are committing the vast majority of gun crime in the first place.
Even if this wasn't the case, and school shootings were so much more of a problem, it is amazing you'd default to restricting liberties over actually preventing people from snapping and going on a rampage. Every single school shooter has given out signals in advance that they were going to do something horrific, but because of their usually abusive and negligent surroundings this goes unnoticed until it's too late and the media want to paint all legal gun owners as unstable and likely to flip at any moment.
>>70514219
can't resit the shit post, it's just in your blood...sad really
>>70519360
>this flag
>this post
maybe europe isn't completely fucked
>>70514098
You want an example? Look at your own country. In '92 you banned semiautomatic handguns, skerry black rifles and many other weapons.
Has it affected your murder rate in the following years? Of course not (pic related). It actually went up until mid 2003 and then back down to where it was before the ban. No effect at all.
Yes. By banning guns you are preventing some perpetrators to commit crimes like murder with their legally attained guns. But those crimes are only a small fraction of all the crimes committed with other equally effective means.
>>70519512
living in a country of cucks just makes you more passionate about what could be
Who says that there should be no gun control whatsoever?
Clearly there should be restrictions so that a nigger who just came out of jail can't buy guns and grenades to go attack a Trump rally.
>>70519543
sure is FIDF in here.
Now how are you going to stop people (like me) from attaining firearms and grenades illegally VIA black market merchants?
You know just south of you in north afrika gun production is on the rise.
shitaly's market will be flooded with them as illegal refugees flood shitaly.
There's just no stopping it my fascist friend, just adaption to a changing social environment.
Gun deaths are just the price we pay.
It's like if cars are legal, you're gonna have car deaths
It's a fair trade desu
>>70519822
Holy shit, this stupid fucking Pole.
LEARN TO READ YOU STUPID CUNT.
>>70519822
People like you will be dealt with by your government.
>>70519970
>People like you will be dealt with by your government.
MWAAHAHAHAHAHA
my governemnt is too fucking corrupt to handle the situation.
kind of like your government is with south american illegal arms smuggling.
>>70519879
Are there are any practical solutions which Americans on /pol/ think would actually reduce the rate of mass shootings? Or is truly just the price you have to pay?
>>70519822
Like, honestly dude. Actually fucking read the post you are replying to. He is agreeing with you, just like I was earlier, but you just kept on misunderstanding or not reading.
In America, government was created as the servant of the citizenry. It is not he right of the servant to tell the master what he may or may not own. We the people can decide if we want to allow the government weapons. Their use of weapons is a privilege granted by the citizens, and we can take it away whenever we want.
>>70514098
I see no one has posted it yet, so here you go. A decent, logical defense for no gun control. The argument is very simple, self defense.
Reminder that people who support gun control do so strictly for one of two reasons with zero reference to facts (or reference to very specific cherry picked statistics) or logic:
1. Guns are scary.
2. Opposition to self defense.
If you support gun control, you are guaranteed to fall into one or both of these two groups.
>>70520262
k
>>70520183
wew dude, like litarally, wew
>>70514098
There are loads of logical arguments that work great in theory, in practise however the results are there for all to see. I like the idea of owning a gun or being allowed to, but it comes at the price of all of us being less safe. That fact is inescapable.
>>70514710
Americans rights are being eroded no less than Europeans rights are. Their guns have no saved them, nor will they.
>>70520138
Stop hyping up guns as such a dangerous thing to liberals who will go for one the moment they snap.
>>70514490
pic related,
too bad we're much more tolerant of it now though, the American revolution was set off by a single tax, just on principle.
Have a gun aware culture which understands it as just a tool and so more people will be willing to carry in order to defend themselves.
have a culture which actually gives a shit about it's offspring and doesn't force virgin teenagers round the bend with negligence and abuse, it is much more a child abuse problem than a gun problem.
don't let Muslims in.
think outside the box, stop relying on the state for everything, be truly independent.
>>70520138
It is the price you have to pay. As the faggot said if cars are legal you are still going to end up with people dead. You have to get a drivers license and go trough loops to drive, yet people still die. It's the price you have to pay as a society.
The thing is though that there are more mass shootings than ever. There is something that can be done to reduce shootings.
It's not so black and white. You can definitely address the issues and find a good balance of gun control and freedom to own guns, and address mental health and societal issues.
>>70520511
free speech is much more dangerous to people anon.
>>70514098
>everyone should be disarmed and entirely at the mercy of their corrupt, treasonous government just like me, even though self-defense is the most basic of human rights
Nice one, OP.
>>70514219
US gun homicide rates are down by similar amounts since the early 90s. If you'd like I can put the statistics I'm looking at into a nice chart, but that takes time and effort.
>>70519469
Saved for justice. Thanks lad
>>70519822
Are you a functionally illiterate? I was actually trying to prove the point that gun control is completely ineffective and there is no correlation between the uk gun ban and its murder rate.
>Now how are you going to stop people (like me) from attaining firearms and grenades illegally VIA black market merchants?
We sure aren't going to stop you by prohibiting law abiding citizens to legally own guns for legit purposes like self defense, sporting, hunting, collecting. That's why the kind of gun control that OP advocates has no sense, nor effect on the subject at hand.
>You know just south of you in north afrika gun production is on the rise.
>shitaly's market will be flooded with them as illegal refugees flood shitaly.
You clearly don't know shit. We already have a florid illegal weapons market here. In 98% of crimes committed using a gun in Italy, the gun comes from the black market. We don't need nigger-made shitty weapons from across the sea when our organized crime can easily get them from ex eastern bloc countries.
>>70520138
What's with the obsession with mass shootings? Is 1 shooting that kills 10 worse than 10 shootings that each kill one? You're far far more likely to die in a non-mass murder than mass murder.
>>70520555
We have actual free speech, so that's flat wrong off the bat.
>nor will they
A hundred million gun owners in open rebellion would have a bit of political sway I think.
>>70520511
>I like the idea of owning a gun or being allowed to defend myself
>allowed
see>>70520821
>>70514098
>>70514219
>Comparing two island countries to a country with two massive land borders, one of which with a country that we already illegally sold thousands of Class III NFA items that "we can't trust our own citizens with" to.
>>70520555
That argument didnt help you cucks keep the US did it?
>>70521822
>back then
>everyone more or less had muskets, maybe cannons
>now
>many people own guns
>however the army now has drones, tanks etc.
Not even a comparison
>>70521908
The USSR had nukes and they still collapsed. :^)
>>70521908
>tanks and F-22's useful for maintaining a police state
You know exactly shit.
>>70522013
>assault rifles useful for defending yourself against the US army
You know exactly shit.
>>70514219
Ausfag shitpost
Scary 'salt guns are involved in 300-400 deaths per year in the US, mostly self defense. Homicide statistics include suicide and SD figures, so they are not a true "murder rate"
Everyone is acting like guns are a big problem. Remove niggers from our population and our crime statistics run down lower than most European nations with a far smaller population.
>>70520511
The problem is that you got your notion of "Theory" and "practice" all wrong.
"Theory" is that by banning legal guns, you reduce crime.
"practice", backed by facts, is that there is no correlation between gun bans and the murder rate per year (As I demostrated by citing your own country as an example. As others demonstrated by bringing up the strayan murder rate before and after the ban).
Banning legal ownership of guns is not going to make us safe, because the vast majority of gun related crime does not orbit around legally acquired guns.
>>70521822
That argument is just such bullshit. If the people can't resist the government, what the fuck is Syria doing? What's ISIS? Why is US funding ''moderates'' (read: ISIS) to fight against Assad?
If the people wanted to overthrow the US government it would be very similar to what's happening in Syria. Just like US gets away with funding terrorists to fight Assad there would be countries that try and fund American rebels.
How fucking dumb can liberals be?
>>70522091
Anyone have the pasta pic that makes this newfag moron look like the total and complete buffoon he is? I'm on a new comp.
>>70514098
this 2bh
whenver a fight happens pussy americans always pick a gun instead of fighting like a man.
>>70522091
It's worked well in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Intermediate rifle cartridges are very adequate for short to medium range guerrilla warfare against a superior force for a number of reasons.
>>70520351
Once again, he is pro-gun. Can you read? What is with you?
>>70522254
Real men survive the fights without so much as a scratch on them, the loser lays on the ground bleeding to death.
>>70522313
True, but not against tanks or drones.
>>70522226
>le ill call him a newfag to invalidate le his argument
>>70522396
>tanks or drones.
>muh tanks n drone.
Youre absolutely clueless about military tactics mein negger
>>70514098
Ban schools. Make everyone a NEET. A technological revolution will happen.
>>70522482
You honestly think that if in the event the US becomes a police sate, the army won't dronestrike you where you stand?
>>70522396
Are you implying that adaptation is impossible? IEDs and the knowledge required to make them, and even surplus AT weaponry exist within the borders of the US in the hands of its citizens. There have also been a number of "weekend warrior" experiments to defeat FLIR involving emergency blankets.
>>70522545
>>70522589
ebin argument friend
>>70522545
>>70514098
Amerifats think they can prevent terrorist attacks with their guns.
Meanwhile the only thing they accomplished was having more school shooting than any other country in the world.
Nice freedom, amerikeks
>>70522724
Drones hovering overhead have no problem with hovering over streetcorners.
Granted, more people with guns makes maintaining a police state harder, but the police/swat/army have far better weapons training, and weapons.
Civilians will never defeat the SWAT/army.
>>70522672
BITCH I HAVE 248 HOURS IN ARMA 3 AND KNOW EVERY MILITARY STRATEGY AND TACTIC ON A MODERN DAY BATTLEFIELD. I CAN SNEAK UP ON TANKS UNDETECTED AND PLANT C4 LIKE A SPEC OPS ELITIST AND TAKE COVER IN STEALTH WHILE BEING SURROUNDED BY DRONES.
I AM A 1 MAN ARMY!
>>70522226
>>70522545
this one?
>>70516097
>I don't agree that the right to property extends to every exchangeable object.
If you accept the natural right to property, on what possible grounds do you limit this only to certain objects?
>>70514098
school shootings = fake
people must have equivalent firepower to the government in the case they need overthrowing
>>70514219
Yeah, now everyone just uses knives and glass bottles.
>>70514098
Are you saying that there is no "gun control" in the United States?
>>70522878
>better weapons training, and weapons
Weapons training means nothing when you get shot stepping out your front door to go to work in the morning. Even the best veteran can easily take a stray bullet in a firefight. Training does not make you invincible, and neither does having better weapons. Toothless kebab in the middle east have little training and weapons compares to US forces, and yet they can kill them just fine with a roadside IED.
>>70522878
you have to remember that with the rate of collateral damage and civilian deaths, the rebel cause will only get bigger, and the highly sensitive population will lash out, less and less tax payers, more and more rebels.
if drone operators get PTSD from bombing haji in dumfuckistan, then think about the desertion rate of the only 2 mil strong US military (including non-combatants) when they are turned against their own civilian population.
it's sad how mentally castrated you allow yourself to be in the face of a tyrant.
>>70522878
1. Police any army ARE the people, and probably wouldn't be too thrilled about killing their innocent countrymen.
2. Asymmetrical warfare is a thing, and Americas are the most well armed people in the world. It would be like the Iraqi insurgency x100
3. The government is outnumbered and out gunned. How many drones, soldiers and SWAT teams do you imagine the government has?
4. The government is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. People will wise up to what ever surveillance tactics are being used and organize themselves in resistance.
>>70523105
i have control of my firearms
>>70522922
The fact that he brings up the revolutionary war is laughable.
Back then, the army had muskets (and cannons) and the people had muskets. More or less equal footing, so it doesn't compare to the people today and the army today.
>Every citizen the US bombs is one less taxpayer
Do you think they care?
There are hundreds of millions of americans, inevitably they're going to realise they can't fight the entire US army.
>Let's say people gathered outside the pentagon
Say hi to multiple swat teams and snipers
>when he is forced to drop bombs on his own countrymen
Again, I don't think they'd care much. If a drone operator can kill a person, he can kill a person, regardless of nationality.
>5. Freedom
Yeah sure, get yourself killed because "we shouldn't ever give up
>>70523107
>Even the best veteran can easily take a stray bullet in a firefight
And he will have a 3x higher survival rate than any random citizen.
> Training does not make you invincible, and neither does having better weapons.
No, but it gives you a huge edge over a ragtag militia of untrained citizens
> the rebel cause will only get bigger
Or, they will learn that they can't defeat an entire US army and surrender.
>>70523322
>>70523322
pentagon already predicts 75% of us soldiers to defect should the rebellion hit, and thats just the first wave
>>70522933
Due to human fallibility, I think giving individuals access to extremely powerful weapons is by default a breach of other people's rights. As an extreme example, I don't believe that an individual has the right to own a nuke.
>>70523463
[citation needed]
>>70514333
GUNS ARE FOR FIGHTING UR GUBBERMENT IF THEY EVER BECOME TYRINICAL THATS WHY THEY ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION
>>70523322
Your arguments against the infographic are founded on the belief that public opinion has no bearing on ROE, which it totally does. US soldiers in Afghanistan right now are hamstringed to the point where they're simply not allowed to engage enemies until they've got two confirmed instances of incoming fire from the same point of origin. How did this happen? Public opinion of CIVCAS was so low that the brass changed the rules of engagement to reduce the likelihood.
>>70523639
Fair enough, but what do you think happens to the ROE in a police state?
>>70523515
>breach of other people's rights.
yeah well certain people think they are entitled to more rights than others and thats always been a case.
That's why other certain people make sure those other guys dont have an advantage over them to execute their rights by force.
your argument is based like the queen in her buckingham palace.
>>70523322
>defeat an entire US army
Why would they be fighting the army? Armies are for fighting other armies. Oppressive police states use, as their name implies, police. There won't be tanks sitting on street corners. There won't be bombers blowing up office buildings. The point of an oppressive regime is to control the people, not to kill the people. And as 20th century history has shown time and time again, conventional militaries are ineffective at combating insurgencies.
>/pol/ loves fascism and warns against liberty other than gun rights
how to tell this shithole has no principals and posts whatever is edgy at the time
>>70523515
>is by default a breach of other people's rights
Explain how this can be so. Also explain why the possession of weapons below your arbitrary "power" limit is not an infringement on other people's rights.
>>70523698
>Why would they be fighting the army?
Because thats who the government calls when a bunch of citizens are trying to take back a police state?
>There won't be tanks sitting on street corners
There'll be plent of drones and helicopters hovering above them though
>The point of an oppressive regime is to control the people, not to kill the people
That doesn't mean to say that they won't kill people when they toe over the line
>>70523694
Fair enough as well, but what do you think would continue to happen to public opinion if the ROE called for airstrikes with spotty-at-best target identification and massive amounts of CIVCAS? It's a surefire way to further sensationalize a population into rebellion that you then have to divert resources to fighting while simultaneously destroying your source of income.
>>70523698
>not to kill the people.
That's not what stalin thought.
kill the people, then you have no people that will overthrow you. It's simple and effective really. But killing people who have a means to defend themselves in the first place, well, thats easier said than done.
>>70523841
Well the US has more than one way of getting income. You still have exports, trade etc.
>It's a surefire way to further sensationalize a population into rebellion
But what I consider to be a more realistic outcome is civilians losing morale, and disbanding their militias. We are talking about civilians here. the worst thing they've ever seen pales in comparison what happens in war
>>70523322
>I don't know how military or state works
damn, you're cucked so hard you can't even see it.
>>70514098
Dying is better than school
prove me wrong
>>70523998
They could also leave. I'm sure countries like good ol' Hat would open their doors to wide swaths of American refugees jumping the Maple Curtain.
>>70523795
Your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.
Humans are fallible.
It follows, then, that a fallible person should not be trusted to have arbitrary power over the life, liberty and property of a large number of others.
The reason why a nuke (or any hypothetical superweapon) is different to an assault rifle is that if someone were to attempt to kill, kidnap or steal on the scale that a nuke would empower you to do, it would take time, giving the police or other countrymen that are similarly armed a chance to intervene and stop you. With a nuke (or something similar) you can destroy yourself and millions of others instantly. There is no chance to stop you. Them having nukes wouldn't matter either, because that would end in the exact same catastrophe.
>>70524146
Epic argument bro!
See! i can say "you don't understand how x works" without explaining it as well! Epic!
I don't need to prove anything to anyone because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>>70514098
The issues isn't safety. If the issue was safety, there would legislation to ban private swimming pools and certain breeds of dog.
The issue is about the right and ability to defend yourself. It's already against the law to injure or kill someone by any means. Why does it matter when the instrument used is?
>>70525344
Its a question of how much power should an individual be trusted with.
>>70514219
>murders went down in an instant
No they didn't. Gun murders went down, overall murders stayed the same because when someone wants to murder someone else they're usually serious about it, and will find a way.
>>70514906
Doesn't your extreme right wing government monitor everything you put on the internet?
>>70525786
yes they do, lol but I dont give a fuck, I've an AK and nades
And that means Im free with unrestricted shitposting and abuse of internet powers
so sue me why dont you.
>>70514440
Lel your house is gon git searched now dumb faggot
>>70524405
>It follows, then, that a fallible person should not be trusted to have arbitrary power over the life, liberty and property of a large number of others.
This does not follow at all.
Firstly, you arbitrarily set the cutoff for having "power" over others only at a "large number". What number is this? How did you come to this determination? Why is an individual having power over this number unacceptable, but having power over a number less than that perfectly fine?
Suppose that you and I are in a room. I am armed, you are not. Presumably, you would say that I have arbitrary power over your life, liberty, and property. Why is this acceptable to you, but not if there were a thousand people in the same room and I had a nuke? What sort of perverse theory of natural rights do you follow where the rights of the many supercede the rights of the individual?
Secondly, you have to support your assertion that the mere possession of a weapon constitutes the "arbitrary power over life, liberty, and property" of someone else. Does a man's possession of larger muscles and greater size constitute the arbitrary power over the life, liberty, and property of a woman?
You seem to have a very inconsistent and muddled understanding of natural rights theory. A right to a scary salt rifle is not conditional on the fact that it is relatively easy to stop a shooter armed with one. That is not the source of the right, nor is that how rights work. Neither is the right to free speech conditional on what kind of speech it is and how easily the speaker can be silenced or ignored (inb4 fire in a crowded theater, that is a feeble argument that falls apart under scrutiny).
>>70525908
You sound underage as fuck.
>>70525948
lel
how horrifying.
Good thing Im not a croatian pussy or I'd be shitting my trousers.
>>70525908
What if they stop you when you leave the house? It's not like you carry your ak and nades with you.
Inb4
>actually leaving the house
>>70525344
Average police response time in the U.S. is about ten minutes. Assuming that at the moment of entry by an assailant into my home is the very same moment the police are sent to help me, that leaves me, my wife, and my three kids alone with a criminal for between eight and twelve minutes.
That's plenty of time for him to move through my house, round us up, and execute us. I'd much rather shoot him six times in the chest than take the chance with my family's lives, thanks.
>>70525571
If that's the question, then why the fuck are there cops? They've got WAY more power than normal individuals, along with bureaucracy to protect them if they fuck up.
Aside from that, it's a retarded argument. A naturally stronger person has more power than weaker people. CEOs have more power than their employees. Hell, a bunch of hedge fund managers can decide to crash the markets tomorrow, and they're not elected or even accountable. But no, the problem is guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Guns don't cause an imbalance in power; they help to level the playing field. They allow a weaker person to stop a stronger person from taking whatever they want.
I've spent my whole life reading and writing rather than training my mind and body to fight off an attacker. Does that mean that I deserve to lose my life and property from a stronger individual, or am I allowed to have a gun to protect myself and my family?
>>70526000
does that turn you on?
does it make you want to diddle my goodies?
>>70514098
It's a constitutional right.
I disagree with the Constitution and think it needs a page one rewrite, but since it's the Constitution, and the law, there should be universal gun rights, no exceptions ever.
>>70518307
No shit m8
>>70520766
INFRINGED
>>70526006
>fug da bolisss xDDDD
Edgy
>mfw my right to shoot shit was guaranteed in the founding document of my nation
laughing @ cucks 24/7
>>70526623
t.texan
obama is fucking with my ip and giving me a fucking leaf again
>>70526486
edgy but REAL
>>70526730
Yu be a real nuqqa gangzta dawg
>>70526825
Ay this Adidas track suit I wear screams gangsta as fuck yo.
>>70514778
Fuck me, a leaf that's not retarded.
There's still hope for your country leaf bros
>>70526908
>adidas
Not nike, lel you should use that ak to kill yourself senpai
>>70527182
>nike
>gayreek clothing wear
r u a faggot?
>>70514710
> wouldnt pull what happens in the eu
> has more illegal mexicans than all the muslims in eu
> the nation with the largest civil aurvailence program ever
Seriously americucks claim muh guns against tyrany but they dont have the balls or brains to notice they fuckinf live in a almost tyranical state. Stop meme ing already and find something else to compensate.
>>70514530
>Empire: "No guns for retards!".
>SJWs rejoice.
>"Make America Great Again" cap spotted.
>Empire: "Trumpeter==retard."
>Trump supporters disarmed.
>SJWs win.
The program is already written. "Potentially harmful to others (or self!)" is the only card necessary.
>>70527308
>2k16
>wearing cum gurgling adidas gear
>>70514098
>hey guys we should implement this system where you have to go through a check to get legal guns because criminals follow laws and stuff they'll totally do this check and won't buy/steal guns or make their own weapon out of some plastic, law abiding citizens won't have guns but it's okay because criminals are honorary citizens and they won't do more crime when they're facing unarmed opponents compared to armed opponents because come on it's 2016
>>70527678
There's no need to already replace your flag with a hammer and sikel
You already have commie stars on it. :D
>>70527791
Of course, but they're white on blue. My fellow slaves don't realize they're living in an empire. Over seven hundred military bases in the majority of other lands on the planet: "Not an empire!", apparently. Most imprisonin' gangs on the planet: "Land of the Free!" still.
>>70523558
>Butthurt even 240 years after we beat your asses
>>70527641
>they fuckinf live in a almost tyranical state
This is true, unfortunately. The >muh 2nd Amendment crowd is largely a single-issue interest group, concerned more with being able to buy guns and accessories and go to the range, and have the idea that they can defend against tyranny, without actually being willing to risk everything (including their lives) to stop it. Not all, certainly, but the vast majority.
The time for revolution came long ago, ever since the Federalists gained popularity and kicked off the steady growth of government power. The problem is that life is good in America. Not great, but not so shitty that enough people deem it worthwhile to throw everything away for an ideal. True freedom requires personal responsibility and acceptance of risk, whereas the government's carefully-crafted illusion of freedom requires no such things. Panem et circenses is a very effective way to keep people in line, and unfortunately, guns are the bread of the gun community.
That's not to say that gun ownership isn't critical in achieving freedom and stopping tyranny. But without the ability to recognize tyranny, and understanding what freedoms are and when they're lost, guns won't do a damn thing by themselves.
