Title says it all really, I'm anti gun, but I'm honestly curious what you use to justify your reasoning of limitless ownership of firearms. Reason being, we all know libs and what not can be chicken shit and ban thing arbitrarily for no reason without knowing anything about em, insert shoulder thing that goes up here. So, why, why no limits on gun control? Isn't it something worth having some little bit of control on? But, I'm open to opinions.
>>71721004
>of limitless ownership of firearms
There are limits
If you were to educate yourself, maybe then, there could be a conversation.
>>71721005
I am educated though, I know there are limits, I question why people want to breach them.
>>71721006
Most of the limits are arbitrary and have no impact on violent crime
>>71721006
You're educated yet you automatically associate us with those whom "breach" limits? What limits? What classifies as limits?
>>71721004
>why no limits on gun control?
There are over 33,000 laws concerning firearms on the books; on the Federal, state and county level.
Do you think more laws are going to stop people who refuse to obey the laws to begin with?
The only way to level the playing field is to be equally armed.
Most criminals interviewed would rather have an unarmed or otherwise "easy" target and stay away from someone who would fight.
SHALL
>>71721004
Maybe it would benefit the discussion if you would be to outline the "limits" (or rather rules) you propose to be installed or followed.
Right now, assuming you talk about the US, you reference >>71721009 , an amalgamation of laws with little common consistent aim.
>>71721004
>anti gun
>limitless ownership
>libs and what not can be chicken shit and ban thing arbitrarily for no reason
>shoulder thing that goes up
you sound like someone who understands gun culture and what pisses /k/ off and is trying to feign ignorance. 0/10 bait, try harder next time
OP, read this.
>>71721012
this
>>71721004
if you had read the goddamn sticky you'd no this doesn't belong here
>>>pol
> hurr durr why no laws for mini nuke launcher
>>71721006
Says who?
Do you wear a helmet when you go out in public by any chance?
>>71721004
It is a right that a vast number of American's hold dear and exercise without breaking the law. The horrendous acts of individuals shouldn't be used to take away those inalienable rights. The justification to take away or further limit gun rights is for the most part spurious at best.
US civilian gun ownership is the highest in the world by a large, large margin, yet our murder rate is only slightly higher than European countries that have much stricter laws and lower gun ownership in generally. There are other factors, such as culture and socioeconomic status, that play a much bigger role in the murder rate than gun ownership. People will always bring up how high gun murder is in the US, but it's a silly argument; murder is murder whether it is by gun or not.
Of course GUN murder will happen at higher rate if there is a higher gun ownership, but higher gun ownership doesn't mean that there will be higher murder. Just like you are more likely to hurt yourself falling down the stairs if you have a house with stairs than a person who doesn't own a home with stairs, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are more likely to hurt yourself in the home. There are places with strict gun laws and low murder rates and places with strict gun laws and high murder rates. There are a lot more important causes than guns. You're not going lower those root causes of homicide by attempting to remove a tool that could be used to kill. Focus should be on the causes. This includes mental health problems which causes all the rare, yet high profile mass shootings, which are not unique to the US as some try to make you believe, that prompt all this legislation.
Don't take me seriously though, I'm rambling while seriously sleep deprived. I'm sure someone else can make a more coherent argument.
>>71721004
Dumbass obvious bait threads, mods please delete.
>>71721017
Aside from a few spelling/grammatical errors, very well put.
Get some rest /k/omrade.
We have the watch.
>>71721004
> I'm scared, please take away all my freedom, I don't care! Just make me feel safe!
>>71721004
>I'm anti gun
Why are you here then? This is a board for discussing weapons.
>>71721004
Check /pol/, there is actually an anti gun thread there where the op was convinced to change his stance to pro gun
>>71721004
>honestly curious
If you're gonna try to troll by repeatedly posting threads like this at least vary your writing style and commonly used phrases.
>>71721010
NOT
>>71721025
ALLOWED
>>71721025
INFRINGED!
>>71721025
FRIDGE
Shall not be infringed, you triple nigger.
We don't need to justify arming ourselves to the teeth. There's too much gun control on the books as it is.
>I'm anti-gun, but I'm no chicken shit brained Liberal that bases gun control on muh feels
>mfw
Alright, I'll bite. Besides the 2 Amendment, we have had revised Militia Acts that further enforces the role of State and Federal Militias as well as US Federal Codes that support it as well. Under the Militia Acts there are two militias: The "Organized Militia" (State Self Defense Force) and the "Unorganized Militia" (Any able bodied civillians ages 17-49). Under the Organized Militia, the Federal government is responsible for funding the State government on their defense spendings including military vehicles, weapons and equipment. As the Unorganized Militia, we have our own personal responsibility to aid whenever there's a local or international threat being held against us and our State Government (Armed Criminals, foreign militaries, domestic terrorists or our own federal government). Under the unorganzied militia, we are responsible for arming ourselves and also forming private militias recognized by our state governor. Hence why Gun Control is a violation to the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts, since it infringes the right of the Unorganized Militia (Including their families and civillians) to own firearms. If you wamt further knowledge of this, Check out these sources. Not to mention that gun control is also responsible for increasing Crime rates rather than decreasing it. If you want to check the statistics, see the FBI website.
>http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
>http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/library/militia/2-1.html
>http://www.constitution.org/mil/how2actv.htm
>http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/primary.html
Weird flag
>>71721558
That's cuz all prior posters were moved from /k/. A mod moved it to /pol/
>>71721004
if you are a big enough coward you need to buy many guns which is why we have gun nuts today
guns beling in well organized militia but our goverment was hijacked by ultraviolent luciferians
>>71721474
>We
>>71721716
Wuz
Gas yourself hippie faggot. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
All accidents, homicides and suicides committed per year with guns is roughly 30,000 deaths in the United States of America. That is 0.009% of the American population.
>0.009%
Because the slippery slope is absolutely real. Give them an inch, they take a mile.
>>71721004
>I'm anti gun
What an incredibly base position.
Are you a child?
Because politicians and voters are retarded and have zero understanding of guns, pic related
>>71721004
After my dad taught me how to shoot and handle guns the right way, I now treat guns like Pokémon. I want one of each so I can see what they do, what the strengths and weaknesses are, bragging rights that I gottem all, and because I enjoy it.
Gym leaders stick to one type and they get their asses whooped, upper echelons add a second or third type and still get whooped. The master uses the best pulled from all types.
This analogy is infatile but is accurate in my mind.
>>71721004
Why the fuck was this moved to /pol/? Sounds like completely relevant /k/ talk.
>>71721768
Murikan
>>71724206
n shiet.
>>71721716
But seriously, Independistas get the fuck out.
>>71724083
Dunno, must be a newfag mod
>>71724083
gun control threads are for /pol/
it says it on the /k/ sticky fgt
>>71721004
because if you don't have the right to defend yourself, you don't have any rights at all.
>>71721004
There is no such thing as anti gun you dumb fuck. You need guns to take the guns away from people. So what you're really saying is the oh so reliable government should have a monopoly on guns.
>>71725145
Is that you Stefan?
>>71721004
the ability to defend yourself with the best weapons available is a right. Period. And because we are tool users, our best defense takes place in tool-form.
Tell me, if I showed you a den of wild cats, where a few of the ruling felines have declawed all those underneath them, would you for a second entertain the belief that they don't run the show? Could you honestly say those other cats have any say in what goes on? Sure, maybe the day's activities are put up to a group consensus, but in the end if the top cats want one of their women or their territory they can take it with no resistance.
Would it be 'right' if only a few sharks were permitted teeth, and the rest were to rely on the benevolence of these other sharks to feed themselves, under the assurance that hunting is 'unnecessary' and that the toothed menaces would never dream of taking what isn't theirs?
So assuming you've read all of this, all you can say is "guns are dangerous". No shit. Every being off the bottom of the food chain was meant to be 'dangerous'. We developed these weapons out of instinct and we will continue to do so as is our right.
The only reason one could justify disarming a large portion of their population while keeping a few select armed is tyranny. That is it. You cannot claim it is 'for your own good' when you clearly horde the power to dispense life and death to yourself. If animals are to be equal they must be equally well armed. This is why Europe is still a 2nd world country at best in our eyes. This is why we think ourselves so above the rest of the world. We have pioneered an unalienable right. And no matter how hard any force of power or greed tries, it can never be taken away from the American spirit. The concept is there. It is real. It will spread like wildfire once you all see that ultimate equality lies in the equal agency of death.
>>71721004
>I'm anti gun, but I'm honestly curious what you use to justify your reasoning of limitless ownership of firearms.
You as the authoritarian side have the burden of proof to justify your position not the other way around faggoy.
1/2
>>71725428
Interpol chief: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks »
>http://10news.dk/?p=760
>http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries
>Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats).
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
>Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf
>Upon interviewing convicted felons, these researchers found that
>74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, due to fears of being shot
>57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police
>40% of the felons had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf
http://libertyfirearmstraining.com/blog/2013/05/16/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-they-do-the-police/
2/3
>>71725550
>>71725428
>Harvard study detailing how gun control is counter productive and a waste of valuable police resources
http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Being antigun has no basis in critical cost benefit analysis nor moral logic.
It is backwards thinking and if being a criminal was a job under OSHA's jurisdiction gunncontrol would be one of their most prudent policies to implement to ensure safe working standards for said criminals.
>>71725692
I should add to the image in regards to "that's the job of the police"
It quite simply isn't.
The police have had zero duty or obligation to protect citizens since the founding of this nation which was first affirmed by Supreme Court ruling over 150 years ago and again with this decision
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The Second Amendment: The True Meaning
>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I will break this down succinctly for the uninitiated.
>”A well regulated….”
This meants, in the original definition, “to make regular,” and not necessarily “to control.” The point of the word, in its original usage, meant that Congress had a duty to ensure that the militia existed, and could be called upon when necessary to do its duty. It merely means nothing more than Congress shall ensure that militias can be called upon when necessary to fulfill their duty, and that they are fitted to the task when such a call is made.
>”...militia...”
Means today what it meant then, civilians, or ordinary citizens not serving as part of a professional fighting force or standing army, that can be called upon in time of need to enact the task of soldiering. Remember this later, as it is the key to understanding everything.
>”...being necessary to the security of a free State...”
The militia, being comprised of ordinary citizens unconnected with any professional fighting force or standing army, and whose existence Congress is tasked with guaranteeing, it considered “necessary” for the defense of the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>>71727816
Continued....
>the right of the people
Ah, “the people.” Who are they? Remember when I said to remember my explanation of “militia?” Well here we go. Who are “the people?” They are ordinary citizens, civilians, who are not employed in full-time professional military service as part of a standing army.
The “people” are not the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, National Guard, or the Air Force. Those are full-time professional military branches that serve as a standing army. Soldiers employed therein are not civilians unconnected with the aforementonioned definitions which I have listed several times.
>”...to keep and bear Arms...”
To keep and bear arms, meaning to possess and to carry/deploy/utilize. Almost no one disputes this part of the Amendment.
>”...shall not be infringed...”
This part is not in dispute either. It simply means that this right is guaranteed and may not be curtailed
>>71727850
Continued....
>PUTTING EVERYTHING TOGETHER.
Ok, friends, let us recall what we know.
1. Congress has a duty to ensure the existence of the militia.
2. A militia consists solely of ordinary citizens, or civilians, that are not part of any branch of the professional military or standing armies.
3. This body, consisting of normal citizens, exists to protect the security of the state.
4. This right belongs to the people, who are clearly identified in the term “militia” as being non-military citizens unconnected with any branch of military service.
5. Members of the militia have the right to keep their arms, and to bear/carry/deploy them.
6. This right is not to be curtailed.
So, here we have it, clearly placed for all to see. The militia consists of the people, because the people are the militia. Since the people are those unconnected with professional military service, it means every single person (technically most adult males, but the 14th Amendment would apply this right to women too, even if they do not have to sign up for the draft) innately possesses this right. Further, this right guarantees the the militia, the body of the people, the right to keep their arms, and to bear them.
There is no mention of federal armories that are appointed to hold weapons caches until such a time as the militia is to be called into service because the right of the federal government to possess weapons in its own right is not what “keep” is describing. This is a right that belongs to “the people,” which is a classy way of saying that the people must have these arms in their possession, or else they cannot be said to possess or keep them at all.
I could go on and on about this, but here is the simple fact:
The right of individual citizens to own firearms is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, and Congress is barred from making any law that might abridge this right.
>>71727890
It's a lot easier to explain it in this way:
What is a militia?
It's a group of people that bring their own arms.
How are these people going to bring their own arms if they have none?
English structure aside, the people must be able to carry keep and bear arms regardless of how it's read.
