>Those who support gun bans have to physically and personally take away the guns from their neighbors. No relying on the police or other contractors.
How will gun grabbers do if they actually have to grab people's guns?
>>79238063
The problem lies in having a 'gun culture'. It is literally a culture of violence. Everyone wants to carry their pistol around so they can fantasize about saving the day or taking down bad guys and pretending to be James Bond.
You don't need a full (or semi) auto machine gun. You don't need a 30 round clip.
If you want to hunt, fine. Get a wooden hunting rifle. You don't need an m16.
>>79238140
>rights have to be justified by needs
>>79238063
Who supporting a gun ban? Who asking to take back the guns? Usual paranoid strawmen from the gun nuts.
>>79238140
>Bill of needs
>>79238140
>fantasize about saving the day or taking down bad guys
assuming this is true (which it isn't) what is the issue with people wanting to stop bad guys?
>You don't need a full (or semi) auto machine gun.
machine guns are by their definition fully automatic. you should probably learn your terminology if you want people to take you seriously
also, I don't remember that clause in the 2nd ammendment about "needs"
>>79238285
Deese muh rights don't tread on me reeeeeee
>>79238140
>wooden hunting rifle
>>79238342
>If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.
(((Diane Feinstein)))
>>79238140
>semi-auto machine gun
>>79238524
Sauce? Even if. Picks most extreme fantasy position to characterize all gun control legislation. No serious gun control has called for this
>>79238285
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_29913590/california-gun-control-senate-passes-first-few-series
these literally happen constantly, always pushing "common sense" gun legislation further and further to an absolute ban
>>79238485
not an argument
when the government is pushing legislation to subvert a constitutional amendment written to prevent government tyranny you might understand why this worries some people
>>79238140
"The problem lies in having a 'swim culture'. It ls literally a culture of drowning. Everyone wants to have a pool in their background so they can fantasize about being Michael Phelps or getting healthy. You don't need a deep, Olympic swimming pool. You don't need a diving board.
If you want to get wet, fine. Get a bath. You don't need a big pool."
>>79238524
There's a good chance she meant every "assault weapon" but had to "compromise" and only ban their sale.
>>79238791
https://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY?t=18s
>>79238791
This is literally a direct statement.
Is your point that they know they are massively unpopular? I agree, America hates those that threaten its Constitution.
>>79238826
Literally says if so no this was never brought to the floor or even drafted. There are plenty of limits on basic constitutional rights and amendments have even modified and restricted others so where's your argument?
>>79238791
she said that on an episode of 50 Minutes you lazy fuck
and you're right, it is a fantasy position not based in reality, but she is a politician who to this day, still pushes gun legislation
if it wasn't for lobbying organizations like the ever-demonized NRA we' probably be a lot closer to that now than not
>>79238140
>pol will take the b8
Lel
>>79239141
/pol/ is collectively the dumbest board, of course they will
>>79238945
Yes a statement of personal opinion. No actual legislation or action to back it up. Plenty of ridiculous statements are made on either side that do nothing but showing the opinion of that person. Vast majorities of Americans support further gun control.
We'd just send a couple of blacks to your house to pick them up, you'd piss your pants and then hand them over. Problem solved.
>>79238342
>>79238791
Both Obama and Clinton have voiced support for Australia-style gun laws. Central of which was a massive confiscation scheme.
>>79239141
>>79239192
It's not gun culture but military culture. The US has been continuously attacking other countries without provocation since Korea. Any questioning of it will have you labeled as anti American so you're basically forced to support it. Hell people still want to justify Vietnam.
>>79239297
I'd just send a couple of job applications their way, they'd piss their pants and then run away. Problem solved.
They chip away at our rights, one category at a time. They won't try to take ALL the guns... Just enough that revolution would be impossible.
>>79238140
So a bunch of guys walking around wanting to be a hero... are the problem?
Not the psycho goth kid who never scored or the pissed off Muslim. No it's the guy who wants to stop these people - they're the problem.
>fpbp
You only need manual action firearms (bolt, break, pump, lever) for any legal purpose use besides vermin control. And licenses for semi-autos can always be issued to professional vermin control companies provided they can prove their business is legitimate. I look forward to any of you proving me wrong.
>>79239036
>Literally says if so no this was never brought to the floor or even drafted.
what the fuck are you trying to say? this bills are awaiting senate approval as of literally right now.
you said nobody is trying to take away guns, I showed you an example of where at this very moment, yes they are
>>79239036
>There are plenty of limits on basic constitutional rights and amendments
yeah I support those too, when they make sense like the whole "yelling fire in a movie theatre" situation, but not when they are used to promote authoritarianism, like for say in Europe where you can be arrested for posting "hate speech" online
there is no correlation between strict gun laws and reduction in crime, period
>>79239658
>need
You did it yourself Roofucker.
>>79238140
>You don't need an m16.
I guess so, and since they are illegal to own, and none of us have one or can have one anyway, I'm sure you're happy.
Finally, a fucking happy gun-grabbing retard.
>>79238140
Kek
>>79238826
gov's been doing it for years, and all you "muh freedoms" faggots do is roll over and let them. i eagerly await more tears and inaction from you
>>79239289
>vast majorities of americans
proof?
either way, d.c vs heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and Caetano v. Massachusetts says get fucked you pink commie
>>79238140
>clip
>CLIP
>CLIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
OH MY GOD I AM GOING TO HUNT YOU DOWN AND CHOKE YOU TO DEATH YOU LITTLE BITCH
>>79239454
Yes they've voiced it as personal opinion and as points of information, but their actual governing has come no where near close. Obama has admitted he can literally do nothing on gun control.
Again paranoid strawmen
>>79238862
This is a good post and deserves a (you)
>>79238140
inb4 some child murder apologists waving their assault rifle 15s around get triggered
>>79239658
>any legal purpose
>self defense not a legal purpose
>2A is for hunting and pests
>>79239824
>not realizing that its bait
>>79239289
statement of personal opinion of a sitting senator you dense fuck
((((Feinstein))) has been pushing this sort of legislation for years she passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 and she tried to pass another after Sandy Hook
>>79238140
>clip
>>79238063
Take it a step further. Make the two parties do in their conventions what they advocate for the country.
Republicans have to allow anyone with a permit to carry a gun. Open or concealed, rifle or handgun. This includes people in the front row watching the debate.
Democrats can ban guns at their conventions, but they aren't allowed to post security at any point of entry or check anyone for a valid ID or tickets. Anyone who wants to may walk in or out, undocumented and unsearched, anytime, and go anywhere within the convention at will.
Hey /pol/ allow me to show you how you can legally manufacturer an untraceable, unserialized AR-15 in your very home without any gunsmithing experience.
To create your AR you will need the following items.
>AR Jig
http://www.80percentarms.com/products/80-ar-15-easy-jig
>Tool Kit
http://www.80percentarms.com/collections/lower-jigs/products/easy-jig-tool-kit
>80% Completed AR receiver
http://80percentarms.com/products/80-lower-receiver-type-iii-hard-anodized-billet-ar-15
>Router
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0048EFUV8/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1464734033&sr=8-3π=SY200_QL40&keywords=router+dewalt&dpPl=1&dpID=41MSATBmFfL&ref=plSrch
>Hand Drill
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0011XSEW6/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1464734122&sr=8-2π=SY200_QL40&keywords=dewalt+drill+cord&dpPl=1&dpID=41Qg0pUZJfL&ref=plSrch
>Lube or coolant for the drill bits
>A vise to hold the jig
After you have acquired all the pieces, watch this instructional video to help guide you in finishing your lower.
https://youtu.be/SiHdV5slQps
CONGRATULATIONS
You now have an untraceable firearm that's totally LEGAL*! Take pride in knowing you've manufactured a gun in your very home.
But we're not done yet, the fun has just begun. Now you can assemble your rifle however you'd like!
This is a good starter kit
http://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-16-mid-length-5-56-1-7-premium-rifle-kit.html
*ATF letter and FAQs here
http://www.80percentarms.com/pages/faq
>>79238063
I know how it would work in Canadia at least..
>Get shot
>Win
>>79239830
...Because gun owners and the groups that represent them fight them at every turn. You think that resistance just comes out of thin air? It's like you're saying we should let go of the rope on the winning side of a tug-of-war because "there's no way we could lose."
>>79239658
the second amendment isn't meant to provide for "legal purposes" it's to provide a failsafe in case the people who define what "legal purposes" are overstep their purpose i.e. tyranny
>>79239702
Sauce for gun confiscation legislation? Sauce for keyword: proposing confiscation. U flibben dense m8? Gun control in the US is a joke; and admittedly there are many factors that contribute to gun deaths, but there's correlation between access and gun deaths.
>>79240201
hi fbi
>>79239781
they're actually not illegal to own, it's just that they're ludicrously expensive
>>79238140
You see this /pol/?
This is called "bait"
>>79238063
Yeah, guns should be illegal, like in Mexico. It works really well there.
>>79238140
Thank god it isn't called the "Bill of Needs" then right?
>>79239804
so you admit there is a problem? cool, why don't you help then instead of acting smug?
>>79240440
This
>>79238140
I own and love firearms, yet I dread the day if I ever have to use them to harm another human. I will, but I truly do not want to.
you can't create a safe space for freedom without a gun.
we will never surrender our weapons. because we like being free.
>>79238140
8/8, breddy gr8 b8 m8, don't h8.
>>79240319
it's not illegal you dimwit. can you even read?
oh, except in a few days in California
>>79239772
Don't know what you're implying but if it's anything to do with your arse-backward consistitional rights then you are dodging my question
>>79239863
Pretty sure a pump action 12G is sufficient in a home defense scenario, I don't know it's not every day people break into your house in most first world countries. There is a reason these shotguns are still widely used by law enforcement in raids
>>79240319
Are you dumb this has been know of for years, shit many LEO's I shoot with have 80% built ARs.
>>79240043
>What is majority rule?
>>79240448
That's what it's called.
>>79240201
Your point to Libs is worthless they would say those AR parts need to be illegal then
>>79239830
but he would if he could
I'm not sure if you're baiting or you're genuinely stupid
>>79240440
even if it is, blue-pilled idiots reading this will think he's right
>>79238911
Beat!
>>79238140(you)
>30 round clip
>wooden hunting rifle
>You don't need an m16
>>79240933
>even if it is, blue-pilled idiots reading this will think he's right
it is bait
I tried to make it ridiculous and full of cliche arguments and words (clip, wooden etc)
>>79240291
>What is a slippery slope fallacy?
It isn't binary win or lose. There are reasonable, balanced restrictions to the second amendment. All zealots refusing to see this are endangering it even more.
>>79239289
>Vast majorities
And you have the nerve to ask for a source in your previous post.
>>79240764
hmm, good point
let's have a little thought experiment
let's say I have a group of 10 people, and 6 of them vote to kill the other 4, that seems pretty ridiculous right? but, majority rule and all
now imagine if you were creating a country, oh I don't know maybe a couple hundred years ago, and you wanted to prevent this sort of thing from happening, you'd write whatever you came up with down on an important bit of paper or something
now let's say a few hundred years later people gradually nullified that piece of paper, what might now happen?
>>79238063
they will quickly get BTFOd
>>79238140
The broblem lies in having a 'ES culture'. It is literally a culture of spurdo spärde. Everyone wants to carry their ES around so they can fantasize about drinking it or being a Jonne.
If you want to drink ES, fine. Get the potte instead. You don't need a full can.
>>79238140
>30 round clip.
>>79240933
Oh checks and balances, separation of powers, insulated government so silly. Protip: King Obama is only a conservative meme
>>79241101
what is the fallacy fallacy?
the slippery slope fallacy states that just because something happens another thing won't necessarily happen,
but if we look at history we can see a gradual taking away of gun rights in a sort of divide and conquer. right now they're pushing the "assault weapon" bans, which are inherently nonsensical
>There are reasonable, balanced restrictions to the second amendment
there are, but they are not what we have now, if you knew what you were talking about you might understand that the current laws are contradictory and not helpful
>>79241260
The scenario plays itself out. If we are threatened with genocide, or if we are attacked (genocide) we either fight for our lives, or we die like sheep.
Thank God our founding fathers at least made sure we would be armed for when the time came.
>>79241693
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, that fundamental self regulating features of our government are silly?
I'm not saying Obama is good or bad, I was providing an example in the context of that post of people who actively want, and or trying to take away gun rights. what don't you understand?
>>79238063
If you don't own at least 3 guns, your opinions are worthless. Eurocucks and Aussies need not apply. Carry on.
>>79241119
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
I'll retract vast for now and stick with majorities, but I've seen those numbers quoted much hire elsewhere.
>>79242137
many people support further gun control because many people are stupid, and get their political opinions based on what they read on Facebook
also, if you want to play the fallacy card: bandwagon fallacy
>>79241817
What's inherently nonsensical about banning literal assault weapons (automatics)
I'd be open to have an actual discussion about changes and additions to gun laws to make them more effective, but opinions are too entrenched on both sides to be receptive
>>79241829
Yet again incessant paranoia.
>muh possible sometime maybe in the distant future tyrannical big brother gubment genociding me.
>>79242380
>What's inherently nonsensical about banning literal assault weapons (automatics)
Do me a favor and look up the definition of assault weapon real quick. protip: it's not the same as assault rifle, which the media has successfully conflated it with
I'd like to have an actual discussion with someone who knew what the fuck they were talking about
>>79242380
No new gun laws will ever make a dent on the rates of gun homicides. If it is gun deaths you truly care about you would station the National Guard in all the nigger ghettos. You would do something about suicide prevention.
>>79242580
again, not an argument
and if you'd like an example of government overreach, see NSA spying
>>79242082
Im saying the inherent nature of our government prevents individuals from imposing their opinions, ie Obamas gun control support, and forces consensus building so please stop with the gungrabbing fantasies
>>79242580
>the Western world will never face a hint of genuine hardship ever again
Why is it so difficult to grasp that history is being made every day and it may not fall in your favor?
>>79238140
>Gun culture
>Culture of violence
I shot my first rifle at 10. I learned the same three rules people of gun culture in ranges and homes from Florida to Maine To Alaska to Arizona know by heart:
>Always point the muzzle in the safest direction
>Always keep your finger out of the trigger guard and off the trigger until ready to fire
>Always make sure the firearm is unloaded when not in use
>Always treat a firearm you didn't unload yourself as loaded until checked yourself
This is the height of responsibility put on people raised in gun culture to ensure violence and unnecessary death or injury does not happen.
People in gang ridden inner cities didn't exactly go to the range with their fathers and boy scout troops.
Mass shooters aren't exactly the type to be a regular at the friendly gun club .
You are talking shit.
>You don't need a semi auto rifle
You are either trolling or unaware of how it functions.
>>79242599
My mistake I read automatic in the original because the auto weapons ban came up on another post. Everyone so high and mighty with their symantecs in this debate don't realize first time they hand you a rifle in basic they say leave it on semi. Make no mistake these civilian AR, Sig Sauer, etc are assault rifles though.
>>79242834
oh so now you're lauding the qualities of our government?
Obama is the president, not your common citizen and has the powers provided to him as such
I bet he would never do something like propose an executive action regulating guns
oh wait
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
>>79242137
I support gun control to a certain degree despite my previous posts to the contrary.
I don't however support it being in the power of the government.
I think a licensing system conducted by an NGO with no influence from manufacturers, supported by licensing fees, vetted by criminal background checks and psychiatric reports (to be used judiciously to avoid shit like "oppositional defiant disorder becoming a barrier" to firearms ownership) would be the ultimate solution to keep plankton from owning firearms.
Can anyone tell me why this idea is retarded?
>>79243285
No. You have an inability to understand sarcasm. Although clearly implied from your original post. So now you're saying the President has unchecked authority to implement his every whim? Obama has admitted anything he'd want to do on guns is impossible to achieve in this system
>>79243308
Licensing and charging fees are infringing on the right to bear arms.
>>79243267
you have no fucking idea what you're talking about
assault RIFLES are, by their definition, fully automatic. they are not something you pop down to your local walmart and pick up for $500 dollars. They require extra background checks, clearance with the ATF, including notification when you're crossing state lines and cost as much as a new car.
the vast VAST majority of AR-15s in civilian hands are semi automatic only and yet they are still trying to ban them because
>uh they have scary looking features
>>79238140
You don't need whatever machine you use to browse vox huffpo or /mlp/ and shit post on /pol/ but you do because you want it so in short go fuck yourself
>>79243308
If plankton doesn't have the right to self defense and firearm ownership, then why should they have free speech, voting, religion, and media rights?
Your advocating for a purge anon.
>>79238867
No she has explicitly stated that the she believes the people do not have the same rights and as the government and it officials. She wants like all oligarchs want a complete monopoly of the legal use of force. The bich has armed guards and a California concealed carry permit. Think about that for a moment and know that that is what we are up against.
>>79243308
Interesting. I think the federals ceding authority to an ngo over this area would be difficult. Is the NGO selffunding through licenses? What about enforcement authority, do they have a police/officer arm?
>>79238140
> $0.02 has been deposited into your paypal account.
>>79238140
Gr8 B8
R8 8/8
>>79243539
guns are safeguards of liberty
this is established in the constitution
it is inherently unconstitutional to want to ban all guns
the president swears an oath to uphold the constitution
if he doesn't then he should not be president
I don't consider myself privy to the thoughts of Obama but that's not really the point. he has put forth executive orders that propose limits on guns, I would say that is unconstituional
we are getting beyond the point of your original argument though,
why don't you respond to my post here?
>>79243676
No one wants to take away guns you morons.
They just want better background checks and not to hand out high powered assault rifles.
>>79244156
>high powered
W E W
E
W
>>79243676
Again semantics. I get the literal definition of assault rifles. But if you did go to walmart and arm 100 men with civilian ARs they would be just as effective an deadly as armes with fully automatic weapons. Soldiers are encouraged to fire in semiauto. Fully automatic is not an actual prerequisite to bring military grade
legal gun owners are not a criminal problem
>>79244156
follow the thread leaf
people are actively trying to take away guns from private citizens
you don't know the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon
>>79244215
>hey anon how powerful is your gun
>I don't know the gun itself makes pretty big explosions
>>79240201
> Unless you bought a prepayed credit card with cash and ordered it all under an alias every alphabet soup agency knows you have it.
Not saying I haven't done it just to fuck with the BATFE, but lets be real they haven't followed the intent of the constitution for decades.
>>79243775
If plankton aren't capable of proving they know how to use a firearm safely and responsibly, I'm all for them losing their right to use one.
>>79243676
As someone who thinks both weapons should be legal, this argument is a smug ass technicality that really doesn't add meat to this dialogue. AR-15s and the like are still very potent and easy to use weapons, and that's why they are highly desirable and highly hated. In fact, full auto is almost a gimmick compared to controlled, rapid semi-auto fire.
>>79243544
Perhaps with a sliding scale based on income?
>>79244112
There are plenty of examples of limits on constitutionally recognized rights that have been upheld by multiple SCOTUSs. Why should the second amendment be any different?
>>79244268
I am playing semantics because you started with terms you don't understand
if fully automatic is not a prerequisite to "military grade" then why are they so strictly regulated?
also, don't try to make it seem like you know what the you're talking about with military doctrine, there are plenty of fully automatic only guns in the military arsenals
so now were on regulating assault weapons
why would we do this I ask?
>to prevent crime
you respond
tell me, how many scary looking AR-15 style rifles were used in crimes last year? you can look it up, I'll wait
>>79240681
The AR15 is the best firearm to own in terms of ergonomics, ease of use, and adjustability. If you value your life you should give yourself the greatest advantage over your threats as possible.
>>79244587
Because in this case the limits are arbitrary ones set by people who generally don't know what the hell they're talking about or why the 2nd Amendment is a thing.
>>79243923
The entity would cooperate with local LEA for enforcement provided they're not abusing their authority.
>>79240405
You have to sacrifice certain otherwise inalienable rights to do so. You effectively give up your right to be protected from unlawful surch and seizure. If you own on they don't need a warrant to search your home. If you have to give up your rights to have something you don't own it you are renting it from someone who now owns you.
>>79243821
Ooh man. Fuck.my sides forevwr.
>>79238063
On the day that they try, I have a pair of pair of gloves near my rifle so that my hands don't get too slippery with blood to change the magazines.
>>79244773
Everything you said is gun shop gossip, 100% untrue
>>79244434
right, and why not place those same restrictions on voting, or free speech!
when the government can places seemingly good meaning requirements on owning guns, what's to prevent them from putting ill-meaning ones on later?
>>79244587
...The Second Amendment has been limited. Gun owners have compromised. Tremendously. Pic related - how to do you respond?
>>79244660
Yes some guns are fully automatic in the military. Some bombs are atomic, doesn't make conventional warheads any less deadly. AR type weapons have been used in most of the mass casualty incidents of recent memory. Just because they aren't convenient for simple robbery doesn't make them any less dangerous. These weapons have the ability to inflict much greater casualties in a much shorter time, that's a fact.
>>79244503
he's using terms that he doesn't understand, I know it's semantics but that's the point; current gun laws don't actual make sense, an M16 isn't really all that more dangerous than an AR15 so why is the M16 illegal, why are AR-15s used in such few crimes then?
>>79244901
Good point, anon. This is a complicated issue. Though you likely can't tell me you've never met a person who you think is incapable of the responsibility of owning a firearm.
I wish there was an easy way of keeping them out of the hands of dummies.
>>79244701
You mean constitutional lawyers that have studied this far longer than you? Politicians elected to make such arbitrary judgement calls ie governing?
>>79244914
Favorably
>>79244587
you already said this
I support those limits when they are sensible,
further gun control is nonsensical. they don't address real world problems and the current laws on the books don't either
if you actually wanted to curb gun violence effectively you'd be talking about very different things
>>79238140
>30 round clip
Stopped reading your post and started to laugh.
>>79245351
>>79245394
You lost all credibility in the beginning of this thread but go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself.
>>79245344
>Though you likely can't tell me you've never met a person who you think is incapable of the responsibility of owning a firearm.
I don't presume to think to tell people what rights they can and cannot exercise you authoritarian fuckwit
>>79244896
Just because they don't admit it publicly dosent make it untrue.
>>79245637
>NO COMPROMISE! EVER!
Nevermind. You're probably one of them.
>>79245627
Should have told me earlier and saved me the time. Thanks Great Arbiter of Credibility.
>>79245832
You're welcome.
>>79238140
>You don't need a full (or semi) auto machine gun
Seeing as the government uses them, people do need them.
The government should not hold a monopoly on gun ownership. Especially considering how violent they are.
>>79238063
>tfw no fem/k/ommando gf
>tfw no local gun culture
>tfw nogunz
>>79245785
>You're probably one of them.
in your OPINION, which is the issue here, if the governement can decide who and who does not own guns it is a path to tyrrany
and I'm not opposed to compromise
I'm opposed to idiots who know nothing about guns, or how they are actually used in crimes thinking they have any say in how carefully these sorts of laws have to be made
So like.. being a canadian.. how many of you boys actually own guns that are yours? Just curious, cause we know there are some kiddies here trying be edgy. Respond with your ghetto blasters and what not.
>>79246288
What if it's an independent NGO that issues licenses that is dedicated to transparency and proven training methods for safety and self-defense?
I'm just trying to spitball some ideas on how to keep guns out of the hands of psychos while not giving the government any say in the matter.
>I'm opposed to idiots who know nothing about guns, or how they are actually used in crimes thinking they have any say in how carefully these sorts of laws have to be made
Agree 100%
>>79246622
it is a fair theory, but:
who ensures they are following the law?
who has access to their records?
who foots the bill?
in essence who are they regulated by? who makes sure they are doing their job properly?
the only answer I can think of is the actual government, which means we're back to the starting block
>>79246622
>I'm just trying to spitball some ideas on how to keep guns out of the hands of psychos while not giving the government any say in the matter.
You can't control psychos anon. The best thing is to do it the American way. With some fucking god damn personal responsibility and arm as many good people as possible so we can shoot the god damn psycho's before they hurt 30 fucking people. You can't control drug users with laws, you can't control thief's with laws, you can stop alcohol deaths with laws.
What you can do is make sure everyone who wants a gun can get one you fucking statist retard. Choke on a moose dick you fucking canadian shitstain. How's that fire? How are your gold reserves? How are those immigrants?
Fuck Canaduh, fuck Ausfailia, fuck the former United kuckdom. We make our own fucking rules for better or worse and you can fucking suck our constitution..
>>79247024
I agree with your first part anon but the rest wasn't really necessary and isn't relevant to this thread
>>79238140
>full automatic same as semi automatic
>muh 30 round drumclipazine
>wooden gun
>plastic guns are scary
Gun represent freedom. The ability to take care of yourself is independence. America was founded on independence.
This is my Ruger Alaskan in .454 casull, I was shooting 300 grain Hornady's. I think if someone tried to take it, it would not end well for them.
>>79238063
>How will gun grabbers do if they actually have to grab people's guns?
they will just give them away like in Katrina
>I'm not a psycho! I don't deserve to have my guns taken away! I just am willing to and really kinda want to murder everyone who comes close to me!
americans
>>79246898
>who ensures they are following the law?
members.
>who has access to their records?
All members and public (aside from confidential medical records).
>who foots the bill?
Licensing fees.
>in essence who are they regulated by? who makes sure they are doing their job properly?
The public and members.
>the only answer I can think of is the actual government, which means we're back to the starting block
There will always be corruption. I'm trying to firgure out how to make this organization so transparent that each decision to limit rights to firearms for self-defense will be fully transparent.
The enforcement part is what I'm stuck on. That unfortunately involves the government.
>>79247024
>You can't control drug users with laws, you can't control thief's with laws
>you can stop alcohol deaths with laws though!!
yeah, k
>t-the only laws that will work are the ones already in place!! law is law because god said so, you cant change it!!!
americans
>The best thing is to do it the American way. With some fucking god damn personal responsibility
is that why whenever i watch american stations, 90% of the ads are ambulance-chasing lawyers offering to sue drug and tool companies on behalf of idiots who took too many asperin at once and got a tummy ache
>>79247024
>You can't control psychos anon. The best thing is to do it the American way. With some fucking god damn personal responsibility and arm as many good people as possible so we can shoot the god damn psycho's before they hurt 30 fucking people. You can't control drug users with laws, you can't control thief's with laws, you can stop alcohol deaths with laws.
I'm aware that criminals will always get access to firearms. I would just like to make it harder/more expensive for them. Some dipshit with a history of schizophrenia and spousal abuse being able to just buy one in a store is not an ideal situation.
>the rest of that post
:'^(
>>79247285
>taking the bait.
>>79247830
>h-how do you envorce laws w/o gubment ;A; ??
you fucking dont, the point of government is literally to enforce laws you fucking moron
>>79238140
>Everyone wants to carry their pistol around so they can fantasize about saving the day or taking down bad guys and pretending to be James Bond.
Nigga please
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
>>79247830
>All members and public have access to records
this is a bad idea and can lead to confiscation, which as it happens, ocurred in New York
>Licensing fees.
no, if poll taxes are unconstitutional, then so are licensing fees. I shouldn't have to pay to exercise rights
>The enforcement part is what I'm stuck on. That unfortunately involves the government.
there isn't a solution in this case
your NGO also doesn't take into account illegal guns, which are another problem
>>79248058
he can't, american law prevents domestic abusers and those who've been in the looney bin from buying guns
>>79238140
post is b8 but
>It is literally a culture of violence. Everyone wants to carry their pistol around so they can fantasize about saving the day or taking down bad guys and pretending to be James Bond.
this is 100% correct
>>79248243
>american law prevents...
what about the orlando shooter who was both mentally ill and had complaints filed against him in a government workplace as well as having had abused his ex-wife
>>79248243
>this is a bad idea and can lead to confiscation, which as it happens, ocurred in New York
I should have clarified that the records of this organization would not contain an inventory of your firearms at all. Just which licenses you have (handgun, full auto, semi-auto, etc...) and the reason (if applicable) you were denied a license with supporting documentation.
You're right about the rest.
>>79248402
yep all us dumb hillbillies buy guns because we want to be cowboys, just like all the Germans stocking up on weapons nowadays is the same and not because they're in fear of their life
>>79248545
the problem with keeping records of who owns guns is it's a natural step to confiscation when you already know who has what and where
this is what happened in NY: compromising common-sense legislation was enacted that didn't take anybody's guns away but made them register, and then the politicians changed their minds and told the police to pop down to those people houses and confiscate their illegal weapons
>>79238140
>the second amendment was to protect hunting
>>79248951
to clarify: after another law was passed
in another (surprisingly good) turn of events, most upstate NY civilians and even cops completely ignored the law
>>79238140
>pretending to be James Bond
>in America
>with a rich history of firearms
>not wanting to be john wayne or clint eastwood
Liberal bait is easy to make, but fiercely difficult to resist
>>79248647
>just like all the Germans stocking up on weapons nowadays is the same and not because they're in fear of their life
literally who and it sounds like exactly the same "I wish a nigga would" dumbshittery 2bh
>>79248951
yeah and as soon as they have your license plate number the dmv is going to steal your car!!!
>>79248951
You're right. We'd have a duty to resist if confiscation was imminent. Think about the logistics involved in going house to house confiscating weapons in a county with ~100,000,000 gun owners. It may be possible but it won't be easy. There are a lot of "order followers" in Federal forces but they may also encounter some resistance in their ranks. It's admittedly all conjecture on my part though.
>>79238063
>physically trying to remove my guns from me or my property.
it wouldn't be a good day for whomever tries.
dont give me a reason to resort to that.
>>79249322
http://nypost.com/2016/01/13/europeans-stocking-up-on-guns-after-mass-sex-attacks/
>>79249485
owning cars isn't a constitutional right and that isn't a good analogy
>>79249622
>owning cars isn't a constitutional right and that isn't a good analogy
Wrong person. I know which post you were replying to. Don't engage him. He's obviously retarded.
YEAH GUYS LETS BAN THE AR-15! EVEN THOUGH ALL RIFLES COMBINED INCLUDING IT KILL FEWER PEOPLE A YEAR THAN HANDS AND FEET!
>>79249485
i like you leaf, you're reasonable
but yes you're right. most gun owners positions on these sorts of things is to simply not give an inch, because it has, and probably will continue to be a gradual reduction in rights to the point of confiscation, like what happened in NYC and is happening right now in California
>>79238140
>wooden hunting rifle
>semi-auto machine gun
>"you don't need an m16"
Quality shitpost.
>>79249845
so if we ban dangerous weapons, do we ban black people from owning hands?
then who picks our cotton?
>>79238063
I would shoot someone if they came near my gun fuck it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhyXQsKUIkM
>>79249857
Yeah. The only choice we may really have is to resist registration through disobedience until the regrettable point when violence becomes necessary.
>>79250058
I say we make all the liberals that voted for it take over since they're obviously so happy to do it!
>>79238063
not an argument
Government could set up a program of buying back the guns, wich is highly effective
>>79250128
that's exactly what happened in Northern New York state after the SAFE ACT, and the cops who swore to uphold the Constitution, are doing their jobs and not enforcing it. less than 5% registration in the state
I was pretty happy to hear that and just like
>>79250262
points out, when people don't have doorkickers they're powerless
>>79249622
>it's literally "i wish a nigga would" posturing over le rapist boogeyman
lol
>>79249845
AR-15s should be banned for being pleb tier
>>79250518
Only if we get to import new AK's so poorfags like me can get them.
>>79250518
not a boogeyman, google "new year's cologne"
people CC guns for many reasons, one of which is protection of their lives and the lives of their loved ones
>>79250441
>wich is highly effective
I hope you're joking.
>>79250721
move to Canada then, we have AKs and VEPRs and shit :^)
>>79250798
L I T E R A L L Y a boogeyman
>guyze help i need a musket cuz w. if Jack The Ripper comes for me!!!
>>79250441
mandatory buybacks are a nice way of doing confiscation
Australia managed to "buyback" 660,959 firearms in 93
there are over 300,000,000 guns in the US and a mandatory buyback would be deemed unconstitutional and wouldn't be enforeced
>>79250964
>AK falls under the prohibited list
Way to not know your own gun laws.
>>79251282
>restricted is prohibited
>all AK pattern guns are AKs
americans being fucking retarded yet again
:^)
>>79251429
>Implying the 47 after the AK isnt the most common, and thereby assumed.
>Being dumb enough to call any other AK pattern weapon an AK.
Fucking leaf.
>>79250964
>move to Canada for better gun laws
literally the only thing you have is VZs, SVTs and cheap SKSs, but your gun laws are still cucked
>L I T E R A L L Y a boogeyman
are you going to actually respond or just meme?
>>79238140
reddit or b8
>>79251429
Oh yeah, you can get the Norinco Type 81
So I could have a shitty ripoff that doesn't even look as cool and is probably less reliable than any shitty clone we have here.
>>79251429
>The firearm of the design commonly known as the AK-47 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it except for the Valmet Hunter, the Valmet Hunter Auto and the Valmet M78 rifles
woopdedoo
>>79251653
>AK47s are actually common outside of soviet satellites and underpaid terrorists
holy fucking lol yeah sure
protip: you're likelier to see a 74 now, and there are a bajillion AK knockoffs, most of them chinese. the vast majority of them chinese, in fact. and those chinese clones are, even in the US, the bulk of civilian owned """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""AKs"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>americans in charge of actually knowing firearms
>>79238063
That pic is so cute.
Dibbs on the eye-patch girl on the right.
>>79250262
ha, their fee fees would be too hurt to even walk into my house.
it would be a fucking nightmare to try to force people to surrender their guns. im very moderate and centrerist, and i might do something very dimb and rash if someone did try to take them from me.
lord knows what the bible belt would do.
civil war 2.0
>>79251993
you can't own any of those variants either
only Valmets which I'm betting are pretty rare and pretty expensive
don't talk guns if you don't even know your own country's gun laws
>>79251993
I'd like a type 56 with a spike. Unfortunately I can't easily aquire one.
>>79251429
All AK variants aside from Valmets are prohibited, retard.
>>79240616
Pussy.
>>79251993
>Canadian pretending to know what is common in the US
Protip: You're more likely to sound like you know what you're talking about when you actually know what you're talking about.
Chinese or not theyre still the 47 chambered in 7.62x39, 74s are uncommon as the average joe doesnt want to hunt for ammo.
Proofs? Working with one of the highest selling gun shops in the country. Now shut the fuck up leaf.
>>79252636
They're restricted unless they're actually intended-for-military automatic rifles
get an RPAL
>gungrabbing liberal tries to take the gun away from his neighbour
>NO MORE GUNS FOR YOU!
>But now you have a gun!
>OH NO!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
>gets sucked away into a black hole in his own head, as this is pretty much dividing by zero in a gungrabbers mind
>>79238140
Come and make me you cunt
>>79252697
most "AK"s in the world today are chinese knockoffs senpai
they just make more of them, and they are more popular. what's more, genuine 47s are going out of circulation the same way original nuggets do as people do them up in MLP paintjobs and hack them apart for obrez memeing
you sound like some fudd who thinks every black rifle is an AR
>>79252697
opinion on an ar15 upper chambered in 7.62x39?
saw one for sale for $350
>>79252854
which is an arbitrary term not based in reality
you can't own anything that even looks like an AK
again you don't know wtf you're talking about
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.3133344/gun-advocate-calls-ban-on-ak-47-look-alike-preposterous-1.3133936
>>79253063
>most "AK"s in the world today are chinese knockoffs senpai
simply untrue
"AKs" were made in every fucking eastern bloc country and then some, many are also made in the U.S. today. yes some were made in China for the military and for export but to say all? no you're simply wrong
is this what happens when a canadian no gunz browses /k/ casually?
>>79253345
canadians on pol are to Australians on o
universal shitposting.
>>79238063
Where is this image from? No tinyeye results
>>79253063
>genuine 47s
Good lord, just stop.
>>79253123
Go standard, more availability in mags and higher quality ball ammo. If you want it and have the money to get the kit that fits the mags and everything else go for it amigo.
>>79253063
Yeah? Find me one listing of an AK pattern rifle for sale with a restricted license in Canada.
>>79253510
google image search
also, bottom corner
http://yoh-ill.com/
>>79253648
I don't trust 4chan links
>>79253063
We don't get Chinese imports in the US senpai, Norinco was banned from importing guns here after they got caught trying to sell rocket launchers to gangsters in California. Most AK pattern rifles in the US are either WASR's from Romania, or O/N-PAPs from Yugo/Serb's, or Saiga's from Russia. To be fair we have a good number of Chinese ones, legitimate Russian ones, etc. but the vast majority of them are those 3.
>>79253532
cool thanks, i have a milled ak and a nice ar, and i love them both. was just browsing my local fun store for a new toy.
whats a good fun to shoot or fun to stare at gun, recently got a p90 and mp5 to sit next to an older octagonal barrel musket.
>>79253123
don't you need a new lower for 7.62x39? i thought the entire point of .300 black out was to use the same receiver and mags as 5.56x45 while having the ballistics of 7.62x39.
>>79254008
cant hunt deer with .300blk
can hunt with 7.62x39
>>79253345
>you can't own anything that even looks like an AK
confirmed for not knowing the law; it's explicitly by model name, and even then, it's the RESTRICTED list. it just means you need an extra license to hold it, which is definitely able to be gotten. AR15s aren't common, but they're around too
>h-heres this 1 news araticle
how about you get some actual criminal code stuff fuccbwoy
>>79253849
are you fucking serious?
just go to the site on the bottom left hand corner of the fucking image
>>79253925
get an old Mauser, yugos are pretty cheap right now and you can get them in pretty good shape
stare at it and imagine removing kebab in the balkans and then take it to the range and git gud at shooting long range with just irons
>>79254128
>cant hunt deer with .300blk
you can with the right load, but if you want something to hunt with in 7.62 I'd get a cz-527
>>79253925
Nice man P90 and MP5 are hands down the best sub guns ive used, if you want you can start working on a nice bolt gun. Always pretty to look at and a whole new world of shooting.
>>79254374
>you can with the right load
he may have meant legally. many states have laws about what calibers/cartridges it's legal to hunt different kinds of game with.
>>79254374
mauser sounds nice.
>remove kebab
;_; rigjt in tje patriotic feels.
dave is going to love browsing for a nice one then.
>>79240681
Pump action shotguns are cat c and very hard to get in Australia.
>>79254338
>how about you get some actual criminal code stuff fuccbwoy
k
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html
>The firearms listed in Part 1 of the schedule are prohibited firearms for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
part 1.64
>The firearm of the design commonly known as the AK-47 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it except for the Valmet Hunter, the Valmet Hunter Auto and the Valmet M78 rifles, but including the
>proceeds to name every fucking AK variant you'd ever see
again, you don't know your laws
>>79254545
ah, I'm not real up on hunting
never had any family to take me ;_;
>>79254431
i wish ARs were fed with clips, it would be a lot of fun to remove the takedown pin and jam clips into the magazine i think
>>79238140
This is bait of exceptional quality. You've done well this day, friend. Have a meme.
>>79239830
>Nobody ever said that
Here's proof they did
>W-well that's just their opinion
It's not like the point of the second ammendment is so the people can defend themselves from a tryanical government or anything. And it's not like the current social trends and political trends are heading in exactly that direction. And wouldn't it be odd that if the people trying to take this tyrant position would also try to manipulate the public into banning their only true defense.
>>79239547
Burning dinks needs justification now? Lame.
>needing a gun
Do you even lift?
>>79254918
you can, there's a GI tool to do it,
but it's not like it matters to you anyways because you're nogunz
respond to me
>>79254768
>>79254885
>tfw no one in your family hunts
>fumbling around on your own with small game
>want to move on to deer but kinda scared because you've never had to slaughter anything that large nor do you even know where to begin with taking it someplace to be processed.
>scared the butcher would get shitty because no hunting license, even though it's not required on your own property.
why did i need to be born to a family of consumerist pussies?!
>>79238140
So if it's wooden then it's not as scary and deadly...ha ha, what a fag.
>clip
>>79255497
Try to find someone relatively experienced to go with before you shoot a deer.
It becomes a bit of a handful for someone used to small game when you have to deal with 90-170lbs of animal carcass after you've killed it.
>>79253018
Ha ha you're right. This is exactly what they think and believe. :^)
>>79255497
Youtube is your friend. Seriously, there are an assload of videos showing how to process deer.
>>79238826
The constitutional amendment was written when a family might own a musket or long rifle for hunting, which was a pain in the ass to reload.
The 2nd Amendment is in place for a few reasons, few of which are relevant today with our military.
-Ensure the population can be rallied to fight invading armies.
(unneeded because we have a strong standing military)
-Prevent a tyrants from taking those weapons systematically, ensuring these armies cannot be rallied in the future.
(this is where 2nd amendment nuts love to scream, but no person, or hypothetical group of people with any arms that could be obtained would be able to stage a coup or resistance against the modern military - so its almost a moot point)
-ensure civilians have the tools at their disposal to defend their property
(the glaring problem with this, is, if someone is intent on harming you, they will)
I'm all for people being able to own and use firearms for hunting and sport. I believe owners have a direct responsibility to ensure they are used properly and by that measure, the government (the people) have a responsibility to ensure individuals whom society deems unworthy of that right, from buying or keeping such arms.
>>79256398
>I'm all for people being able to own and use firearms for hunting and sport. I believe owners have a direct responsibility to ensure they are used properly and by that measure, the government (the people) have a responsibility to ensure individuals whom society deems unworthy of that right, from buying or keeping such arms.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
I am begging you Ameribros, dont let the goverment take away your guns. Please keep your dignity.
>>79256398
>The first constitutional amendment was written when a business would have access to a printing press that was expensive and difficult to disseminate leaflets.
>>79256398
>this is where 2nd amendment nuts love to scream, but no person, or hypothetical group of people with any arms that could be obtained would be able to stage a coup or resistance against the modern military - so its almost a moot point
Aren't we currently engaged in asymmetric warfare against gorilla forces with vastly inferior and out dated arms?
>the glaring problem with this, is, if someone is intent on harming you, they will
so we should just not try to defend ourselves because you feel it's just inevitable that we will get our shit pushed in by ... i guess anything and everything? are you really this spineless or is this bait?
>>79256398
>Your first argument "lol muskets"
Same thing with the 1st amendment? Only quills and rudimentary printing were common, so freedom of speech/press/religion must be limited to the circumstanecessary during that time only too huh?
>Your second argument "lol gubment too powerful"
Not only was the same said about the British which were defeated by an uprising of roughly only 3% of colonists, but you forget that the military and law enforcement are composed of citizens, many of which are probably 2nd amendment.On a daily basis people intent on harming people are thwarted by the fact that would be victims have guns, look at the CDC report that Obama funded.
>I'm all for...sport etc
Your some fag got on the Internet, your personal opinions and ideas have no bearing on the freedom of hundreds of millions of people you egocentric coward.
Don't forget that our "inalienable rights are endowed by our creator" not big daddy government. The constitution is a document that protects those freedoms from being infringed upon, it doesn't grant them.
>>79256398
yours is a stupid argument but I'll play along
>-Ensure the population can be rallied to fight invading armies.
>(unneeded because we have a strong standing military)
is it needed? probably not. would it be helpful in pushing back an invading army? yes
>(this is where 2nd amendment nuts love to scream, but no person, or hypothetical group of people with any arms that could be obtained would be able to stage a coup or resistance against the modern military - so its almost a moot point)
how many enlisted would defect if the military goes full tyrrany? how many officers would refuse to carry out orders?
how would the US handle an insurgency by it's own people when it's lost to middle eastern goat fucking insurgents with rusty soviet AKs?
how much of a statist bootlicker are you?
>(the glaring problem with this, is, if someone is intent on harming you, they will)
not an argument, I'm still going to do everything in my power to prevent harm to myself and certainly not if I shoot them between the eyes when they break into my house at 3AM
>>79256557
A criminal or someone without sound mind already loses many of their inalienable rights to ensure the safety of the population.
>>79257761
including the right to bear arms
you're point?
>>79256878
The first amendment meant you couldn't be locked up in a dungeon for speaking out against a politician, even in the confines of your home as much as in public. Distribution of speech wasn't their primary incentive for the 1st, it was recourse from a tyrannical government.
So, you can own a shotgun, rifle, and pistol. But, that doesn't entitle you and every civilian to a minigun.
>>79257988
>So, you can own a shotgun, rifle, and pistol. But, that doesn't entitle you and every civilian to a minigun.
nobody in this thread has said that
also, fun fact, civilians can, and do, own fully automatic miniguns
>>79257258
>Aren't we currently engaged in asymmetric warfare against gorilla forces with vastly inferior and out dated arms?
Not an invading army. We haven't the motivation or financial incentive to conqueror those regions.
>so we should just not try to defend ourselves because you feel it's just inevitable that we will get our shit pushed in by ... i guess anything and everything? are you really this spineless or is this bait?
If some dunkel smashes your window and kicks your dog trying to steal your television - shoot him. You're within your right to defend yourself. I'm saying that having an armed population escalates such things. Perhaps the intruder, assuming you're armed, just riddles your bedroom with bullets at 2am to get you out of the way. Why doesn't Britain have the gun deaths we do?
>>79257988
>you can express your views to your friends, your relatives, even start a news letter, but that doesn't entitle you to starting a media outlet.
>>79257988
It's not the meaning that I'm arguing about. The argument is regarding the period of time in which it was written.
Those that argue against the existence of the second amendment often regurgitate the argument that it was written during a time when primitive weaponry existed and doesn't apply today.
>>79238063
They don't. They're the biggest pussies in the world. They'll just cry and complain until someone else does it for them. If no one responds, they'll continue living out their meaningless lives
>>79257317
>how many enlisted would defect if the military goes full tyrrany? how many officers would refuse to carry out orders?
This depends on how the war is presented to the military. If the story is presented right and the some conditions are presented, then possibly few or none. Soldiers are made to follow orders, don't think americans are exceptionalist in this.
Do you think the soldiers wouldn't shott hippies in the 60's if the soldiers were told they were commies trying to take down america and bring USSR?
Don't you think that the soldiers wouldn't shoot nigger rioters if they were told the niggers weere that and something more....
>not an argument, I'm still going to do everything in my power to prevent harm to myself and certainly not if I shoot them between the eyes when they break into my house at 3AM
I'm not an expert, but in this situation wouldn't a handgun be way much more usefull?
>>79238140
>machine gun
You quite obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I appreciate you being so honest, on fucking /pol/ of all places but please for the love of God educate yourself before you talk about this subject. Guns are easy to understand, it'll take you 5 minutes to not look like a retard.
>>79257304
>Same thing with the 1st amendment? Only quills and rudimentary printing were common, so freedom of speech/press/religion must be limited to the circumstanecessary during that time only too huh?
Freedom of speech and press had more to do with preventing people from being rounded up and imprisoned for criticizing the government and less about and individuals ability to distribute information.
>Not only was the same said about the British which were defeated by an uprising of roughly only 3% of colonists, but you forget that the military and law enforcement are composed of citizens, many of which are probably 2nd amendment.On a daily basis people intent on harming people are thwarted by the fact that would be victims have guns, look at the CDC report that Obama funded.
Warfare then is absolutely dissimilar to warfare now.
>Your some fag got on the Internet, your personal opinions and ideas have no bearing on the freedom of hundreds of millions of people you egocentric coward.
Likewise.
>Don't forget that our "inalienable rights are endowed by our creator" not big daddy government. The constitution is a document that protects those freedoms from being infringed upon, it doesn't grant them.
True, but the Supreme Court also ruled that certain rights, like 2nd, arn't limitless. You have a 'god-given right' to own a firearm, but not a surface to air missile.
>>79258249
>We haven't the motivation or financial incentive to conqueror those regions
and you think the military personnel will have the motivation to suppress an armed American public? just being used to suppress the public will be a moral killer on it's own, the fact you might actually need to fire on them or be fired on yourself is a deal breaker for many if not most in uniform.
>Why doesn't Britain have the gun deaths we do?
Because when you ban swimming pools you get fewer drownings. Why do they have a higher violent crime rate?
>>79258249
>just riddles your bedroom with bullets at 2am to get you out of the way.
so damned if you do, damned if you don't. Doesn't really get us anywhere does it?
>Why doesn't Britain have the gun deaths we do?
because the UK has successfully disarmed it's populace.. of guns. why don't we have the stabbings that the UK does?
>>79238140
A culture of violence isn't bad, its the culture of overreaction.
>Oh you want to fight? Well you're a subhuman ape and I'll just shoot you.
I thought /pol/ generally missed the good ol 50s where people could get in brawls and everyone just goes home afterwards. I understand pulling guns on niggers and thugs, but if you don't live in a super ghetto area, I don't get why you would just whip your glock out and cap someone over a fistfight.
>>79258393
The thing is law changes over time. It's a fact. People must adapt their laws to fit the reality. I'm not arguing about the 2nd in particular, but basing your argument that 2nd must stand based solely on the fact that some guys printed it on paper 250 years ago is a very bad way
>>79258607
>and you think the military personnel will have the motivation to suppress an armed American public?
Why not?
>>79240201
>implying I dont have a fuckload of these already.
T. Aerospace machine shop owner
>>79258585
what exactly are you arguing here?
nothing you are saying is in disagreement with anything in this thread
>>79258814
being vastly outnumbered. also it's really hard to fight a war on the very people that make up the infrastructure that keeps your own force running. It's like waging war on your own left leg.
>>79240043
I'll be highly amused if a bunch of crazy people start stabbing antigunners all across the country.
>>79238140
Good job triggering the retarded Amerifags.
>>79238140
>You don't need a full (or semi) auto machine gun. You don't need a 30 round clip.
If you rebel against the government it helps. The whole point of the second amendment is to allow the people the final means of ensuring their voices are heard should all other means fail. When the founding fathers wrote the bill or rights they didn't think about home defence because most weapons weren't really feasible for home defence, and they sure as hell weren't talking about personal defence since a knife is as good as a flintlock pistol at defending yourself. They meant that if the government is truly tyrannical you can grab your rifle, run out into the woods and begin killing soldiers and politicians until things change for the better.
Also its the bill of rights not the bill of needs.
>>79258705
the 2nd amendment isn't a law. it's a part of the constitution, and the US constitution doesn't provide rights, it affirms that everybody has those right regardless
>>79258814
because the military personnel probably wouldn't like invading their own country and oppressing their fellow countrymen?
>>79257317
>is it needed? probably not. would it be helpful in pushing back an invading army? yes
An army of undisciplined rednecks forming posses going around trying to 'defend' their town will inevitably cause more innocent people to die than allowing the army to do its job.
>how many enlisted would defect if the military goes full tyrrany? how many officers would refuse to carry out orders?
I suspect few. A tyrant wouldn't order the mass execution of civilians. He would institute martial law and slowly remove liberties. THe army would comply because they would be protecting them from some common enemy.
>how would the US handle an insurgency by it's own people when it's lost to middle eastern goat fucking insurgents with rusty soviet AKs?
We're crippled by international law and the media from killing everyone. If a posse riled up and held a town hostage, the military isn't going to 'lose'.
>how much of a statist bootlicker are you?
Only lick my own home-made boots.
>not an argument, I'm still going to do everything in my power to prevent harm to myself and certainly not if I shoot them between the eyes when they break into my house at 3AM
You're awake at all hours of the night clutching your trusty boomstick in the off chance some blind and deaf thug stammers his way into your home and presses his forehead against your barrel?
>>79257889
Meaning the 2nd Amendment isn't truly inalienable.
I am point. Yes.
>>79245015
>AR type weapons have been used in most of the mass casualty incidents of recent memory
no
>>79258671
>brawls in the 50's
We aren't savages. That shit doesn't happen in real life in America.
>>79258671
Cowardly victim culture m8.
Muh jews and muh niggers comes from the same place as muh patriarchy does.
Just setting up some boogeyman to blame for everything that's wrong with their lives that they don't want to have to change personally.
And years of thinking that other people cause all your problems leads to intense anger and overreaction.
>>79259451
Niggers and jews are real. There is plenty of proven statistical data to back it up.
>>79238140
You don't need free speech either, so why are you talking?
>>79258393
A revolutionary long rifle was basically a man-sized hand cannon. It took ~2 minutes to reload? That's the weapon they were thinking about when they drafted it. That everyone should have one of those, so when war came, everyone capable of holding one could line up and fire them at another line of guys doing the same. One crazed wackjob does not murder a roomfull of innocent people with a revolutionary long rifle.
>>79259183
>An army of undisciplined rednecks forming posses going around trying to 'defend' their town will inevitably cause more innocent people to die than allowing the army to do its job.
do you have any sources or prior examples or are you just talking out of your ass?
> A tyrant wouldn't order the mass execution of civilians. He would institute martial law and slowly remove liberties.
hmm, yeah like maybe spying on its civilians and manipulating the media to demonize guns
>THe army would comply because they would be protecting them from some common enemy.
bullshit, you have no basis to back this up
> If a posse riled up and held a town hostage, the military isn't going to 'lose'.
>posse riles, up takes over town
>navy seals swoop in, shoot everyone in the head
>the rest of the country wtfs, more posses riles up, takes over 18 more towns
>repeat
>You're awake at all hours of the night clutching your trusty boomstick in the off chance some blind and deaf thug stammers his way into your home and presses his forehead against your barrel?
no but I keep a loaded rifle close by my bedside and would shoot anybody that I hear banging down my door
>>79259306
>Meaning the 2nd Amendment isn't truly inalienable.
not for civilians who commit crimes, thereby violating the social contract and the protections of government,
>>79238140
>30 round clip.
>>79238140
you are probably bait, but I will give you my two cents. I think you are right to some degree, that americans are overdoing it on their gun culture.
In czechia, we have lots of guns, but gun ownership is like a secret club that you wont even hear about unless you get a gun licence (easy to get unless you are retard or born criminal)
Statistics say there are more handguns in our capital than in the police force in the whole country. But you dont ever see people with guns in the streets, you dont ever see any ads on guns, you very rarely see some gunshop, which is mostly named "hunting equipment" even though they sell pistols, you almost never see anything gun related being discussed on tv and general media, and if you arent member of the secret club, you dont even have any idea how easy it actually is to obtain gun. We have next to none gun violence.
>>79238140
The problem lies in having a 'Peseant culture'. It is literally a culture of subservience. Everyone wants to carry their plow around so they can fantasize about plowing the field or processing wheat and pretending they aren't slaves.
You don't need a full (or semi) auto machine plow. You don't need anything but the authority of your lord.
If you want to be Heretical, fine. Get a wooden steak and get burnt at it. You don't need a son.
We will never, ever give up our guns so I dont know why they dont just fucking give up already
>>79238140
But I want.
>>79259667
as usual, you're reacting to mass shootings which comprise an insginificant number of deaths in relation to all crime in the U.S.
> That everyone should have one of those, so when war came, everyone capable of holding one could line up and fire them at another line of guys doing the same.
right, and now that technology has advanced, we advance with it. so that we can fight commies or whatever on a relatively equal footing against their equally advanced technology
>>79258505
>If the story is presented right and the some conditions are presented, then possibly few or none. Soldiers are made to follow orders, don't think americans are exceptionalist in this.
You obviously haven't been in the U.S. army. They have sworn to protect the U.S. people from its own government. They are almost exclusively right wing as well.
>Do you think the soldiers wouldn't shott hippies in the 60's if the soldiers were told they were commies trying to take down america and bring USSR?
Soldiers did shoot hippies and hippies were commies trying to take down America.
>Don't you think that the soldiers wouldn't shoot nigger rioters if they were told the niggers were that and something more....
Don't you think anybody would shoot down a bunch of niggers. If a right wing resistance started they would likely join.
>>79258927
>implying everyone will rise agaisnt the gov
Are we roleplaying? UHH UHH i have one, what about what would happen if Aztecs would fight the English Late Medieval army? ebin
>>79259075
>, it affirms that everybody has those right regardless
So convicted criminals have those rights? Even carring weapons?
>because the military personnel probably wouldn't like invading their own country and oppressing their fellow countrymen?
Those are all very subjective terms. Especially the part opressing. It needs to be applied a point of view. Is the USA army opressing it's own citizens if it was to "put down a revolt by communist sympathizers"? Or if it was to "put down a revolt by anarchic niggers"? Or if it was to fight a seceding state/territory? Point of view, bro, it's all about point of view
Also soldiers are thought to shoot first, ask latter
>>79259016
>in order to ensure a well regulated militia.
The continental army was a rag tag bunch of scrub farmers. As far as they knew, they needed to make sure everyone could be armed to conscript soldiers against an invading force.
>>79258585
>Freedom of speech and press had more to do with preventing people from being rounded up and imprisoned for criticizing the government and less about and individuals ability to distribute information.
Just like how the second had more do to with preventing the government from becoming more powerful than the people.
The repeating musket already exists (and did in 1776), i want to build a full auto musket just to shut everyone up on this whole "muskets is what they meant" thing.
>>79260034
>no one has ever risen up against their government. That is practically fantasy.
You are aware how the USA was founded, right?
>>79259555
Which is exactly what feminists think about the patriarchy m8.
And they really do have statistical data which they believe leans in their favor.
But they forget that statistics can be manipulated really fucking hard and if you have an agenda to push you can find numbers that will support you.
Same with nigger shit.
I don't know why complaining about apparently less intelligent beings is supposed to be celebrated on /pol/
Blaming everyone else for your problems and not just rolling up your sleeves and dealing with your own life seems like the true degeneracy to me.
>>79260026
>They have sworn to protect the U.S. people from its own government.
Literally every army in the world does this. (Maybe except the more totalitarian countries).
Also a sworn is just words.
>Soldiers did shoot hippies and hippies were commies trying to take down America.
Thanks for proving my point.
>Don't you think anybody would shoot down a bunch of niggers. If a right wing resistance started they would likely join.
Thank you again, i see we understand each other. USA army would turn on it''s people if conditions were presented
>>79259706
>bullshit, you have no basis to back this up
It's play #1 with fascism. Don't think the US hasn't done some shit. Where were all the 2nd amendment loving patriots when we rounded up the Japanese Americans into internment camps? They were helping the government round them up in the name of protection and peace.
>>79259787
it's the same way in the u.s. in most major cities
the reason you have so little gun violence is because you have a homogeneous culture
>>79260034
>So convicted criminals have those rights? Even carring weapons?
no criminals are considered to have violated the social contract of government. that's political science and is out of the scope of this discussion
>Those are all very subjective terms. Especially the part opressing. It needs to be applied a point of view
you're absolutely right, like is the NSA spying on our people or protecting against terrorists? I would say it's still tyranny but alas nobody has risen up yet
>Also soldiers are thought to shoot first, ask latter
fuck off with your hollywood bullshit. I'm a veteran and I know many people that were extremely distrustful of the chain of command
>>79260210
The colonial government rose agaisnt the british central authority, pretty much like mine, except the colony and british part. This is pratically how every country was born.
Sucessfull peasent revolts are counted by hand
>>79244503
This man is armed with a Ak-47 and a fully automatic glock 19
>inb4 no they aren't
SEMANTICS MY FRIEND
>>79238140
If this isn't bait, please don't ever breed.
>>79260034
>Are we roleplaying? UHH UHH i have one, what about what would happen if Aztecs would fight the English Late Medieval army? ebin
A better question would be. What would happen when the U.S. military fights a bunch of vietnamese farmers? What happens when the U.S. army fights a bunch of goat fuckers? What would then Happen if they fought people with direct access to all of their supplies and operations?
>>79259433
Then the 80s bro. Or whatever time period you want to use before the cops began arresting people for literally everything.
>>79260349
>I'm a veteran and I know many people that were extremely distrustful of the chain of command
All dandy and fancy in peace time. But when shit hits the fan, people turn up to something that supports them, especially when faced by dilemas. Soldiers would turn to the chain of command. Again, this is highly dependent of the situation. But i am pretty sure that USA army would not defect en masse unless something really crazy was happening there
>>79259981
That equally advanced technology isn't so equal.
Hypothetically, let's say the 2nd explicitly includes the right to bear whatever arms you want. The Russians invade with their tanks, rockets, gas, and carpet bombs. Good thing you have a few AR15s. Get out there and defend!
>>79260055
again, what is you're point exactly?
>>79260239
yeah if the stars and moon align just right the US might turn on it's people, which is why we need the 2nd amendment as above, what's your point?
>>79260410
>implying every american citizen would revolt
HEY, what about the mongols vs the huns?
>>79238140
I've seen this pasta before...
>>79260118
Not what the 2nd was about when written. As written, it virtually states that the government needs an armed populace to rally against foreign invaders.
>>79260620
>yeah if the stars and moon align just right the US might turn on it's people
You already gave me examples, and i can give you another, the japanese concentration by USA in WW2
>>79260055
Thats not why they made the second amendment. It was to defend ourselves against our own government. Did you not take history class? Having a army wouldn't have been a problem within 5 years in America if that were the case. It wouldn't be an amendment.
>>79260574
>what is insurgency
>what is sabotage
>what is guerilla warfare
the russians did real well against the mujaheddin
>>79260620
the 2nd is not about the people rising up against tyrants. it's about maintaining a standing army against foreign invaders.
>>79260239
>Thanks for proving my point.
How does that prove your point that citizens shouldn't be armed? That just means citizens should be armed because our government has already shot citizens.
>niggers
>communists
>american people
Are you really about to compare people who want to destroy the American government and niggers to a regular militia.
>>79260573
>USA army would not defect en masse unless something really crazy was happening there
like a situation when they've turned against the people and the 2nd amendment is being invoked? something like that?
>>79260288
How would this be any different than regular democracy where the majority of people vote to kill a minority?
>>79260809
it was written for a combination of reasons, resistance to oppression was one of those reasons
>"The most important reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, if necessary, at last resort to protect themselves from tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
>>79260354
>peasent revolts
you may not have noticed, but most of the first world aren't a collection of fiefdoms. also the us military weighs in at 1,301,300 active hands, 811,000 in reservists. While the number of (documented) armed civilians is 2,637,365, most of whom own multiple fire arms, i personally own 5. i have family and friends who own literally a dozen or more. And remember that a lot of the military is going to refuse to fight it's own people, and they can't use methods like carpet bombing or other shock and awe methods since if they do they ruin the infrastructure they are attempting to control.
>>79261106
>inb4 "b-but the Federalist Papers and related materials are just their opinions, they don't mean anything relating to the Constitution"
Funny how people who say that are usually the same to say "well obviously the 2A meant muskets for hunting"
>>79260288
so you admit that the U.S. has oppresed its people in the past, yet you argue for dearming the populace?
>>79260625
>implying every American citizen would need to revolt.
The entire point of guns is that the majority of people can destroy the government if they wanted.
No shit 100 guys with guns couldn't destroy the government. They shouldn't be able to either otherwise the entire country is changed based on 100 peoples opinions. Are you retarded or what.
If even just 1/3 of American citizens revolted we would win though. Do you know how quickly we could destabilize our government? It would be a matter of days before tons of production and government would be destroyed.
>>79260698
Thats not what it says. Can you read english? Where does it say against foreigners?
>>79260699
Thats a bad example. If that were the case than voting would be turning on your own people.
The majority of people wanted it or didn't give a fuck.
If the majority of people voted to ban heaters are they turning on their own people?
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. That doesn't change whether you have guns or not.
>>79261331
>tons of production and government
Gun owners have a spectrum of motivations and beliefs, but are you one of those mouth-breathing sons-of-the-confederacy ass scratchers who drool at the prospect of uprising against the government just because?
>tfw you BTFO out of every anti-gun pinko fuck ITT to the bump limit
alright i'm out goodnight /pol/
>>79238140
That is god-tier bait.
