Liberals? Not knowing when they're hypocrites?

Liberals? Not knowing when they're hypocrites?

Shocked.

COLOR ME SHOCKED

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xxpf_kgzQuE
youtube.com/watch?v=_ul2OuvPOQE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>ban guns

The Constitution makes reference to a militia, something that is way passed the point of "no longer necessary or relevant."

The framers also could not have envisioned the incredible technological advancement, increased global interconnectedness, and vast expansion of federal power which lay in their nascent nation's future.

The militia was trained to use the most technologically advanced weapons of the time-- the equivalent of the horse and buggy when compared to a fucking Tesla. We have police departments, SWAT teams, and the National Guard now.

The argument that an armed civilian population is some sort of check on domestic military subjugation is laughable for what should be highly obvious reasons.

The presence of easy access to guns in American society leads to more deaths (homicide and suicide) and crime than if access were harder or effectively nonexistent except in extenuating circumstances (People in Montana in the middle of fucking nowhere have a compelling self-defense argument, but an third party should make the call on such cases.). Period.

Don't be a fucking moron.

>... but also ban guns and speech I consider hateful!

Source on this quote?

>reddit sentencing

gb2r

SHALL

Not a response

*smacks lips*

UH LEMME CALL YOU A KEK REAL QUICK UH

*brandishes nazi flag*

And your wannabe essay isnt an arguement either :^)

t. Strawman

No one cares about your political opinion. Doesn't matter what it is, you children need to get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you. Either discuss Sup Forums or get back to Sup Forums

or you could go to reddit, why would you come here?

>he disagrees with me
>he must be from my nemesis site, reddit!

>Be on Facebook hearing liberals act like smug assholes
>Somebody gets in an argument with them and they start throwing out "Facts have a liberal bias" in quotations to make it sound like an undeniable fact
>Google the quote to see who actually said it
>It was fucking Stephen Colbert
The U.S. is literally a fucking liberal echo chamber now.

>The argument that an armed civilian population is some sort of check on domestic military subjugation is laughable for what should be highly obvious reasons.
I think the main argument is that the nanny government shouldn't treat its populace like wittle babies

We like guns, fuck off

Reported for repost

Please go to your containment board. This is the Sup Forums board, not the political validation board

>this many hoops

The revolution was literally a militia of exactly that. Private citizens who owned guns, and banded together to overthrow their occupiers. This is literally what the framers intended, no matter how you spin it fool.

This is like the 10th time I've seen this thread and it baits the poltards literally every time

Are we really gonna get a thread every time sometime insults trump?

>The Constitution makes reference to a militia, something that is way passed the point of "no longer necessary or relevant."

How so? The millita has to be operated outside of the people, so police and National guard do not count.

>The framers also could not have envisioned the incredible technological advancement
The idea that the founding fathers were some how to stupid to think that weapon technology would evolve is laughable. Also, look up the puckle gun.

>The argument that an armed civilian population is some sort of check on domestic military

ISIS has around 200,000 soldiers. There are around 55 million gun owners in America. If only 1% were willing to take arms against the government, that would be a force of over 500,000. The US can't drone strike 500,000 people over the US.

>The presence of easy access to guns in American society leads to more deaths
Why not use gun crime as a statistic? Is it because gun deaths can mean everything from accidents, self-defense, and crime? Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one.

>the framers intended for a bunch of mountain niggers to have rifles to protect themselves from the stealth bombers and ballistic missiles of a tyrannical democracy
Are you sure? Also your first sentence literally just reiterates what the post you're replying to already said.

Yes because Sup Forums is literally a self created cult

>Trump cherrypick articles from the Consitution
it's fiiiiiine
>Cobert cherrypick articles from the Consitution
LET4S BURN THIS KEK REEEEEEEEEEEEE


why does poltards have such thin skin?

>discussing politics on a board dedicated to television and film when there is a politics board to spread your filth instead
How about instead of bitching about guns, just take one and blow your brains out?

I don't think you understand how easily triggered trumpkins are.

>Why not use gun crime as a statistic?
then you say they're meaningless
then you throw a "over 80x more often" out of the blue
...

Great story, Boris.

But didn't Obama tell you to start packing your bags?

No, I said "gun violence" is meaningless because it can mean a lot of things. My 80x quote refers to guns being used for self-defense purposes.

SHALL

A balanced breakfast being essential to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food, the people or the breakfast?

>amendments are the whole constitution
You're so knowledgeable user. The Amendments totally weren't 10 mostly ill-thought-out and dismantled laws tossed in by cucked Anti-Feds.

But that stat is a baseless lie

I live in Canada.

Out of the thousands of food analogies I've read on Sup Forums, this one might be the dumbest

But facts do have a liberal bias. That's why conservatives have to get all their news and information from infowars conspiracy theories and infographs on imageboards

damn that fucker looks punchable

NOT

lol we both know you're a total fucking pussy who's been bullies his whole life

Why didn't we just let the south secede? They're a net drain on the economy and produce nothing but teen pregnancy and meth

because Lincoln had an unquenchable bloodlust and hated everything the founding fathers stood for

that's why it's called The War of Northern Aggression.

>They're a net drain on the economy
Proofs?

Why are conservatives just now hating on colbert? Were they too dumb to realize he was mocking them on colbert report and the crazy shit he said wasn't genuine, but a reflection of american conservatism?

It's only called that by grit-eating sisterfuckers

YEEHAW

>Arguing about gun control like it matters.

Even the of 20 elementary kids getting blown away in their classrooms a few weeks before Christmas wasn't enough to get something as trivial as a universal waiting period passed a democrat controlled Senate. Even if The near impossible happens and the Dems retake the White House and the Congress in four years, the subject probably won't even be broached. We'll never see any gun control in the foreseeable future, probably not in our lifetimes.

t. never read a history book

dont embarrass yourself yankee

>t. never read sisterfucker revisionist history boom
FTFY

They aren't technically a drain, they just have the lowest gdps, produce the lowest amount of tax revenue because of poverty and are the biggest recipients of welfare. But you could blame the large black populations for that

werent the black panthers technically an armed militia?

t. uneducated simpleton

Not that user but which university did you get your graduate degree from?

Because at least he was funny on the Colbert Report. He's pretty good at satire, but his new show fucking sucks. I honestly kind of feel bad for him. Imagine knowing that people liked a fake persona better than your actual genuine personality.

>But facts do have a liberal bias.
And, you're a liberal, so saying that means absolutely nothing.

Look, if a liberal says "facts have a liberal bias", then really all they're saying is "I'm always right. You're always wrong. My opinions are more valid than yours."

A conservative could say "facts have a conservative bias" and it would literally mean the exact same thing.

Because before their hero won the election they feared backlash on their opinions. Now they feel validated and will post nonstop on an imageboard dedicated to television and film because that makes sense to them.

Good.

The Harvard of the South

>mfw libcucks think the first amendment applies to foreigners on foreign soil
>mfw it's absolutely constitutional to ban people from coming here based on religion/nation of origin

Remember when Colbert was funny?

youtube.com/watch?v=xxpf_kgzQuE

What you just described is literally how liberals reacted when Obama got elected.

How the fuck are people so blind to this?

Yup, and today the military has more advanced tech than anything any civilian force could possibly compete with.

Members of the military also are citizens of the US largely from the middle class and below and wouldn't likely carry out or support despotic orders against their fellow citizens.

Colbert was funny when he was always in-character as a tongue-in-cheek neocon.

Then he got his talk show and everyone realized that he's actually just a fucking asshole and it's not just a joke.

I'd say they were still lashing out at Bush pretty hard before Obama even became a candidate. Sure they got more vocal, but no one feared backlash from conservatives at the time because look who the president was. If Trump lost the election there would maybe be a couple of posters doing the same shit they did with Ron Paul for about a couple of years and then going on to the next meme.

shall not be infringed.

>The idea that the founding fathers were some how to stupid to think that weapon technology would evolve is laughable. Also, look up the puckle gun.
Look up the air plane, the atomic bomb, and the computer.

T. College Student

FIRST

>It BTFO my argument therefore I don't like it.
k

Weapons were updated during the Revolutionary way itself. Muzzle loaders were being outmoded by breach loaders. Do your research before shooting your mouth off, pun intended.

>an armed civilian population is some sort of check on domestic military subjugation is laughable

Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

checkm8

Finally, I've been waiting for xx to show up for a while.

>all these unknown flags

POSTIN IN AN AYY LMAO THREAD!

i'm assuming the last part didn't get said

got moved from Sup Forums

Reminder that leftists think getting snarky or ironic jokes from comedians counts as political discourse

(witnessed)
>mfw libcucks make fun of conservatives for watching Fox News while unironically getting their news from John Oliver and the Daily Show

To think I used to watch and like his show. To think I used to watch and like the Daily Show (up until about 2005).

What exactly is his problem with Trump? Has he ever spelled it out? Or does he just make goofy faces as an argument?

His problem is his Jewish masters wrote his script.

What's with the unknown flags at the start of the thread? the fuck nigga?

where are all the flags?

Pic related.

That's what I just said, did Sup Forums's flag database just happen to fart for the start of the thread?

Narnia?

No, thanks.

WHY IS EVERY FLAG IN THIS THREAD A QUESTION MARK

>dat flag
since when were leftists constitutionalists? my sides

When a thread from a board that doesn't use flags gets moved to Sup Forums, the posts show up as unknown flags.

Russian hackers.


thanks mate.

It was moved from a board without flags

Wow, someone posted somethibg wrong on the internet!

Gotta chuckle when the left pretends they see the constitution as something other than an obstacle to their power.

>google that headline
>it's real

I like that face he pulls after he says, "The Constitution." Like he told a clever joke that no one thought of and expected a hearty chuckle.

found the newfags

found the candy ass.

So close to being self-aware: youtube.com/watch?v=_ul2OuvPOQE

I know the thread is most than likely dead, but I've not really seen many people talk about the verbatim words of the constitution.

"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."

Just a refresher, but if you take note of the specifications of the amendment, you'll understand what I am talking about.

Militias are a non gov sanctioned group of people, in case of emergency foreign or domestic, for the sole purpose of a temporary army. It further says in defense of the state, which is either for or against the will of the state, but does not mention the states funding of said militias. This means it's up to the people of the free state to harbor protection from enemies, foreign or domestic.

This is where my main point comes into play. The right of the people "to keep and bear arms". Arms refers to any weaponry used in a civil defense. At the time, this swords, daggers, hatchets, riffles, etc. The point was to allow citizens to defend themselves with any tech of anytime as the form of arms in a civil militia. This does not however, say anything about regulations outside the arms themselves, which are things like ammo. There is no context to say ammo is a form of arms to defend oneself with.

One can argue the arms are not arms without the ammo, but we're taking this verbatim. If gov really wanted to "win" this case, they only need to control the flow of ammo for said guns, yet let anyone purchase said guns, since they are useless without ammo.

Easy rebuttal would be self made ammo. Ofc they can decide to treat ammo like drugs or alcohol, where as permits are needed to craft and sell them, where as any outside a verified permit are contraband and removed. They can bypass the "shall not infringe" since ammo is not specified on the amendment.


tl;dr control ammo, not guns.

That's like saying 'you can have freedom of the press but we're going to decide who's allowed to have printing ink'. If a thing is necessary for the exercise of a right it's logically covered under that right. Pretty sure there's a supreme court ruling to the same effect.

Also I don't think you quite get how prepared people already are for that manner of legal fuckery.

>tfw aliens shitpost about us

Democrats want to ban militias too.

He means he's pedo and afraid.

This thread

>that smug look after that totally weak bant
Made me sick in the stomach, I would have punched him if I saw him in a bar after a few beer