Why should Americans have the right to possess weapons whose primary purpose are not to hunt or act as a tools for...

Why should Americans have the right to possess weapons whose primary purpose are not to hunt or act as a tools for personal defense but as an instrument of war?

why the fuck does it matter to you faggot leftists who despise America what we do?

we call them defensive rifles where im from. you think i shouldnt be able to defend myself and/or others with a defensive rifle?

seriously what is wrong with you, OP?

Because we're the militia of this country, militias need instruments of war.

Duh

if you can't trust your fellow man with a gun, you have no nation, just an anarchic collection of tribes.

Just use a handgun faggot.

because the white man may not have invented war, he has perfected war

Because the state should not have a monopoly on violence.

the only thing a handgun is good for is being able to shoot your way to where your rifle is stored.

Season 2 never.

>trusting niggers and spics with guns

you DO have an anarchic collection of tribes

because the American government is controlled by the people, not the other way around, and America will not bow to the feels of enemy nations who wish to control us.

*cries internally*

shall not be infringed, come and take them, etc etc

Because a government serves its population and that population needs the tools to keep tyranny from reaching the critical mass that birthed America in the first place.

*sigh...*
SHALL

Not that it should matter in terms of legal civilian ownership, but the primary purpose of the semi auto rifles I own is to use when hunting.

Does the 2nd amendment say the people have a right to hunt?

why does the left especially hate the big scary black ones thousands of Americans find useful and defended their homes with when handguns have been used in more gun crime and have every ability to enable a mass shooting like the most recent one at fort Lauderdale and been responsible for a good portion of others as well?

why should I have to justify anything to you?

The AR is somewhat unique. It was a weapon initially produced for the civilian market, but then later adopted by the Military.
Also, any firearm has the potential to be an instrument of war.

Because our haughty overlords have them.

because all weapons are an instrument of war. i can kill a person with shiv made from toilet paper, but are you gonna ban toilet paper?

NOT

PASS

>

because if the Chinese or Russians invade, they are going to have a tough time stamping all the heavily armed out the US militia groups

My group of friends alone probably has 30-40 assault rifles, long range large projectile rifles, shotguns, pistols and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Down here in the south there is a gun behind every blade of grass. Any invading army would have a bad time even if they had armored vehicles.

Why should you be allowed to breath? Serious question... It will also answer yours.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The most stupid question ive read lately

μολὼν λαβέ

>tools for personal defense

That's exactly what they are for, numbskull.

And that is why the Democrats are trying to abolish the Second Amendment: to get whitey's guns and render him vulnerable to the brown horde.

because the fuckin police have these guns too

eh fuck it, who cares, we're gonna kill eachother anyway.

pic related my gun. I live in ny but i got in before the ban

When the 2nd amendment was, well, amended, it was with the intent that citizens could have the same guns as a military force. When that amendment was written there was no such thing a civilian spec or military spec gun. The gun you had was the same the military had.

The thing is even if you outlaw "military style weapons" (which are just contemporary weapons) criminals will still have them anyway because criminals don't obey laws obviously. So now power has been tipped in their favor. Because whomever they're perpetrating their crime against is now out gunned.

As for the whole "that's what we have police for" thing. Well the police take 5 to 10 minutes to get to where you are, that's plenty enough time for the criminal to kill you or perpetrate whatever crime it is they're going to do. Killing someone only takes seconds. As far as I know police haven't invented teleporters yet, so that's no help. You need something to protect you in the immediate moment.

A knife is no good if the criminal is stronger and faster than the intended victim. Guns are the great equalizer, now everyone has the same capacity to protect themselves or their families.

>sound logic
GTFO of here.

>Why should Americans have the right to possess weapons whose primary purpose are not to hunt or act as a tools for personal defense but as an instrument of war?


Fun.

That's a cute Pepe.

It makes us better prepared for war. You want to be able to kill a lot of people really fast in war.

>b-but it makes our homeland impenetrable

No army would try to attack take American soil in the first place you nitwits.

There have been numerous wars on American soil. Open a history book.

why the fuck does it matter to you faggot leftists who despise America what we do?

Banning them implies that we are not to be trusted as citizens of our own country. The government, in no way, shape or form, has the right to dictate to the people it's own personal agenda.

We elect representatives to serve us, not to enslave us through collusion and special interest.

just use a rock tied to a stick

The militia was set in law to repel a foreign invading military. Simple as that

If you don't understand this you are literally retarded and illiterate

>numerous
>war of 1812
>one attack of Pearl Harbor

Maybe you should open a book.

>implying you have to use an army to invade
>implying they're not already here with full legal right to the land they've taken

It doesn't even have to be about invading forces. Same applies with domestic threats as well. Do think a thug with his ak or uzi will turn his gun over because it's illegal? No of course not. So now you have violent individuals with ak47s and uzis vs peaceful law abiding citizens who would be unequal in their capability to defend themselves, because their ability to have an equal gun with which to protect themselves and their families have been taken away. Criminals would be at a noticeable advantage.

Stop using these idiots arguments dummy.

The second amendment has nothing to do with individual protection. Individual protection was seen as something akin to feeding yourself. It's all about the protection of the nation from another nation. This is why people used to be able to own actual military grade weapons like cannons and explosives and anything the military had. Hell people used to own the equivalent of destroyers back then

SHALL

NOT

>Mexican American War
>Civil War
>War of 1812
>Pearl Harbor (not a war; significant nonetheless)
>American Revolution

You can't compare it to the entirety Europe and act like it's nothing. We're less than 250 years old.

BE

BE

INFRINGED

>using the Civil War as an example of why civilians should possess military grade weapons

I'm no expert, but shouldn't you, according to the second amendment, ban all guns whose primary purpose is to hunt or act as tools for personal defense, since the amendment only covers your right to weapons capable of taking down the government?

doesn't matter faggot, 2nd amendment states that bearing firearms is a right and it shall not be infringed

To piss people like you off.

This. Militias (verbatim from the 2nd amendment) don't take care of things with airguns and bb rifles.

And anyway, what makes, say, an AR-15 more of
>an instrument of war
than, say, a pistol? Just because it looks scarier? Because it could hold 30 rounds instead of 15?

God created men but Sam Colt made them equal

>
>And anyway, what makes, say, an AR-15 more of an instrument of war

Weapons in war are capable of taking down many opponents of in quick succession with little down time. Most civil situations involve one or perhaps several aggressors, for which a handgun is suitable.

Misunderstood your post. Little drunk. Forgot we're talking about weapons.

Regardless, a semi-automatic AR is in no way comparable to military grade weaponry. If I may, where are you from exactly?

Yet handguns account for the most gun related crimes/deaths.

If you're implying that an AR-15 is somehow more deadly because it shoots a larger caliber, then statistics and common sense say that you're wrong.

>most civil situations involve one or perhaps several aggressors
>weapons of war are capable of taking down many opponents in quick succession

So either a handgun can only be used against a single assailant, or we must assume that both are in fact instruments of war.

Virginia.

A handgun can be used as a weapon of war but it is ineffective compared to an automatic rife. Why would a civilian require the power to kill dozens of people?

Why do wimps like you care what kind of firearms your law abiding neighbors own?

>Why would a civilian require the power to kill dozens of people

Dozens of people can be killed with several handguns, perhaps just one, providing the shooter knows what they're doing.

You can't assume that someone is liable to go on a murder spree because their rifle shoots .223's in faster succession. Not too mention, no civilian can legally purchase full-auto, military grade firearms.

>handguns are ineffective

Ever been hit with a 9mm, .38, or .45? You don't stand up and limp away like Jason Bourne, I can promise you.

Cho used 2 Glocks to kill 30 something people.

Look I dont know what you know about guns And caliber size but I dont want to get shot by a .22 anymore than a 30-06.

Getting shot is getting fucking shot