What do you guys think of this?

What do you guys think of this?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbInqbg8XP4

Her argument sort of falls into itself, she claims that guns are need in case of a tyrannical government. Liberals believe that is now a thing. They buy guns. Then she says the government isn't tyrannical (which it clearly isn't) and that liberals have been brainwashed into thinking Trump is literally Hitler.

Whichever way this goes, it feels like Americans don't really need guns. At least not as many/easily accessible ones. I know this isn't a necessarily the popular opinion on here, so do whatever, but it'd be cool to really talk to someone who doesn't share my belief because I really don't see where a lot of you guys are coming from. I know it's fun as fuck, I love shooting stuff, but their power is destructive in nature, as is their intended purpose. Id est they are dangerous and there are a lot of dumb (and dangerous) people that can buy them.

Also, the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791, when "the right to bear arms" basically meant you could carry a rifle with a reload speed of 3 to 4 rounds per minute. I'm fairly certain the same bill would never have been passed if guns then had the potential they have now.

Win me over.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FH76VoI_hsw
youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
youtube.com/watch?v=juOQ9Ij3G1c
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
youtube.com/watch?v=M0KYnpeZVnQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
youtube.com/watch?v=DAC2drbnfCg
youtube.com/watch?v=IoOw28xIqA0
youtube.com/watch?v=QQdIkxlupqg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Well OP you fucking faggot, in a nutshell, the FN Five-SeveN is a big little handgun with a whole lot of attitude. Why? Mainly because of the unique 5.7x28mm cartridge that it’s designed to fire. While the FN Five-SeveN is not a small gun, the 5.7x28 bullet is small in caliber, albeit a very fast one as far as pistol projectiles go.

>Some background: Developed by FN back in 1989, the 5.7x28mm cartridge was envisioned as a replacement option for 9mm submachine gun use. The idea was that a smaller cartridge that was lighter in weight and capable of defeating body armor (depending on the specific bullet used) would be a compelling option for NATO, Law Enforcement, and protection detail use.

Originally the 5.7x28mm was designed for the FN P90 Personal Defense Weapon, a compact and highly portable carbine, and, eight years later, the Five-SeveN pistol. NATO never officially adopted it, most likely due to selection process politics related to the battle between competing offerings from FN and German company H&K’s 4.6x30mm cartridge. Nevertheless, the two guns and the nifty little cartridge are in use throughout the world by dozens of military and law enforcement groups.

I dunno user, just my thoughts bout the 57. I really enjoy mine, I have made a head shot at 200 yards with it and missed the paper target bull's eye by 6" and I am by no means a professional shooter.

SwedeAnon... Gun laws are irrelevant.

They're very simple tools. We've been manufacturing them for over 700 years. Fuck, it's actually easier to manufacture a fully automatic SMG than a semi automatic carbine.

Even in island nations with restrictive firearm laws, this is an issue: youtube.com/watch?v=FH76VoI_hsw

Good people don't need laws and bad people don't follow them.

So really, you need to ask yourself... Is it worthwhile making restrictive laws that will only make good people easy targets?

When the 2a was ratified, there had been prototype gatling guns for 50 years. Private owners had warships and cannons. There was a 22 round repeating rifle. Your premise that it only applied to muzzle-loaders is false.

__________________________________________

Thread derailment incoming
__________________________________________

WE /k NOW. This is a PRO gun thread. Post em boys.

__________________________________________


>op just a side you, take your eye off your bulls cock and look at this post, study it, understand it. Dont take these faggot kind of questions here, no one needs to win you over, you are a drain. Take your question to /k or do some research, lurk more maybe, or watch some Yuri vidyas, youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g educate your self and once you do, you know why self defense is a must regardless of where the government is. If you want to be the one left defenseless, be my guess, but I can guarantee you that IF anything happens you will be guaranteed almost no chance for survival. Also we both know you cannot get rid of all guns, criminals will have them ect. If they cannot rid the world of drugs what makes you think they can rid the world of guns and ensure 100% no bad guys have guns? You already know that so fuck off with all that shit. You are already won over faggot.

supposed to link to OP

>There was a 22 round repeating rifle.

Lewis and Clark actually used a couple of them during their expedition.

youtube.com/watch?v=juOQ9Ij3G1c

By the standards of the day, it was also really stealthy. Much less noise, you could easily load it while prone and there was no giant white smoke cloud after firing.

based leaf

Guns are fun, and with even the most basic level of training in their use they are far less dangerous than most power tools available to the public with no licensing whatsoever.

The real danger concerning firearms is ignorance of them. If you have no idea how a gun works and no idea how to even approach the thought of handling one safely, then they are probably pretty scary. The moment you understand that they can really only hurt you through domestic ignorance or foreign malevolence, they become far more mundane.

>A
>FUCKING
Bretty Cool
>LEAF

Let's be honest: If gun control laws were based on logic, then the laws would be the same everywhere in the world, right?

In Canada, .25 and .32 caliber handguns are banned.
In the US, handguns over .50 caliber are banned.
In Australia, it's handguns over 9mm.
In India, .455 caliber handguns are banned.

Explain to me why I could lawfully shoot a 14.5x114mm anti-tank rifle on my own property, but not a handgun chambered in .22 short?

Why is it legal here to have a 12" barreled shotgun, but not lawful to take a 20" barrel and cut it down to 12"?

There is no end to the backwards fucking logic used for firearms.

The only things gun laws do is take guns away from law abbiding citizens. You really think that because its illegal to obtain certain firearms that criminals are going to follow them?

Not true. You absolutely can have a handgun over .50 in America. The problem is shooting it. Even 50 is tough to manage.

Logic only enters the equation vaguely, at an oblique angle.

For example, the Street Sweeper shotgun was an abhorrent pile of garbage that was far less dangerous as a practical weapon than it was as a bludgeoning tool, but because of its frightening name and appearance a bunch of whining, ignorant do-gooders got it labelled a Destructive Device.

Utterly reactionary, utterly confusing, and ultimately aggravating.

Based leaf

A handgun over .50 caliber would be considered a "Destructive Device".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

You can get an exemption of the BATFE specifically says it is a "sporting firearm", though that will NOT happen for a handgun. Notable examples are rounds like the .950 JDJ.

...if* the BATFE...

It seems to stem from the idiot politicians who haven't even held a gun making laws.

>Feinsteinsprayingaudiencewithfingerontrigger.jpg

America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a nigger problem.

Get rid of the niggers, we have a crime rate comprable to pre-refugee Sweden. Get rid of the guns and they start stabbing.

youtube.com/watch?v=M0KYnpeZVnQ

Hey, guess who can't use fucking power tools.

If you're a girl that is acceptable, if not....

Fun fact : in France up until 1995 anyone over 18 could buy a semi-auto rifle as long as it was in a civilian caliber such as a Colt sporter, Mini-14, Sig 540 chambered in .222. Nothing else was needed, and those guns weren't even registered.
Supermarkets were selling guns and ammo up until the 90's, Decathlon, the famous sports brand, was selling guns and ammo up until 2003 (still sells ammo up to this day). Yes, you could go into a Carrefour, Casino or Auchan, and get out with an unregistered pump action shotgun in a matter of minutes.
And there were no problems whatsoever, yet suddenly a bunch of commies (litterally) decided that pump action shotguns should be banned (yet not the other shotguns, makes total sense), that you should need a license to buy any gun and ammo, and that you should need an authorization to buy anything semi-auto.
Now they're coming back in march at the EU level to tell us we can't own semi-autos at all anymore.
What's the logic behind this? Is this the "progress" the left is always talking about? That inanimate objects which don't bother anyone should suddenly be regulated or banned a few years later?

>Also, the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791, when "the right to bear arms" basically meant you could carry a rifle with a reload speed of 3 to 4 rounds per minute. I'm fairly certain the same bill would never have been passed if guns then had the potential they have now.
>they only had muskets
everytime

you could litterally buy a cannon, a rotating machine gun, fuck anything you wanted.
George washington was all "why are you asking me for permission,protect yourself nigger!"

What?

I'm not entirely sure how you managed to so misread my post, so I'm not really sure how to properly respond. Perhaps I can put it into simpler language.

Not knowing how to use a possibly dangerous tool is what makes it dangerous. Having no idea how to use a power saw greatly increases the chance you will hurt yourself with it. Having no idea how to use a firearm will greatly increase the chance of doing something stupid with it.

SBR laws and infact most any law labeled "Common Sense Gun Reform" is guaranteed to make no difference in gun crime and usually only serves to place more restrictions on law abiding citizens where defending themselves is concerned.

When lawmakers use clearly pejorative terms like that over and over again they need to be called out on it. Even if something was statistically proven to be bad, why would you keep saying "bad scary (whatever)" over and over? They talk like fucking retards.

>you don't need that many bullets, go back to the range if you can't hit a 800 pound charging bear while your hands are shaking in fear and you're pissing yourself, arguement

bless u leaf

Did you know that inanimate objects that have been in this country for hundreds of years, all of a sudden changed and can now be possessed by evil spirits? I am so scared of them please take everyone's objects away oh glorious leaders!

Most "western" nations had broad gun control enacted during the 90's.

The US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Finland, Spain, Ireland, Sweden...

Interestingly, one of the recurring names, IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) is directly funded by George Soros. The leader of IANSA, in a debate against the head of the US NRA, said that their end goal was to globally ban all firearms capable of firing over 100 meters. That's all guns.

Shit.

The bb gun at my metal shop can fire 100m

>Then she says the government isn't tyrannical (which it clearly isn't)
can and has happened.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

I did mean the YouTube video, but the five-seven is a favorite of mine too.

Here's the debate if you're interested.

youtube.com/watch?v=DAC2drbnfCg

You can make a potato gun capable of well over 100m.

BAN ASSAULT POTATOES

This is actually a really valid point, but at the same time numbers show countries with restrictive gun laws have less gun related crimes/injuries/deaths.

But your argument is worthwhile nonetheless.

>show countries with restrictive gun laws have less gun related crimes/injuries/deaths
don't they just get more stabbings?
and hell australia still has a bunch of mass shootings even though they banned guns.

It's not about gun laws. It's about education.

If you teach firearm safety to everyone, you could have grocery stores selling SMG's and the rates of negligent discharges would still be low.

My parents both learned firearm safety as part of the Phys. Ed. curriculum in high school.

ACTS and PROVE are so simple even a fucking child can understand them.

youtube.com/watch?v=IoOw28xIqA0

Basically, criminals gonna crime. If somebody is out to commit murder, they will A) Find a way to do it regardless of weapon restrictions, and B) Not give a single solid shit about getting hit with a firearms charge.

People act like if you pass a law against guns, they will all simply disappear and never come back. If criminals can smuggle illegal drugs into a country, you can bet they will bring guns too.

I agree, anyone who thinks the war on drugs is about eliminating them is an idiot. It's about preventing abuse of substances that are addictive/harmful.

I'm not saying restrictive laws on guns will get rid of them, but it will prevent a lot of gun related crime/injury/death. As it has in all other countries with restrictions on guns.

I'm not won over, and this wasn't very derailing.

Problem is that people want mandatory firearm training.

This is very dishonest.

Stats show there is no correlation between gun laws and crime. Some even argue that the more restriction the more crime there is.

Take a look at Switzerland where gun laws are pretty much nonexistent but they have virtually no crime.

Look at the U.K. Where there are strong gun restrictions so alternative ways of attacking are way up.

Gun laws don't protect society; they protect the government.

I agree, guns are fun. I also believe that with proper training they're not dangerous at all. As with anything in capable hands. The difference between a power tool and a gun is the intended use. Like I said, guns are destructive in nature, as is their intended purpose.

Making it part of high school would not be anticonstitutional, though, and that would actually reduce the rates of negligent discharges.

Instead, you have anti-gun PSA's like this one:

youtube.com/watch?v=QQdIkxlupqg

>Kid brainwashed that GUNS ARE BAD so he STEALS the gun, DOESN'T PROVE it safe AND BRINGS IT TO SCHOOL.

COUNT THE FUCKING FELONIES.

>I'm not saying restrictive laws on guns will get rid of them, but it will prevent a lot of gun related crime/injury/death. As it has in all other countries with restrictions on guns.

>gun related
see that's the important phrase, gun injury and all that might go down with civilians but what exactly is the point?

Get rid of cars because that way we can get rid of car related deaths.

I would love for that to happen, but the gun cotrol crowd would never let that happen.

That and soccer moms would flip their shit if they heard billy practiced with a rifle at school.

The data simply DOES NOT support that.

Look up Gary Mauser and John Lott.

>the farther left the blacker it gets
finally we're getting to the meat of the arguement.

Have the parents sign a waiver.

And hell, it's not like they even need to use real firearms or ammo.

Deactivated rifles with snap caps. You could teach and test an entire group of 30 students in two days.

No, of course I don't think that. It makes it harder to obtain them though. Either way, law abiding citizens have been known to cause accidental injuries, and intentional ones. If you look at the gun related crime/injury/deaths in countries with restrictive gun laws you'll probably find they're not as bad as in, for example, America.

based leaf, can you please show me the link between IANSA and soros?
I can't seem to find the paper trail

If we wanted to be super technical... Most power tools are destructive, drills destroy material and leave a hole, the saw I'm using now breaks shit in half... Etc

Look up the full career of Rebecca Peters, for starters.

Hang yourself fuckface. Bet the Founders didn't foresee helicopters with infrared that could look inside of your house either. 4th amendment still applies there too.

But just dive off a bridge or something OP

>If you look at the gun related crime/injury/deaths in countries with restrictive gun laws you'll probably find they're not as bad as in, for example, America.

would you consider genocide a crime?
Because those are always preceded by heavy gun control.

>No problems whatsoever
Gun related injury and death has gone down by literally 61% since '97.

Citation needed.

Look at the statistics from Japans gun related crime/injury/death and compare it to Americas.

Does that count suicide, ND, cops, and self defense?

not trying to doubt it, but I don't see murder or crime attached to that.

ah yes, it always leads to open society institute/foundation
thanks

Your chart is meaningless if we don't see the stats from before gun control was enacted.

Gun control in Canada came into force in the late 90's. Can you attribute the decline to something that began decades after the start of the downward trend?

How often are you charged by bears? fuck son.

We need to start a new program to combat communist jew gun control efforts. Many times their efforts consist of false flag shootings like Sandy Hook, followed by the jewish media screaming how we’ll never be safe as long as guns are around. In the near future, we will have a website where anti-gun jew fucks and their supporters can be exposed and properly ridiculed, until such time as they can face the consequences of their treason.

Recently a bunch of feminist jew cunts thought they would protest guns on campus by giving out dildos. They look like a bunch of dildos doing it, so let’s start with them. These dumb uneducated commie feminist infected pustules figured since dildos were banned on campus, but guns weren’t, they would protest by acting like whores and handing out dildos. They are flanked by feminized bitches with mustaches and beards that I won’t dare call “males”or “men”, but they dress like guys anyway. These freakish abominations have a name for their protest “Cocks not Glocks”. I guess even these guys like cocks. In the pictures they seem to enjoy playing with them way too much.

This is what you have to look forward to if you don’t stand and fight for freedom and righteousness. Your women will all be degraded to a pile of bottom feeding fake ass feminist tramps who will drop their pants to anyone. Your men will be girly little bitches who like sex with men, dogs, and children as much as they do a grown woman. To top it off, you’ll all be disarmed useless pussies crying in “safe zones” because your fake candidate lost an election.

I’m not really mad though. Anyone that thinks handing out dildos to protest guns is funny needs shot, and the idea of that makes these whiny bitches mad. Wouldn’t that be ironic? Going before a firing squad for trying to ban guns? I think that is very fitting.

No problem, bro.

Ohh nice. I haven't been back to /k/ for like almost 2 years now. Is that faggot Draco still there being a faggot? Did Ricky ever get doxxed? Is /arg/ still the same generic snake camo painted PSA guns?

>Her
>Argument

Bitch, get back in the kitchen N-O-W!!!

No I'm just saying that if you look at other countries with restrictive gun laws a whole lot less people are dead because of them per year. I'm tired of making this argument.

Forgot photo

These snakes always speak with a forked tongue. Remember, they walk among us, appealing to our sensibilities. An enemy at the gates is less formidable than one who pretends to be just another America with a differing view.

“I do believe in the second amendment and the right to own guns and bear arms, however I don’t think that public university is really the place for that,” said one commie lying fuck. This pile of shit doesn’t believe in the second amendment, or your right to defend yourself. She wants guns banned, and picking away at this little thing is her method of helping ban them.

This Hegelian dialect says one thing, then turns right around and says the other. People always ask me, “how do you know this/that”, and the answer is always the same. You need to listen to how someone says something, not what they are saying. This person above is saying she wants to ban guns, but only here and there. She “believes” in the second amendment, but that doesn’t mean she will let you have it. Even the commie jew professors were filing injunctions to stop people carrying firearms.

Anyway, let us get to the point. They want to give away dildos for gun control, we will give away free rides in a noose to all gun control proponents. Nooses for Gun Control will cover all the expenses. Rope. Trees or custom built gallows, and even a bucket to kick out from under them! Every expense will be spared to ensure the least amount of comfort, but any gun control nut wanting to show their psychotic little heads will get free rides. No questions asked. Bodies will be burned and the ashes spread to the four corners of the earth for good measure.

depends if I'm having a bad day.

might be anything really. An elk, a wolf, a buck, a duck.
would rather have 30 shots than 5 shots that I need to use a bolt with.

yes, roughly 2/3 of gun deaths in the USA are suicides, something to consider

My cousin is a geologist. They ALWAYS, and I do mean ALWAYS have at least two people in their group with a shotgun handy. Bears are fucking terrifying.

>five-seven

CZ is so much better for defending long doors as CT. Guaranteed head shots.

Listen folks. It is really this simple. The only reason for gun control is to make you easier to kill. Stop beating around the bush and acting like they give a fuck about your safety. The moment they have your guns, the open slaughter will commence. These people mean to kill anyone who resists their take over. If you’re confused as to what this will look like, have a look at this movie about the Katyn forest massacre.

Too many people want to argue the points on gun control. They want to break out all the statistics, and try to “win” an argument based on the truth. The truth they rely on is that gun control only causes more trouble, and the enemy will counter with appeals to emotion and cries about saving the children. This will go on for eternity, but slowly they will whittle away our gun rights to nothing if we continue to allow discussion. If I have to spell out how this is being done already, take a look at this current article HERE where Obama the dark skinned jew and Socialist Security criminal mob are making up their own “rules” to stop people from acquiring guns.

Rights are like facts. They aren’t up for discussion or debate. I seriously don’t care what whiny emotional bullshit they use. Rights aren’t something that can be debated, because they are set in stone. Anyone trying to debate your rights is your enemy. Nothing else needs said, but they will try!

They do have more stabbings, but stabbings are close range and generally less lethal than bullet wounds.

I'd much rather have a kid at school run around try to stab people than shooting with a semi-automatic.

When the bill of rights was ratified, citizens were guarenteed the right to bear the same weapons as the government. Today citizens only have reasonable access to semi-auto firearms, which are functionally restrictive compared to a standard M16, much less the fucking scifi bullshit our government has developed over the last 80 years.

But more importantly, your premise is flawed, guns must be owned and maintained BEFORE a government becomes tyrannical. Both to serve as a deterrent and because you won't very well be able to arm yourself under tyranny. What's more, your assumption that reducing legality of civilian firearms will reduce violent crime has been disproven again and again. It has never worked.

There is nothing to argue with gun control. Anyone who wants you disarmed means you harm. Period. Taking guns makes people easy to kill, and serves absolutely no other purpose. Oh wait, it does make it impossible for you to fight back. Look at the draconian measures being treasonously imposed by the corporation posing as the legitimate government in Commifornia. These fools pick away at banning all kinds of things, including now magazine releases they call “bullet buttons”. These commie jew fucks even require background checks just to buy ammunition! Ask yourself who ever gave them that power? Some commerce clause? What?

This communist shit hole Commiefornia would be a great place to set up gallows to hang treasonous twits. By the way, under the definition of treason, almost anyone working in government can be hung until dead. They are literally aiding and abetting enemies of our country in the form of the private corporations they serve. There are NO legitimate “government” employees today. They all work for a private company, but we’ll cover that at another time.

Anyone who has any reason they want guns banned here or there, or blocked from carrying this way or that, or just doesn’t quite feel comfortable with people having guns or using them for whatever reason is already guilty of treason. Stop trying to discuss the finer points of gun control with people who want to take your guns, just so they can kill you with guns. Nobody gives a shit about statistics. They don’t matter. The only thing that matters is getting as many gun control nuts free rides in a noose as soon as possible.

From now on, when you enter a gun control conversation, it will go like this. The gun control freak will try to tug at people’s emotions, “those poor children that got shot in that school, we can never let this happen again”. Your reply will be, “You’re right! Gun control is a serious problem that can only be solved by judicious use of a noose!”

I agree, but then there are the people who use guns to intentionally do bad things.

What else is there to discuss? Anyone who wants your guns out of sight, wants them banned. Anyone who wants their use or carry curtailed, wants them banned. Anyone who wants them banned, wants to kill you. No more discussion. Every discussion about gun control should end in discussions about nooses from here on out, because there is NO DISCUSSION.

No Quarter.

And I'm tired of shooting that argument down.

I don't care HOW a person dies. I care THAT they die.

Look at the HOMICIDE rate. Not just the firearm homicide rate. It almost always stays the same or goes up after gun control is enacted. It's not causative, it's not even correlated!

>numbers show countries with restrictive gun laws have less gun related crimes/injuries/deaths.
No, they don't. There's no data showing a clear causal relationship between these things.

It's not even shown within the data available for the United States itself.

Worry about your own country.

Again, I agree. But the crime is a whole lot harder to commit, far more scarce, and generally less lethal.

make a bomb
kill just as many people

drive a truck
kill just as many people

>NO DISCUSSION.
gee what a great board you guys have here

Most shootings in general are done with handguns. Handgun rounds are actually really bad at killing. The survival rates from getting shot with a handgun or stabbed are about the same.

Further, school shootings are so rare that they aren't even statistically relevant. You had Statistics in math class. Fucking do the math!

>5.7x28
>not an insanely overpriced 22 mag
pick one

No, I have not found any source saying this. If you were to find the statistics that show America having less gun related crime/injury/death than a country with restrictive gun laws, for example Japan, post it and you will literally change my mind.

How many niggers does Japan have?

And people intentionally drive trucks through crowds of people. Are you banning trucks?

You're grasping at straws.

holy shit DC get it together.

Make a bomb, kill just as many people, more likely to get away.

How many years was the Unabomber active?

Cars are do not have the same intention and connotations as guns. Like I said, they are destructive in nature. Also designed to kill/incapacitate people.

The US is a HUGE country with gun laws at both extremes. Some states have laws more restrictive than Canada's.

1984 is going to be 2024 if the globalist pieces of shit keep this up,

>Cars are do not have the same intention and connotations as guns

user, guns aren't actually possesed by malicious spirits in the US.
also there are way more car deaths than gun deaths.

like 99% vs 1%
Theres litterally more reason to ban guns than cars based off of this logic.

If guns are so terrible, then why do all our police officers carry them?

Why should I trust my life to a police officer who puts fewer rounds downrange in a year than most sport shooters do in a weekend?

>How many years was the Unabomber active?
Technically from 78 to 95, but he admitted to being the person that randomly laced dozens of bottles of tylenol with arsenic in the mid 70s. So 20 years altogether or trying to randomly kill/maim people.