Why can't liberals understand the second amendment?

Why can't liberals understand the second amendment?

Because liberals are communists and communists aren't human.

required adolescent lobotomies

If your entire ideology was based around the assumption that Big Brother was here to protect you and that the individual was best served not by protecting his agency but by sacrificing his agency for the security of the collective, then the right to bear arms would probably just seem like an unnecessary liability to you.

because they only want to shoot unarmed people, while normal people don't want anybody to have to be shot

The same reason why they can't separate legal and illegal immigrants or "being nice" and political correctness.

>the right to bear arms would probably just seem like an unnecessary liability to you.

so what you're saying is that slavery and the 2nd amendment cannot co exist peacefully

fpbp

They can understand it, they just don't like it and and are therefore trying to neuter it.

Why do conservatives have liberal views on what is acceptable modification of m1a? That shit is disgusting.

Because they can't understand any other amendment (except maybe the third, but I kinda doubt that too).

Because they're liberals,obviously

It doesn't make sense to me at all that they simultaneously hate law enforcement, yet they want no one to own guns except for law enforcement (and the bad guys)

It's a mental illness.

faggot

>muh crappy wood stock

Other than the usual sheltered-suburbanite-bitch stuff, a big part of it is that their possessions are non-critical. Because they never really made anything of their own, they have nothing they really feel is worth protecting. A crackhead busts a contractor's workvan and steals everything? That's his livelihood at stake, he might not be able to replace it. But these people don't understand that. All they see is money that can be replaced because they don't have anything that is either dear to them, or irreplaceable.

Go ahead and profile any of these "oh, just let him steal everything from your house, it's better than taking their life!" faggots. None of them ever did anything legitimately productive with their life with their own property. All 'bullshit technicians' or baristas and shit.

A lot of them do now simply because they're afraid of Trump. I know several libcucks at work who are buying shotguns now and they were vehemently anti-gun last year.

The problem with liberals is they have no contigency. Their lack of conservative value makes them panic when things don't go their way. When it seemed sure that Hillary was going to win and that the government was always going to be on "their side," they were all for strict gun control in the interests of removing this power from commonfolk for the government.

Yes, exactly. That is kind of the point....

Because they've never been charged at by a wild bear.

A Liberal:
>anti-capitalist
>buys $15 pussy hat

Oy vey, yes! The evil orange captialist wants to murder you all, goy. Here, protest with this official merchandise.

"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."

>or a wild dindu

That is to imply:
>they can't grasp that their movement has no teeth because they are not armed.

...

Because you also cant. Are you seriously thinking that you will be able to fight real dictatorship?

you do understand that the 2nd amendment was created exclusively for white men, right?

The "militia" is every able bodied male over 18

Liberals understand it just fine.
They don't want your guns.
Progressive liberals just want it repealed.
Then you can't resist their changes.

Because having assault rifles in NYC is a really really really really really really really really really poor idea.

If you need an armament for defense, that's one thing, but assault weapons are way beyond the scope of defense.

And what, weapons are a check to prevent the goberment from enslaving it's people or something? You do know that the military has things called tanks, attack helicopters and so on. Your rifle doesn't mean shit in the terms of resistance if the military ever turned on you. So what, does the military need to give everyone an attack helicopter or a tank so we all can be on even ground? At what point does that absurdity end?

Weapons in a huge mass of people like NYC is a bad idea, if you do get in trouble and need defense you can just yell and the guy right next to you in that crowded street can help. If say they were all loaded with weapons, at any time a disturbance happens the whole city would be a fucking powder keg.

If you're out on the country, yes you would need a weapon, because people are far enough part the response time for help would be far too late. So we do need it, but we do need to be realistic. Having rural vs city limits on gun control is my suggestion, a compromise of sorts.

This is just me playing devils advocate though.

Thank you user, was hoping someone had that handy

Are you seriously implying that in the event of a full fledged civil war that the majority of the military wouldn't desert and that a considerable amount of the loyalists would be saboteurs? And all of that isn't even taking into account that there are 300 million privately owned firearms in the country.

why do conservatives desire to live by rules 200 years out of date?

so fucking weird

>shit's hard, so don't bother

OP's pic is not an assault rifle. It is semi-automatic.

Assault rifles are automatic, the news is uninformed.

They can't perceive threats very well, and when they do perceive a threat, they want the State to do the defending.

Basically pussies and Statists honestly don't see the need for a 2nd Amendment. They're not evil (most of them) they're just dumb and useful idiots for the State.

>It's 2017, government don't go bad anymore!

What do you een consider a dictatorship enough for the rebellion? You, all the west, all thebworld is fucked by big gov endlessly.

id rather fight and die and live under a boot you stupid little faggot.

I knew I guy who liked to scream at pigs. He screamed when they ran past him and by him. Then one day a van drove past him and we don't hear from him no more.

> doesnt even have a constitution
> defends failed colony

*than not and, plus youre STILL a faggot. i hate your kind so much. you are the reason communism prevails.

stay triggered, mr. call of duty black ops 7

We do have a constitution, just not codified.
The US is not a failure, they just used the proto second amendment to get us to fuck off.

Also, nothing to do with what I posted.

I am the military, faggot.
If I were dictator for a day, everyone would own a gun and dueling would be legal.
An armed society is a polite society.

Does the exact classification really matter in this case, it's obviously not for hunting squirrels kek

You've never touched an "assault rifle" and understand nothing about them. Your opinion as a know-nothing is completely invalid, and you should kys

Ever since most of the west gave up their right to bear arms.

It's less prevalent in the US (at least at a government level), because said government actually fears their people.

A big part of the second amendment is making it so that tyranny can not go unopposed. It may, or even likely could, fail. But once the government reaches the point of taking arms to its citizens like that, it makes a statement to its citizens and the world what it really is.

tl;dr an armed populace may not be insurmountable but it forces the government to have to shed blood if it wants to engage in tyranny

How many brave consercatives will go to civil war, literally noone. They already had a civil war which showed that civil war won't work.

They understand it.
But you have to understand something even simpler:

The average burgerstani is a retard. A literal retard compared to the average person from a first world country.
Why would you want to give them all guns and then have to live around them?
Arming your nation's idiots with military gear only increases your own chances of being shot, even if you have a gun yourself.

Hell owning a gun massively increases your own chances of being shot.

Check out my wicked ghat nogun losers!

it's got a laser on it n shiet

also check these digits!

damn it the devils trips would have just made my day

>What is somalia
>What is any other shithole where 90% of the citizens walk around with rifles

>including nigger gun "owners" who shoot each other in the same statistic as law abiding white gun *owners*

DAY OF RAKE WHEN

You mean those conservatives who tend to be in or formally military?

They will fight if they feel it's necessary. They, in the main, don't right now - As such things are the last resort.

What is a tyranny for you? If tomorrow the gov will say that everyone should take a homeless to his house, and force it by the police, will it be enough for a civil war? If not, what will?

>this autistic
Fuck off commie.

Typical American retard.
Cannot understand how giving guns to everyone in major urbanized American cities would result in significantly more people getting shot every year.

What is iraq?
What is Afghanistan?

Shut your piehole.

Why do conservacunts have such a hard on for guns?

This thread is a distraction to take you away from the CNN leaks. Such a retardedly vague question with no further discussion from OP.... Hmm really makes you think.

> reeee commie go away from my safe space

The American populace as a giant militia would be able to defeat pretty much any army on their home turf.

Liberals are r-selected opportunists, meaning that rapists are largely left leaning.

Liberals need to forego the meritocracy of the dating market in order to access women directly. Through rape or the destruction of masculine institutions that would otherwise weed them out and deem them inferior.

Guns are a problem because a gun in the hand of a woman puts her at an advantage to the rapist, a gun represents gene death to the liberal. But to the conservative it represents the horns of the bull, the fangs of the lion, which is the ultimate defense of the family.

if you think the US government or the deep state, whatever you'd like to call it could cope with a civil war, you're wrong.

America is a geopolitical giant, the very moment another civil war kicked off would be the moment that Russia and others would get involved to assist the rebels, just to get the NATO machine off its back. as soon as any civil war type scenario took hold, America as we know it ceases to exist.

You mean less resource sucking social parasites?
How is this a bad thing?

I have both, a wood stocked m1a and a tacticool one. The wood definitely looks nicer but I can't mount the green strobe laser on it.

They each have a place.

They believe in the fear propaganda

>implying only black people would be shooting each other in America if everyone had guns

Will the US ever stop being the world's embarrassment at least for a day?

>pic related op

The entire world should like, gang up and wipe the UK off the map.

I mean, they've been begging for it for a long time now.

has there ever been a bigger bunch of collective perfidious whores?

is that a "car-bean?"

Because it doesn't give them a monopoly on violence.

You should be heavily medicated and/or institutionalized

Another one

SHUT
UP
YOU
DUMB
BRITISH
FAGGOT

why the fuck are british people so stupid? muslims rape your daughter freely because you cannot protect yourselves and police refuse to protect you. all because a pedo town councilman or whatever let another pedo have a gun despite being on the pedo list. then said pedo shoots up a 'boys school' (fucking british fucks) and suddenly all of you are happy to give up your right to self defense and let big brother and nanny state take care of you.

and the us have never added anything to the constitution?

just because some dudes 200 years ago decided something it doesnt mean it has to be that way these days.

Did someone say blow up the U.K.?

>russian communist

posts some cherrypicked fucking bullshit

Why can't Americunts understand what the word "amendment" means?

>One Brit being a faggot
>Suddenly unleash a tirade against the entire island
>In doing so address none of what he' saying.

Sounds like a plan.

Generally speaking when you pass policies you want to choose ones that don't result in thousands of random civilians being murdered every year.

It is bad when more people in your country are murdered (even if you don't think murdering random people is wrong) because it means that you stand a statistically higher chance of suffering the same fate.

It's related to this thing called math that the Republicans don't want you to learn about in Bible school.

Liberals: Pro-big internal government (federal government)

Conservatives: Pro-big outward government (military)

Liberals would be happy if we had no way to fight big brother because they want big brother to take care of them.

Republicans prefer to take care of themselves because they see this as freedom. That's why we want our weapons, just in case big government decides to overstep its boundaries.

Liberals believe there aren't any boundaries for our government to overstep.

I personally believe it is a failure to understand the very principles of why it is there in the first place.

We all have a right to life, liberty, and property. The only purpose of men instituting governments is the protection of their property (life and liberty are derivatives of property). When governments violate the social contract of the protection of life, liberty, and/or, property, the rights that men gave up to the government revert back to them, and it is their responsibility to establish a new government to better protect their property.

The right of citizens owning weapons is fundamental to the ends of these rights. Without them, the government can violate the social contract and the people are unable to form a new government, even worse still is that the government would be the only with weapons, making the conflict ridiculously one sided. Therefore, weapons amongst the citizenry is vital to the health of a good government, lest a tyrannical one take its place.

t. Locke

So by your logic and the actual statistics, guns SHOULDN'T have been banned?

No one rapes our daughters more than blacks rape yours. I am not against self-defence guns, I am against le tyranny fighter meme.

Not like its permanent.

>I am not against self-defence guns, I am against le tyranny fighter meme.

They're exactly the same thing.

I am not familiar with the history of Welsh gun laws, you'll have to draw your own conclusions because I've never given them any consideration.

read
he hit the nail on the head

Are you serious?

Hey American bros, us Irish are still very fond of guns especially US manufacturered guns so if you want to send us over some it'd be appreciated ya kno

You're going to take on the government? Really?
Yeah I'm sure your small caliber semi-auto guns are well matched against tanks, bombers and drones.
Dumbfuck.

>bongs don't understand Bill of Rights

It's pretty much covered by the image. In 1997 they banned handguns as a kneejerk reaction to some random shooting, I think Dunblane.

As a result, gun crime went up because after that point any guns were in the hands of criminals as they, shock horror, don't really give a fuck about laws and now had a load of victims they knew for a fact were disarmed.

im sorry but that whole situation was gayer than the reason aussies gave up their guns.

actually blacks rarely rape white women with active fathers. at least in my neck of the woods, i cant speak for yankees and commiefornians.

never argue about gun violence stats with a libtard. they don't matter. it's a constitutional right. make them explain why they have the right to violate your constitutional rights rather than defending gun statistics.

Hows that polite thing workong for the Negroes in Chicago?

Yes.

Self defence against the government requires something more credible than a placard.