Why are Amerifats on this board pretending like they condemn the congressional baseball shooting...

Why are Amerifats on this board pretending like they condemn the congressional baseball shooting? I thought you were all about the 2nd amendment? How is shooting one of your representatives that you feel is infringing on your rights not fighting against the tyranny of the government?
It doesn't really matter if you agree with the reasoning or opinion, it's about you as an individual and the constitutional right to form a militia and fight against organized government if you're willing to deal with the consequences.

So, what's the big deal here? Seems to me like a rightful application of the right to bear arms.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AOm9LuqePD4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

he hardly bore any arms, at that. He was shooting for like 10 minutes, fired off some 50 rounds according to reports, and what...INJURED 5 people? jesus. The left really doesn't know how to use firearms. The guy was a huge loser

Because it brings the 'fascist police state' the antifa larping faggots fight so hard closer to reality.

Think about it, what do you think will the government do if people start shooting officials?
I doubt there are many people, even on Sup Forums who want a police state controlled by Congress.

Then what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Shooting niggers that stumble into your backyard? That's not what it states. Besides, politicians and representatives have historically been shot at and killed by their constituents up until very recently and the police state didn't really materialize. If the 2nd amendment isn't there to keep the government in check for fear of the militarized police then what's the fucking point?

Perhaps Amerifats don't deserve guns after all.

I couldn't give a fuck less. Those neocon scumbags can eat shit.

That is except for my nigga Rand Paul. Love that guy.

You would have a point if Trumps admin was actually infringing on somebodys rights.

Anything 'unconstitutional' like 'Muslim Ban' is cockblocked by judges and having to pay for your abortions is not infringing on your rights.

Like I said, it's all a matter of perspective. There would be no need to bear arms if you could make a reasonable case legally to begin with.

As long as you're willing to live with the consequences, then you should have the right to fight for what you believe in. Whether it's actually happening or you're a basket case is irrelevant.

I made this thread last night and what cane if it was that unless a group organizes and challenges the government properly with the intent of amicable ending (Bundy family) but is willing to fight if need be, it's just leftist terrorism. He had the right to own a weapon but he improperly used it, it's meant to be a threat more than a tool.

the right to bear arms means you have the right to shoot anyone you please.

Name one ACTUAL right Trump admin has taken away from the people. Free abortion is not a right,you still have acces to aboriton, you just have to bear the consequences now, so stick your 'matter of perspective' up your ass.

But see, that's bullshit as well. As soon as Bundy reached the court, the prosecution SUCCESSFULLY made the case that the 2nd amendment didn't apply, even though the occupation fulfilled all of the requirements specified in the constitution - non-violent, organized militia, peaceful purpose. So, if it doesn't apply there, where does it apply?

And if the 2nd amendment is being infringed to the point where a case is successfully made to outright ignore it whenever it's convenient to the state, then what alternative is there other than indiscriminately apply it, like this loser did, because there is no recourse in the end anyway?

Irrelevant. I don't care if you agree with the cause or not. It's about the right to act on it, which is not reliant on the motive being sound or not. Who gives a fuck what you think about abortion? I give a fuck about your right to fight for what you believe in, though.

So what, if a nigger believes he should be able to steal with impunity he has a sound motive to shoot the government which wants to put him in prison?

I think so, yes.

So relativism is the name of the game.
We don't need proof, we just need to feel certain way, right?

We condemn murdering another human being and countrymen. The method of how or why is irrelevant. But you can't see that because your a twisted leftist who's making b8 threads. Pol is getting raided again.

No, you just need to be ready to face the consequences. Feelings have little to do with it. If you're going to do it with no proof then that's your problem - not that proof matters to begin with when it comes to the application of the 2nd ammendment, as Bundy demonstrated.

I suppose you'd have to take over completely to have the courts on your side. But this guy wasn't fighting over lost or stolen rights, he was just disenfranchised over the loss of his candidate and his life long belief that rich people owe him something. None of those things equal a need to brandish a weapon. Just a butt hurt faggot who wanted to shoot republicans, probably not even specific ones.

Then you're against the second amendment, is what you're saying? And are you against it just for the application concerning militias and keeping the government in check, or are you hypocritically okay with self-defense?

>muh raid

neck yourself, nigger kike cunt faggot spic cumguzzler

It's not carte blanche to do what you wish. If it was truly tyranny he was fighting against, which is the intended use of the 2A, wouldn't have been out there alone.

>How is shooting one of your representatives that you feel is infringing on your rights not fighting against the tyranny of the government?

>that you feel is infringing on your rights
>that you feel
>feel

>neck yourself, nigger kike cunt faggot spic cumguzzler

That's funny coming from a portugese.

pic is OP

Then should the right to bear arms be restricted only to when you're in a group? And somehow, I don't think if 5 antifa faggots were shooting instead of a single loser would have made a difference to Sup Forums, but I could be wrong.

ALSO it was at a practice for a baseball game that's attended and competed in by both republicans and democrats, as a symbolic unity gesture

>It's about the right to act on it, which is not reliant on the motive being sound or not.

so that's not "exercising his second amendment right" that's just attempted murder.

This.

There will be more where he came from. Especially if the "fuck the poor" and "fuck the sick" bills Paul Ryan's been pushing for years pass.

Liking the 2nd amendment doesn't give one the right to attempt to assassinate someone, you dumbass.

No. That would somehow mean that there would need to be a form of application or permit to need a weapon.

Why not just have a civil war every 4 years instead of elections?
If the left wants to shoot up the government go right fucking ahead, but don't whine about 'fascist' government that monitors its people and establishes police when its you who created it.

>t. literal nigger mongrel hiding behind a non-flag

I'll 23andme against you any time, nigger.

>wahh, my political candidate lost!
>fucking drumpf! i'm gonna take it out on my local republican politician!
>*bang bang* that's what you get for MY candidate not being elected!
>wait, why are the police targeting me? it was my second amendment right to shoot those politicians! m-muh rights!
Fuck off with that nonsense. If some idiot in the late 1700s used "muh rights" as an excuse to shoot any politician they didn't like, they would've been dealt with just the same.
Anyone who isn't disconnected from reality knows that Donald Trump and the Republicans are not tyrannical.

Be that as it may, no one is forced into government.

He used a gun at close range. Fucking moron.

>Then should the right to bear arms be restricted only to when you're in a group?

no but when it's ONE GUY acting on some twisted, disenfranchised, idiotic worldview, there's not a lot of "i'm doing this because the government is corrupt!!1!!" backing up that you can do

I'm actually part Mahican Indian, but thats way cooler than being portugese nigger :)

Keep LARPing. You're not white, and you will never be. You're so cool, though :^)

are you calling ME a fucking moron? on what grounds? if you call what this guy did "bearing arms" then you might as well call me the iron chef when i butterfly a chicken breast

christ. any sort of "statement" this loser was trying to make by shooting up a practice for a friendly ball game is moot

Shut the fuck up degenerate shit skin commie pinko scum

> I thought you were all about the 2nd amendment?
That first part, the one about the militia, is just as important as the second part.
>How is shooting one of your representatives that you feel is infringing on your rights not fighting against the tyranny of the government?
Because there was no dialog. There was not a unified force (militia) demanding change. This wasn't defensive. There was an assassination attempt, which is not what the 2nd amendment is about.
>it's about you as an individual and the constitutional right to form a militia and fight against organized government if you're willing to deal with the consequences.
Which this wasn't. It was some lunatic being a dick, acting unanimously.
>So, what's the big deal here? Seems to me like a rightful application of the right to bear arms.
Your flag makes sense.

It's simple, he wasn't /ourguy/

Nothing else comes into play. Either someone is on our side and we support everything he does, or is not on our side and we condemn everything he does. It's tribalism, the law or specific actions don't matter. We've been doing this for a couple centuries here in the US, I figured people would have caught on by now.

So, as I said before, if it was 5 or 10 Antifa niggers doing it, it would be a-okay then?

Militia? Check.
Previous dialog? Check, god knows they won't stop bitching for demands for a single second.
Defensive? Check, the group narrative is about black genocide and elites killing the poor, so in their perspective it would be defensive.

That's what I believe too, but might as well give it a shot here and see what comes out. The militia argument makes some sense but then again it re-contextualizes situations of self-defense where individuals act alone.

you keep using words like "narrative" and "perspective" as if they provide any sort of reasonable justification

the 2nd amendment allows people to arm and maintain a militia, to keep and bear arms

once you cross the line into shooting people and assassination/murder attempts, that's all on you. The 2nd amendment doesnt have a little asterisk that says "also you can shoot people you disagree with"

god, you're dumb.

>Militia? Check.
Militia implies organization. Antifa is a mob, not an organized force.Check removed.
>Previous dialog? Check
Has Antifa petitioned the government through their representatives? I don't believe so. Check removed.
>Defensive? Check
Antifa has been, in no way, defensive. They have attacked Trump campaign events, attacked right wing voters, attacked people during protest, damaged property during protest, and if the shooter is considered Antifa, they've attempted assassinations.
It actually justifies shooting Antifa on the spot. All of that is neither here nor there, because it doesn't mean anything. Of the 300 million people in the US, a few thousand have acted like idiots.
What happens when it goes full blown and you get the 5+ million militia members activated?
People forget that these groups exist and have been growing for a long time. Oklahoma Militia was last reported having over 100k members.
youtube.com/watch?v=AOm9LuqePD4

You seem like some idiot who thinks he has a well-thought out belief in how the world should work. Murdering people for free shit is not justified under any circumstance.

You fail to understand that the 2A was the intended by our forefathers to keep people well-equipped to fight a tyrannical government. That does NOT mean that everyone has to accept shooting a congressmen is okay if they don't agree with why they did it. We're still allowed to have an opinion for or against it.

You're dealing in absolutes and you're an absolute moron.

This basically.

Politics is essentially reducible to the power of one group against that of another. Legal rights, parliamentary procedures, moral norms, etc. are merely one modality of that struggle. If they can be distorted or let go of when the balance of forces call for it, they should be.

At least the open fascists around here don't try to mobilize around 'hypocrisy' or thinly veiled faux legalism.

End of the day, it's my friend against you the enemy. Politics collapses back to its basic form in the street.

>How is shooting one of your representatives that you feel is infringing on your rights not fighting against the tyranny of the government?
>feel

Feelings aren't facts though

Politics is inter-subjective civil war. Feels against feels.

The guy was as shit as the reps he tried to kill

Just like your mom is as shit as the faggot son she gave birth to

>I didn't get my way -- TYRANNY!

user, I understand why a rival political party member might choose to be a violent creep.

I laugh at the bots that come here and say "Maybe Republicans should ban guns." Ban guns? How about: Republicans should start fighting back. They should fight back so hard that the Jewish Central Bankers have no safe places to run to in the entire world.

And the squirming chicken shit's on the left think right wingers want to ban guns.

Do you need a hug, OP?

>fighting against the tyranny of the government
does not mean sniping unarmed people. But that's something a third world chickenshit pussy such as yourself would never understand.

Right wingers ban guns every time they're threatened. Good ol Governor Ronnie Reagan did more damage to the 2A than any liberal faggot ever did.

>Reagan wasn't a anti-communist centrist

What are you asking lol