Gun control shills need to fuck off

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=r3Z-yplqRSg
streamfare.com/foxnews.html
heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-c-paddock-does-not-have-a-facebook-profile-nevada-las-vegas-shooter-mesquite/
youtu.be/ky4VXsgCh20
docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

youtube.com/watch?v=r3Z-yplqRSg

Rand Paul wants open borders so brown people can get guns to shoot at white people.

No he doesn't shill.

who do you work for?

bump

The last time someone shot at public officials for being corrupt, you got Baton Rouge and Dallas.

Oh, but the shooters were black, so they were just nigging around, right Sup Forums?

>UH BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TANKS, DRONES AND MISSLES AND SHIT
Uh no, sweetie. Gorilla fighting is superior

>b-but based Bannon is the only one who prevents Trump from going full democrat!
why are Trump backstabbers always wrong?

Because Trump is on a mission from God and if they aren't with him they're with (((them)))

Shooting at cops who put life on the line vs corrupt bureaucrats is an entirely different ballgame. One actually serves the community. The other extorts and infringes upon liberty, privacy, and justice.

>mission from god

nice "meme" you faggot

Based Rand.

He is.

Nigs gonna nig

I'll just use this thread to ask my question:

People who are against gun control, where do you draw the line as far as what weapons should be banned and what shouldn't?

To use an extreme example, surely you wouldn't suggest that nuclear bombs should be legally available for purchase by regular citizens. So, again, where would you draw the line exactly?

I'm against gun control myself but my answer to my own question is that I don't know

>surely you wouldn't suggest that nuclear bombs should be legally available for purchase by regular citizens.
Where do you think we are?

ancaps get out ree

Rand Paul is a stupid manlet fag

The line corresponds to the individual/group/militia. To each their need in upholding liberty within our borders.

>surely you wouldn't suggest that nuclear bombs should be legally available for purchase by regular citizens.
Morally there is no justification for preventing someone from obtaining a nuke.

Byzantine soldiers had to do penance when they killed an enemy in battle. They recognized killing was wrong, there was no barbarism or lie around that fact such as the papists created with their crusader indulgence. They knew, absolutely, that killing was wrong, and so even when they did it in a way that everyone agreed was totally justifiable, they still had to do penance for it.

Similarly there is no moral authority by which you can say your next door neighbor can not have a nuke. You may be inclined to prevent him from having one. This is understandible, as it is understandible the byzantines did not just let themselves be conquered. But its still wrong. Do you have the character to accept this? To say to a person "you aught to be able to have this nuke, but im not letting you"? "You aught not die, but im killing you"?

This is the reality leftists can not tolerate, they want only things that should happen to be able to happen, and so when something must happen they have to make it right to do it.

You deserve a nuke anonymous, and if you try to obtain one, ill try to stop you, but if you succeed ill be glad for you.

...

Your mum does penance every time she sucks my cock.

Allowing the purchase of guns is undoubtedly extremely stupid. Why do you need a gun exactly? To save yourself from made up scenarios in your head?

Shut hte fuck up faggot. You people get run over once a month. You get acid thrown on ur face too.

>People who are against gun control, where do you draw the line as far as what weapons should be banned and what shouldn't?

The current gun laws are fine the way they are, and are adequate to give an American citizen enough protection to ward off a tyrannical government. The US government is one of the most corrupt in the world, after all. Surrendering guns to them is a disgustingly stupid & long term (potentially short term) suicidal idea. Not to mention how it would only appease the anti-American leftists and non-whites who hate white America's guts; a sentiment that's at an increasing & all-time high right now.

Why do wh*te people love dogs so much? You can see in her eyes she is grooming that dog to fuck it.

Gun control tards are government cock gobblers

Projecting your disgusting bestiality fantasies =/= reality.

Better question is why do niggers and mudslimes hate dogs so much? They just outright hate them. They're peaceful, loyal, full of character, excitement, joy, etc... It should be no surprise that whites embrace this when it comes to dogs, while the forever subhuman nigger and sandnigger irrationally hates them.

Asians aren't much better when it comes to their general view of dogs, but at least they can somewhat rationalize it with a tradition that involves viewing them as no different from various other animal meats.

>Why do you need a gun exactly?

Because I resent being forced to rely on someone else for my own protection. In a crisis, I want to be able to defend myself and my family, not hope the police arrive quickly enough to do it for me.

Not that our cucked government cares about that.

Let's be honest - the second amendment already failed. The government already tyrannized its people by demographically-replacing them, and gun owners did nothing. They just sat on their fat lazy asses. Americans in the 60's were literally chased out of their cities due to black criminals. So much for the second amendment being a bulwark against government tyranny...

lol well, the government is tyrannical and idiots are just shooting fellow citizens

If everyone had a nuke we would live in the most polite safe world imaginable. MAD doctrine for everyone.

I'm tired of hearing about this hypothetical tyrannical government. Nobody gives a shit.

But now the government has infrared cameras and high caliber machine guns and helicopters and scud missiles

doesn't it seem like the restrictions on the firearms we're allowed to have aren't really conducive to serving the purpose the second amendment was ever supposed to have?

Shall not be infringed. Saged.

But the idiots elect the government. It's the circle of life, leafbro.

shooter set up several cameras
streamfare.com/foxnews.html

...

You can legally own a tank, it's just too expensive and no-one would sell you a tank that's up the current day military standards.

The same would happen with nukes, where would you buy them from? The US isn't going to let private businesses build their own for retail sale. So yes, I think you should be able to own one if you can get your hands on one legally.

Well, if that is true then I'll just shut the fuck up with my conspiracy theories, but until it's release, Crab People.

a lot of news sites got their info from Sup Forums believe it or not

Well I do think fully automatic weapons should be left to figures of authority like the military, the police force and local militias, as it originally was.

And most people shouldn't be allowed to use fullic automatic weapons such as the M16 outside of very closed and controlled environments.

Originally, the Second Amendment comes from Anglo-Saxon culture. The primary goal is to allow for people to form militias and to defend their territories and their loved ones because, in Anglo-Saxon times, there was no standing army and people had to defend themselves or had to learn how to fight to be prepared for the times when the King would enroll them to defend the Kingdom.

But American culture seems to have turned this into a "you can't take that from me" kind of right, and people started turning weapons into mundane, everyday items, when in reality they should be treated and used with respect and caution.

Weapons should only be allowed for respected, responsible and sensible people who take part in the community and show their willingness to protect it.

Does it mean there wouldn't be any mass murders that way? No. But it would limit the phenomenon.

I think it would be utterly ridiculous and near impossible to ban all guns in the United States, the country has a history with weapons and any politician trying to pass that law would get shot or fired by lobbies. But at the very least, one thing has to happen: gun culture has to change.

...

As a libertarian I think we should go one step further and ban most handguns or have cities pass laws banning gun stores within city limits.
Most violent crimes happen with handguns. Having rifles and shotguns be the only commercially available firearm means there's a lot larger pay wall to obtaining a gun.
It's hard to keep guns out of a criminal's hands and one of the only way to do it is make sure they can't afford one. Even criminals need money to buy things and it's not like they can steal them from stores if stores don't even carry them.

...

...

Lol

news sites actually report this stuff

...

Proof?

Most cops are worthless pigs that need to be slaughtered

Stop bootlicking

heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-c-paddock-does-not-have-a-facebook-profile-nevada-las-vegas-shooter-mesquite/

SHALL NOT

youtu.be/ky4VXsgCh20

spread this around to assist progunz
docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#

...

>as a libertarian

gtfo

...

US citizens can already legally own nuclear weapons. They're just too costly to buy, build, operate, and maintain. Not to mention that even if you could afford them, no one would sell them to you, as the monopoly on their manufacture is held by the government. That said, weapons-grade uranium and plutonium are considered controlled substances and are not as legal for civilians to own as the weapons themselves, and the government would never allow a private entity to use them for the purposes of making nukes.

>"...along with his accolytes, Sum Ting Wong and Wee Tu Low..."

fuck off, Hans
Refugees could kick in your door and rape your women right now and you couldn't stop him
oh wait...

...

>we're so edgy and racist just like the nat socs!!!
>look at all these BASED philosophers saying racey shit cmon guys we aren't so bad
>libertarianism is about individual property except if you're not white then I have superior authority
>oops actually I believe everything a fascist believes but with an economic twist to make me sound more rational
kys you cringy autist go do homework

Kek I'm not actually German.

Do you have any valid argument against what I just said or are you just going to deflect everything by accusing a foreigner for stuff that happens in a specific country?

>Do you have any valid argument
SHALL

>Morally there is no justification for preventing someone from obtaining a nuke.
It is immoral to risk human life, especially where human life need not be risked. We are not worried about France having nukes, because France is not going to use them. We are worried about Iran having nukes, because they might actually use them.

All gun owners are fat virgin rednecks who couldn't become cops because they have asthma and fantasize about break-ins and racewars so they can finally kill niggers. We really should just go door to door confiscating all the guns in this country.

"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."

"Well regulated Militia"

"regulated"


As in every system, you need to have rules. Clearly, the right to bear arms is intended for the holding of militias, and so legislation should be geared towards that.

You also didn't take into account the fact that I ended my post by saying the one thing that should really change most of all is the gun culture. Even if you are right and "shall not be infringed" is to be understood as "shall not be limited in any way, shape or form", you need to act on the culture anyway.

...

Fuck you cuck boi

"Well regulated" meant orderly, maintained, but government oversight. Look it up, every single constitutional scholar and historian of language agrees with this definition, you slimey lying little fuck.

*not government oversight

>But American culture seems to have turned this into a "you can't take that from me" kind of right
Because it is, you fucking brainlet

>Look it up, every single constitutional scholar and historian of language agrees with this definition, you slimey lying little fuck.


Then I guess it's just the culture.

I'm not lying. I'm freely admitting that I'm not all-knowing and I accepted your point.

in other words the dallas shooter protesting police brutality was a good guy?

(stop with the um no sweetie, it is cringe)

You should volunteer to grab the first thousand guns, retard.

>As a libertarian I think we should go one step further and ban

so we can shoot at steve scalise playing baseball because of the 2nd amendment

also "ballgame" hehe

I meant in the sense that they're more concerned with the fact that they have that right than with what the right to gun ownership implies. What I meant is "they turned this right into a "I'm just gonna do it for nor other reason than because I can". And it's retarded.

People will simply go ahead and open carry in the streets for no goddamn reason at all because they can, when actually, they should have more respect for guns and use them with extreme caution.

This.

...

>tyrannical government

I'm all for people owning guns, but people using this excuse are fucking retarded. The days or armed militia overthrowing the government are over. I don't care how much Call of Duty you've played in preparation, deep down you know this is true. That or you're just stupid.

How are the Paul's so based but get so little recognition?

The American populace possessing firearms prevented any tyranny for the entirety of our post-independence history. Do you know what a deterrent is? Who do you think we didn't have a Commie/Fascist/any type of tyranny, ever? Because we had the second amendment.

...

This plus military has always had superior fire power than the public. Plus some CO's will surely go rogue if that situation were to arise.

why is japan always so fucking loaded

Nuclear weapons are ordinance, not arms

Libertarianism is not a powerful ideology. When men band together fight for liberty, they fight for the freedom of their nation, of their people - the mediocre liberties defended by libertarians cannot compel men to great things.

even though I'm a libertarian on most issues I may not agree with most libertarians on this issue
its almost as if some people are self aware enough to pick and choose their issues instead of conforming to identity politics

...

Not really.

You don't even need fully automatic weapon.

First thing to consider is that a portion of the army might fuck off the moment there's a civilian revolution, either because they refuse to fight their own people or because they actually decide to join in on it.

Second is it's more difficult to hunt down civilians than fight traditional military positions.

Third, it's easier to attack than to defend any given position, because in the latter case, your options are limited. You can't carpet bomb your own base to get rid of the enemy, for example, unless you know you'd be dealing the death blow, and even then it's a tough call to make.

>"I'm just gonna do it for nor other reason than because I can".
So? They have the right to do it, and when they're doing that they're flipping off gun control advocates, not for no reason.

I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding here because you are European and base your perceptions on European values, but American values aren't the same. We have guaranteed rights. The "culture" is American enlightenment values, we don't allow anyone to take it away from us.

You realize the military is made up of VOLUNTEERS? They would not be unified in killing Americans. We need to keep our guns.

>As a libertarian I think we should go one step further and ban most handguns or have cities pass laws banning gun stores within city limits.
You're not a libertarian

Found the brainlet. All it would take is one psycho with access to a nuke and all of a sudden your entire town is destroyed.

Why choose an arbitrary label if you go against its core tenet? Why not call yourself an elephant as well?

How old are you? My grandparents lived through tyranny you stupid fuck and that wasn't that long ago. You'll realize this wehn you're an adult.