So where do you draw the line between

so where do you draw the line between
>I need guns to protect myself, my home and my loved ones

and

>Im amassing guns for a fake war, that IF ever happen, I ll get drone struck without a chance of retaliation

*Glows in darkness*

Only rural and suburban retards own guns. City people call the police.

...

City people are brainwashed

You don’t.

Because they are too dumb to hold a gun.

City people are literally useless little faggots.

>t. complains about muh police brutality, but puts his lives in their hands

>gun nuts believe crazy conspiracies like the concept of a one world government!
>America needs to join the rest of the world and have similar gun laws!

Tired of this shitty old argument.
>haha well the government will probably win anyway might as well just not be able to protect myself and make it as easy as possible for them haha a population that fights back against a tyrannical government is just as easy to control haha I've never heard of war of attrition haha gun nuts btfo vote democrat

>govt has a drone and missile for every american ready to defend our homeland, freedom, and the honor of our founding fathers.

GET. OFF. MY. BOARD. COMMIE. SCUM.

>America needs to be like the rest of the world
Sounds like the guy in the top picture has the right idea.

And where do you draw the line?

A car can be used for mass murder, does that mean you will revoke my right to own a car?

What about a pressure cooker?

Are you going to confiscate all sharp and flammable objects?

Ban fists?

>what the rest of us fear
Now, see, if everyone conceal carried you'd have nothing to fear.
Checkmate statist cucks.

>mfw comic author draws the sights ON the suppressor

Wish I had the japanon post from a while ago saved.
Im suprised you didnt start with "ah need muh ay err fufteen to protect-"
Thought that was a generally agreed form on these kinda threads in your circles

lets play the scenarios.

If you are talking 1 on 1 basis. a trained marine/ snipe likely can outclass a civilian

If you are talking about bundled up civilians, Drone

aside from very specific scenarios, non of those are able to come close to pull a mass murder on that same level.

a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun attacking everything that moves in a mall, who kills more?

hey if guns = less violence (without taking other factors into context) im all in for mandatory guns and classes in high school

ill help you

...

They're not gonna drone strike 30 million people.

that shockwave bomb they used in hte middle east?

Did what exactly? There's still plenty of sandniggers screaming Allahu Ackbar.

nIce try CIATF nigger. your not getting my doggo

The point is to force them into a position where they would need to bomb me into submission to begin with.

Military action against citizens is wildly demoralizing and fractures the internal structure. Drone strikes have enough consequences that I'm willing to call that bluff.

In France, a Muslim drove into a crowd of people with a truck resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.
By your logic, a truck is a more dangerous killing weapon than the guns used in Las Vegas.

I
Am
Silly
!

just ban murder lol 2ez

>drone striking its own citizens
>drones are autonomous
>OP isn't a dirty cum gargling faggot
Its ironic that the picture I used to put this slide thread to bed, is also a Horsey fingerpainting for libbies

Yes goy, every us marine is prepared to murder fellow Americans in the name of the ZOG, don't you forget it. :^)

you forgot a key point, and that turns on how oppressive the government is to begin with, and how FAST that shit can change.

See also, police beating the crap out of fucking firefighters in Spain.

>you can’t defend yourself goy
>just give in
fuck yourself

Yeah these self righteous idiots are a plague.

And then police shoot all the niggers. Maybe those urbans aren't so bad

But those guns are usually illegal. Also don't you need a psychology test to see if you're even allowed to own guns?

In confused. What's the difference between 1&2?

Then explain Chicago

>City people call the police.
You mean those Leftwing, Antifa-glorifying "fuck tha police" City People?

I need my guns because of blacks.

...

99% of gun owners, aside from street thugs, even the ones who look operator as fuck have guns because there's a nigger problem. Few have guns to defend themselves against the ebul corrupt popo smashing down their front door.

this.

Isn’t what your little organization unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment, since your using federal money, shareblue?

...

Only suburban idiots voted Drumfppfpf. Smart city people went for hillary

Liberals
>Trump is literally Hitler and going to install a fascist regime in the US

Also Liberals
>Anyone who believes they need to defend themselves from the government is insane

Saved.

>i genuienly believe i can win against government tanks, drones and artillery using an AR-15 and a glock.

the drone operator has a wife and kids. when the SHTF he won't be enthusiastic about his job. he will be at home with his GUNS.

>nu-flag
>kekistani flag
you're the filth that comes from only the scummiest ghettos. No group would take you in so you hide behind that awful flag. The only productive thing you can do to society is to blow your brains out.

That's not what I said. I said that organizing, fighting back and spreading government forces thin is miles better than rolling over and pulling down your pants for Uncle Sam.

>swedish flag
how's your cuck shed coming along?

You're German aren't you?

Skin color has a strong correlation to gun crime. If people of color stop using guns in the United States then gun crime would decrease by 90%

nope, you're wrong cuck boy.

you can try but again, unless its a perfect shit fest scenario where at least half the army quits. this is not 1600 anymore where numbers mattered, today military power makes that few with better tech easily outclass the rest.

They are the plague we are the cure.

>City people call the police.

Because city police actually have reasonable response times and the nearest police department or patrol car generally isn't ten miles out.

...

Americans consider guns their fetish, I visited my father's friend who is a wealthy businessman from Dallas (stayed in his house for a week).

He was chill to discuss any topic imaginable ASIDE guns, if I even tried to imply his 40+ gun collection is a bit overkill he would start to go ballistic. I was guest so I just went "huh, cool" and "holy shit, those look expensive".

Guns are basically USA, it is in their DNA.

On the number of guns people have. For home defence, you really don't need any more than maybe three firearms (rifle, shotgun, and handgun). For walking around, you only need to conceal carry a handgun.

But you've got some nutters out there with fucking armouries filled with so-called "assault weapons". There's no reason for them to have so many, and they'd just be a supply station for the enemy if they ever were attacked by the government.

>dude why don't you just want to be a helpless slave like the rest of us
>you'll never win so don't even try

Why the fuck would I ever want to support a government that's actively using its military on US soil against its citizenry, if it gets to that point?

>he thinks american government will bomb its own land
>he thinks even a tenth of a tenth of the military will follow those orders
Ell emm ayy ohh

>so where do you draw the line

At "Shall not be infringed"

Fuck off to Mexico, Brazil, or Jamaica if you think draconian gun control laws make you safe.

Most of those firearms are owned by the same people.

>brit talking about firearms
>you dont NEED that many firearms
Good thing its not called the bill of needs. Plenty of those people like collecting firearms just to collect them. Exponentially more people get killed by cars a year yet its perfectly fine to collect cars and trucks.

Is it or is it not going down?

Guns aren't efficient for mass killing in a short period of time for a lone shooter, and the event in Vegas proved it. Explosives and vehicles are much more fit to that purpose, as proven many times by other events that killed much more.

On the number of cars people have. For personal transport, you really don't need any more than maybe three vehicles (car, bike, truck). For getting around, you only need to ride a bike or drive a small city car.

But you've got some nutters out there with fucking garages filled with so-called "hyper cars". There's no reason for them to have so many, and they'd just be a supply station for the enemy if they ever were attacked by the government.

but I thought that police were evil racist sexist fascists

>today military power makes that few with better tech easily outclass the rest.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan.....

SHALL

So """""the rest of US"""""" fears more dying by one guy going crazy with guns ... (mathematically you have a higher probability of being hit by a lighting, drowning in a pool, being mauled by a bear, driving off a segway off a cliff) .. than a government enslaving you, which have happened countless times throughout history?

>Hello 911 what's your emergency
>Yes user there's a man in my--
>gets shot
>well fug

Low IQ reasoning.

It's all the more reason civilians have better infantry power to face the military.

>inb4 but drone strikes

Drone strikes can't breach and clear homes, can't control the people. Drones can only bomb buildings and be used as a form of rudimentary sky surveillance.
Government can't bomb every home, with resistance in it, not just because there aren't enough bombs, but because it's illogical, to massively destroy a country so then you're a dictator of a huge demolished buildings.

Numbers do matter, kid.


American civilians of all people, living in the world's biggest economic superpower, have the RESPONSIBILITY to arm yourselves, and not be pussies.

I submit for your reading pleasure:

you need the same gun for both things, so there is no line

all you need to do to prove how ineffective drone strikes are is point at the iraq and afghanistan wars and remind people that those conflicts have been going on four times longer than WW2 and we have achieved exactly nothing, with the vast bulk of both of those countries in the hands of the opposition

people who think educated, motivated, and armed Americans will magically do worse than goatfuckers in a cave are not using their brains

Right between
>muh sensible *autistic screeching*
and "shall bot be infringed."

kek'd

>Ban fists?
Don't give them ideas

Britain just banned acid and sharp plastic knives are practically illegal there
Are brass knuckles banned? They are here (for carrying, not purchasing)

>Shall not be infringed
Seems pretty simple and easy to follow. If one disagrees with this, then perhaps this isn't the country for them.

>Tanks, drones, and artillery are living things that function by themselves

You need police to enforce a police state

You dont need a gun to protect your freedom! You are not free if you are not allowed a gun.

↓

>pic related

>Good thing its not called the bill of needs.

Good thing they're also called amendments.

Because cars are designed as weapons. You'd be closer to an accurate argument with knife/sword collections.

Cars are literally weapons. If they were not made for the purpose of kill then they would be not that effective at killing people

>swimming pools are weapons
>stairs are weapons
>tall buildings are weapons

It's a pretty close analogue. Why do I need a car with 400whp and a ~180mph top speed?

I don't need one, I want one.

I AM SILLY!!!!!!!!!

>He doesn't drown his opponents
>He doesn't make his enemies fall through stairs
>He doesn't throw gays from buildings

Do you even ISIS, bro?

We need to give Horsey the Ben Garrison treatment.

We shouldn't be having cars that go over 70mph in the first place. That's just the result of car manufacturers selling to nations that don't have speed limits.

But you're right, it's a desire, not a necessity.

>Do you even ISIS, bro?

You mean wait for an invent to occur then try to claim the credit?

For a supposedly deadly organisation, they sure are an inefficient bunch of pussies. I can think of dozens of scenarios on the spot to kill more people than terrorists have ever done.

Yet you don’t see him shooting people with them. He probably collects them and target shoots with them for fun. It’s also a symbol of power.

*event, not invent

how many legal gun owners who are hobbyists/collectors in the U.S.?
how many of those hobbyists/collectors causing problems?
how many mass murdering shooters were democrats? all of them

Well, that was an example easy and somewhat relatable to you, If you want to see unconventional use of cars you should check the bombings that FARC made years ago. Also the most violent serial killer (Garavito) killed almost all his victims with knifes.