Tell me Sup Forums what are your best arguments in favor of keeping the right to bear arms?

Tell me Sup Forums what are your best arguments in favor of keeping the right to bear arms?

It's a right. I don't need an argument. The debate has been settled.

What is the point of human rights if you can just take them away

They don't know.

to defend myself against feral browns who commit 99% of all violent crime

that's not enough to convince someone who isn't american, especially eurocucks, I need real arguments

SHALL

>the right to bear arms

It's the one that ensures retention of all the others.

Do really think that the government can take millions of guns without it starting a civil war.

Stop replying to these retard threads you worthless faggots

If they're too retarded to get it through their head that we have certain inalienable rights then they aren't even worth talking to.

...

None of your business

2nd Ammendment
/thread

>The right to bear Arms
Its a right

>/threading your own post
please kill yourself you stupid permavirgin.

I hunt, both for pleasure and population control. Puts food in the freezer, and keeps animals from crashing into cars near highways. It is necessary to keep certain animal populations in check.

NOT

...

NOT

that's not a counter argument to the death and injuries of undreds, give some stats like how the number of crimes in Australia was already decreasing so gun laws didn't start, just help a tiny bit, that's an argument

No need to argue. Good luck confiscating.

The UK. Don't be like us. No better argument exists. Keep freedom sticks.

/thread

and because of a basic concept of checks and balances, what are the people of a country at the mercy of a few thousand state employees should they decide to take full advantage of their power?

BE

not for hunting even in France they have this right, I mean guns used in protection and other uses, the ones everybody screams at like you can change a constituion in a day

defend against a communist revolution
defend against niggers
to hunt

A real threat to any tyrannical government.
As opposed to being armed with plastic spoons and trying to win a civil war.

Weaker/older individuals should also have the right to self-defence, owning a handgun will give them that right.

Wait so basic human rights aren’t enough for you? No wonder it was so easy to take them away from you guys.

come and take it, faggot.

UNCOMPED

Why give a fuck about Eurocuck opinions?
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Because, Fuck You.

That's why.

Dam I forgot:
A fully armed public also makes enemy unwanted occupation near impossible.

Why the fuck would you need to convince a yurocuck

I have the right to be secure in my person and my possessions. The right of self defense cannot be infringed. The US Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes them. Rights are God given.

...

Because why would anyone in their right mind trust the government to be fair to you? Why should you have to trust your safety and the protection of your freedoms to anyone else? We know that governments become corrupt, we know that they will trample on your rights we have seen it done constantly by surrendering your firearms you give up one of the ways you can fight back.

/thread

...

You don't have death and "injuries of hundreds" in Switzerland, where gun ownership is quite widespread and is in fact one of the safest countries in the world.

Having access to lethal force as in weapons is necessary because the state won't always be there to secure your wellbeing against simple felons, and there's no guarantee state power itself won't become tyrannical.

In excess of one million times every year a legally owned gun is used in the US to prevent a violent crime.

>right

It should be mandatory to own a gun, ammo and parts to service it and be proficient in it's use and maintenance.

no but in a debate just saying lol it's in the Constitution isn't an argument u nigger, they change Constitution like I change my fucking shirt, I ain't trying to shit post, I just wanted actual arguments, but since /k/ doesn't allow political stuff I can't post there

i dont need any

i just do it

that fact that i have decided it is not only acceptable is enough for me, and that fact that i am convinced, at least, is enough for me

it is not my job to convince anyone of anything

if you want to be for or against it that is your business, and changes nothing

Got a source to those stats m8?

Self defense.

Arguement not needed
Thats the part you cant grasp

yes
reality.

>Arguments not needed

Not everyone thinks like you do and the Status Quo won't last forever.

>not for hunting even in France they have this right,
Why do you cuck out. Stick to the topic. You were talking about why ME as an AMERICAN need a gun. I provide you with a real reason, and your response is to talk about a country that is smaller than the State I live in.

Fuck out of here with that shit.

France has nothing to do with America. I don't give a fuck about their gun laws, and they really don't need to give a fuck about mine.

It is really easy to know when you "win" a discussion with a liberal. They start changing the subject and moving goal posts.

You fucked up, and showed your hand. You have nothing, 4's high. You need to learn to argue.

and?

immaterial.

fpbp

Also, I don't want a government bureaucrat to decide for me that I ought to be defenseless against bad people.
Being defenseless means you're a steak on the table.
The only people who would want me to be defenseless are criminals, tyrants, Commies, lawyers and other types of cunts.
If they try to take away my means of self defense then I know damned well that they are, in fact, the cunts I fear them to be.
In which case I buy more ammunition and train more people to use a firearm.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Because we can, and we will.

It matters little if the government says yea or nay, they have no dispensation to take what God Almighty gives every man. This nation is still blessed apart and more than it deserves, yet blessed it is none the less.....

Another: there are NO new arguments against gun control.

Another: The United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep & bear arms. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Another: The genie is out of the bottle in the USA....too many guns are out now. Should law abiding fools obey stupid and unjust laws made in spite then only criminals defy law and retain their weaponry....law abiding people get victimized. Do you really thing the cartel militias will not invade? The SCOTUS has affirmed the state has not compelling duty to protect its citizenry.

Another: Weaponry is power. Power to defy criminal predator and tyrant alike. We will NEVER cede that power.

well hello there /r/ the donald

>that's not a counter argument to the death and injuries of hundreds,

At what point do we ban something that has been involved in deaths? Should we ban cars? They kill a lot of people? What about cows, they trample people to death all the time. The only reason that people pick on guns for this is because they're scared of guns and they're scared of guns because they're idiots who don't know anything about them.

Gun grab = civil war

>>Whats the arguement for keeping the 1st ammendment
Do you see how stupid that sounds?

>guns banned
Fake news, my friend. We just can't afford them.

If you don't like guns you're a faggot

this is all that those asking for arguments need

and they cant see that that is all they need

and will probably never see it, never see that the idea of a productive purpose behind the request for arguments, and the request itself, is moot and meaningless

That's where you're confusing American/Yurofag Constitutions. This isn't a banana republic (anymore), the document is sealed with BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS GIVEN BY GOD ALMIGHTY. No amount of virtue signalling is going to change that.

Studying 20th century history.

The best argument for the right to bare arms depends on who your argue to.

Talk to rural people or to someone from a majority rural nation and the argument that the cops will take too long is good enough as they will see it as valid enough.

If you talk to someone who lives in a nation with dubious stability or surrounded by enemies pointing out how much this will help with national defense will do the trick.

City faggots will first require them to not trust their local guberments actions or their competency, but even then it's an uphill battle trying to explain to them tyranny, situations when the cops won't get there, occupation and so on.

>that's not a counter argument to the death and injuries of undreds

if you even think you need such a thing, you are not worth engaging in any discourse with

Best argument: come and take them, try it, you simpering Communist fuck. There are nearly half a billion arms in civilian hands and the manufacturing base to keep the goods rolling. Come and try.

>INFRINGED

>Do you see how stupid that sounds?
When you have communists there trying to limit it, and getting somewhere it doesn't sound stupid.

If you can't come up with arguments then it makes you look like you have nothing to stand on.

>The best argument for the right to bare arms depends on who your argue to.

which proves its subjectivity and thus is vanity

you never convince anyone otherwise

you only reinforce whatever they came to the table with, whether they agree or disagree with you

this guy gets it. I don't give a frozen fuck if you don't have any deer in Cologne, we're covered up down here and I'll kill every one I see.

Here you go op here are your arguments. Also it is a God-given right, and protected by the highest legislated authority in the US, the constitution:

I think you're not being nice with us and wasting our time.

exactly, that's the case of England, but that's a concept they cannot grasp, so I thought we could have an actual discussion, guess I forgot where I was
then why the fuck does America push the idea in their medias to say it's bad? cuase if you follow through with their logic, that's what would need to happen

When the nations were greater and more harmonious than nowadays, everyone were bearing arms. From flint spears, to Swords, to muskets, to ARs. The greatest nations are those that can band together quickly, and be able to defend each other with a collective dedication to the same goals.

No, it is.

SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED is a constitutional right, it cannot be toppled down and it requires no further reasoning or justification. Consequences of said constitutional right matter not, nor its validity as a viable thing for a country, it is a constitution granted right, as such and as a euro, you can fuck right off if you dont agree.

>If you can't come up with arguments then it makes you look like you have nothing to stand on.

this is what you are seeing for what it is:
irrelevant

how you "look" is meaningful to weak minds and appeasers

...

It’s in the constitution and it’s our right to. Just because someone has feelings about it doesn’t mean the right can be infringed upon.

what many people dont realise that that protection of the right of the citizenry to arms cannot be expanded, it is absolute, and thus renders EVERY law regarding firearms as applies to law abiding citizens NECESSARILY and assuredly anti-constitutional, for they only ever do indeed infringe in some way

Warren v. District of Columbia
The police are not obligated to help you in any situation
Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that it is your own and only your own responsibility to protect yourself.
If you are the only one responsible for protecting yourself and you value your well-being then you would of course want the best and quickest way to do that - guns.

>The UK. Don't be like us. No better argument exists. Keep freedom sticks.

If the UK had guns, who would use them?

It's not usually the type you'd want to have the upper hand.

Molon Labe.

>which proves its subjectivity
Everything is subjective to the human mind, as we priorities ourselves and the effects of things on ourselves.

>you only reinforce whatever they came to the table with
And that's where you are wrong. Have you ever in your life managed to persuade someone, or convince someone or something?

You don't come in trying to debunk everything. You play with them. You bring things they like and slowly use that to morph their way of thinking, or use things they dislike to negate their starting point.

Because they're literally retarded. They've been saying the Earth will melt by 2 years ago. They've been saying Trump will nuke us all back to the stone age by January. They've been saying Pizzagate is a fucking coincidence since the first word about it was uttered.

You're really putting your eggs in the wrong basket there, fella.

NIGGERS

The founders' arguments were that bearing arms was an expression of the natural right to your life (defense of it) and that a free nation needed an armed populace to defend itself from threats both internal and external, again an expression of the natural right to one's life. The internal threats are not just niggers and terrorists, but also a government which gets too large and intrusive and starts infringing in natural rights.

Yuropoors have a REALLY hard time understanding the overreaching government argument because most of them have the eternal serf mindset and trust that government officials are altruistic and intelligent as opposed to the default American mindset of suspicion of government and fear of tyranny. Germans are particularly bad about this.

Why should we care what they think?

>The police are not obligated to help you in any situation

What

I mean they're getting a paycheck

>not being nice
I don’t give a fuck, want me to explain the 1st Ammendment as well?
/thread

SHALL

for the word to have any meaning at all you have reality/physics/etc as objective

>And that's where you are wrong. Have you ever in your life managed to persuade someone, or convince someone or something?

if you believe you ever really have you are adorable

>You don't come in trying to debunk everything. You play with them. You bring things they like and slowly use that to morph their way of thinking, or use things they dislike to negate their starting point.

vanity, pointless, shameful in how self-demeaning it is to dance such a dance knowing it is always counter productive

Because they exist, and I can purchase them.

>implying I need a 'right'.

>how you "look" is meaningful to weak minds and appeasers
How you look is meaningful to the person looking. If all you can think of saying is "irrelevancy" then go join the other nihilists in their pool of misery.
As for weak minds and appeasers, you will soon realize that those are minorities the fact of the matter is that most people don't care and your job is to make them care.

>I thought we could have an actual discussion, guess I forgot where I was
I am discussing it with you and I have discussed this with a lot of people who are anti-gun as most of australia is. They simply refuse to accept that the reason they ban guns but not other lethal implements is that they are irrationally scared of guns despite having never learnt how to use one or even fired one.
The usual counter argument they use is "Well cars and cows have other uses that aren't deady guns dont" which is obviously a retarded argument as guns have all the uses that have already been presented in this thread.

You can't over come irrational fear with rational discussion im afraid

yes they are getting a paycheck to maintain the status quo

nothing more

well there you go that's actually a good argument in the middle of a cesspool, thanks user

Come visit for a weekend.

It's not an argument.

Taking my weapons violates the NAP

>How you look is meaningful to the person looking.

perhaps
perhaps not

subjective
but to whom it does necessarily matter, you can be assured that person does not have the mind of a leader, a strong mind

again, only to the sheep/children are popularity contests anything to give your consideration and time to

>Tell me Sup Forums what are your best arguments in favor of keeping the right to bear arms?
god given rights cannot be removed by men

atheists BTFO