I'm trying to understand the pro-gun culture in the United States...

I'm trying to understand the pro-gun culture in the United States. I do understand the 2nd amendment and how different people interpret it differently. What I want to understand is the debate about the type of guns that some people want to allow or disallow in society.

Every other day when there's a mass shooting, we see this pointless debate over and over again.

I am not against guns whether they're pistols or assault rifles but do people really think they can take on the government in this day and age?

If the purpose of the proliferation of guns in society is to prevent the tyranny of a potential police state, then shouldn't people be allowed to have grenades, rifles on autonomous vehicles, or even own a warship if you have the money to purchase or build one?

Why can't we all just accept that guns are pretty cool and some people like using them?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Can't patrol a city with jet fighters user.
It takes police, and citizens always outnumber them.

Look at the resistance from the countries we have tried to conquer. We can take them, but have tremendous difficulty holding them.

Eventually we pull out after a decade or so.
Something I am convinced we wouldn't do if the region were stable and without guns.

A) To hold ground you need boots on it.
B) Those tanks and drones and vehicles need facilities and supply chains that will be very easy disrupt when some of the insurgents are literally living next door to them or even working within the military industrial concept or armed forces themselves. Asymmetric warfare in another country is bad enough, the same at home ground would be absolutely completely impossible.

You are correct.
Read properly, in context, the 2nd amendment allows for private fighter jets, tanks, and warships.
As it was, warships and cannons were privately owned in 1791.

Let me sum it up for you op, with this photo.

>Take on the government.

Do you really think all government forces are just going to open fire on it's own people once the order comes down? Would you blast your own people with a tank cannon?

All it takes is a few defectors and then shit really hits the fan.

If you are legitimately attempting to understand the pro-gun culture, read the book written by Ken Stern, the former CEO of NPR. It's called: Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right.

He has specifically battled for gun control after interacting with people outside of his leftist bubble.

Your ancestors didn't shoot jack shit, the French and the Spanish did 99% of the work.

>I am not against guns whether they're pistols or assault rifles but do people really think they can take on the government in this day and age?

Even if the odds are against the people, the true struggle against government tyranny is still worth pursuing.

It was multinational endeavor. French supported 90% or gunpowder and ammo
There were Prussian, Dutch, Polish, Hessian military people in the colonies helping the americans.

It's like the entire world decided to make it a proxy war against you cunts.

The 2nd amendment was a restriction on the Federal Govt.
The militias were to be organized, trained and controlled by the States. Feds had control of specifying training and armament. the 2nd stopped the feds from doing away with the militia or using regular army or mercs to disarm them. In theory.
The Civil War did away with the idea that the States were equal participants in the govt, with their own military forces. "Ultima Ratio Regum" takes precedent over legal arguments.
From then on the Militia, or National Guard as the Organized Militia became known as, was always subject to federalization.
The 14th Amendment was introduced after the war, due to the former Confederate states suppressing blacks and Republicans.
In theory this guaranteed the same rights against state infringement as were protected against Federal infringement.
One of the reasons the 14th amendment was brought in was the disarmament of freed blacks and pro-reconstruction ''çarpet baggers" prior to lynching or being beaten and run out of town.
In theory it ensured that these people could be armed for self defense, that state laws could not prevent this and the Feds could intervene if needed to ensure that liberty was protected.

Of course, this did not survive a racist Supreme Court and a Congress willing to cut deals to end the post civil war cold war.
So the 2nd amendment, originally a restriction on Federal bans on guns, warships and artillery in private hands, became a restriction on State bans on guns suited for self defense, but in reality was not enforced at all.

Fast forward to Miller.
Miller was a Bootlegger, charged under the Depression era National Firearms Act with possession of an unregistered short barrel shotgun.
The NFA banned short barreled rifles, shotguns and machine guns. Recognizing they had no authority to actually ban weapons, the NFA required payment of a massive tax instead, effectively banning them except for the wealthiest people.
TBC.

As a competition shooter, hunter and general weapon enthusiast I follow stuff like this pretty closely. Here in Sweden the gun laws are strict, yet we get more shootings every year (gone up hundreds if not thousands of percent in 20 years). Stricter laws only make things worse. Media has a narrative that makes it seem that certain weapons are more "dangerous" and people just eat it up, but I assure you that if there was a machinegun in every home, the amount and severity of shootings would be largely the same as today. The anti gun agenda really is about controlling the population. In our case they've succeeded. Pro gunners in USA see this and defend their second amendment, and rightly so. Now for example they go after bump stocks that makes any weapon literally worse in every way because it enhances recoil instead of suppresing it, and "high capacity" mags when in reality there is no practical difference between going postal with 10 and 30 round mags. They want an opening, seemingly reasonable, to start banning other stuff. Give them a finger and they'll take the whole arm. It always happens like that. I do think that not allowing felons to own weapons is reasonable and the right way to go.

Miller challenged the law to the Supreme Court.
He was killed prior to the decision, his killer never found. His lawyer wrote to the court and stated he couldn't afford to attend and the court still brought down a ruling, even though his death made it moot and lack of counsel made the case unconstitutional.
The ruling said that in light of the fact that they had not been informed that the weapon was suitable for the militia, the law stood.
That's a lot of weaseling.

For 70 years the status quo held. Basically any law was constitutional as long as the courts didn't rule that a weapon was suitable for the militia, and the courts refused to hear any cases.
Hell, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OÇonnors book on the Bill of Rights went:
1st
....
3rd
4th
5th
etc.

Then just after she retired, the Heller case was heard.

Heller was a very well thought out case, the lawyer advertised for people who were of good standing in the community, who wanted to own a gun in DC. DC being Federal territory, the argument about the states did not apply. The simple question was, does a citizen, under Federal Jurisdiction, have a right to own a gun for self defense in the home.

It took almost a decade to go through the courts, multiple judges sat on it for years.
Finally the Supreme Court ruled that privately held weapons, in common usage, were the type that The Militia would turn out with and they were protected. Furthermore, the right to self defense in the home had priority over other uses. So a handgun for self defense is a constitutionally protected implement.

Because machine guns are not commonly held (due to 70 years of the NFA), they are effectively not protected. Nor are short barreled rifles or shotguns.
This was obviously a compromise - the Jewish members of the court didn't want the RtoKBA arms to be an individual right at all. (((surprise))).

The next step was the McDonald Case.
This only took a year or so and extended the protections under the 2nd Amendment to restrict the states. McDonald was Our Black Guy. A long time resident of Chicago, he challenged the ban on handguns that had been pushed through by the Mafia in the '70s. He was old and lived to see some freedom restored.

Obama's election saw an end to challenges to state laws - the SCOTUS has refused to hear multiple cases, probably because the Chief Justice is subject to black mail by the Deep State because of irregularities in the adoption of his kid.
As it stands, handguns are protected, in theory.
Hunting rifles, hunting shotguns and the AR15 (most common long arm in the USA) should also be protected, in theory.
We need to wait for the next two Trump SCOTUS appointments to see if any real protections will exist.

Iraqis/afghans have the shittiest tier of guns and zero training and they have kept the U.S military in a decade long unwinnable quagmire. Imagine what people who are dirt fucking poor and IQ >70 can do.

The military has a long history of losing to poorly armed and trained farmers.

rainbows are bad only jewish swamp frogs are tolerated here

If you think pistols and assault rifles aren't enough to take down the US gov't then you need to read the wikipedia page on guerrilla warfare.
(explosives can be improvised quite easily btw)

...

I appreciated this thank you

>libya
>syria
>low homicides

I cannot shake this feeling off me that this map is a bit out of date

Greenland also has a really high abortion rate. Whats with those people and why do they hate life? Is it the snow?

Wartime deaths are not homocides.

lol at the range 0-5 being green on the bottom map

it makes for a pretty picture, but if you look up the actual numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) you see that homicides per capita are 3-5x more frequent in america than in comparable countries (canada, uk, australia, new zealand)

the creator of that image purposely picked 0-5 as being represented by a single color because america just barely makes the cut, so they could pass off 0.9 homicides per 100k as visually the same as 4.9 homicides per 100k

This is the sort of dumb post I expect from a fucking leaf. Good job.

N.P. I'm the old namefag in the Aussie gun discussion last night. 30 years in the pro gun movement.

sorry

It's the frozen Nazi zombies.

Homocide is not the same as homicide and should not be counted.

The USA is not comparable due to blacks and hispanics.
Compare only the white bread Anglo Saxon or Germanic/ Norse states to the Commonwealth and the stats are the same or lower.
It's a very poor quality Leaf Posting Probably babies first trolling.

>homicide rate has anything to do with gun violence
glad to see our schools are the only ones that are shit.

>Compare only the white bread Anglo Saxon or Germanic/ Norse states to the Commonwealth and the stats are the same or lower.
Then maybe someone could make a map with those stats, because the image posted is shit for the reasons I already pointed out.

there is a correlation

>I do understand the 2nd amendment and how different people interpret it differently.
apparently you don't understand the second amendment
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED