Anything the military or police can own, a civilian should be able to own with no regulations

Anything the military or police can own, a civilian should be able to own with no regulations.

Prove me wrong Sup Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/12581497/r
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Sure. I'd love to buy a seawolf one day.

Shiny = dangerous.

Whats the point of explosives and bio-chem warfare among civilians?

post more military waifus

Well you'd use explosives to blow up vehicles and infrastructure in the event of a revolution (in case the government becomes tyrannical). There's not really a use for biological weapons, but that just puts into question why we allow the military to own such weapons.

I think the only notable exception to this would be WMDs. Otherwise, I agree.

We allow them that because other militaries have them. Putting them at a disadvantage just because of they could possibly use them against their own people is folly bordering on suicide.

Eh, i would say civilians should own biowweapons as well, to destroy statist cities in the event of rebellions.

Doesn't it become a bit redundant when you have a nuclear arsenal anyways? At least nukes won't accidentally kill your own population most of the time.

we do own bio weapons they are called "GAYS"

R E C R E A T I O N A L N U K E S

Point taken. We should have common sense homo-regulation. Only militaries and police should possess them for purpose of biological warfare and deterrence.

...

Monopoly on violence is essential to maintain order.
Order is essential to build civilization.
Don't you like civilization?

>ICBM
ehhhhhh... maybe not. actually I sort of wish governments couldn't own those, either

I need a small SMG to carry in my car in case Antifa or BLM block traffic.

Given that our nukes are reaching the end of their service life, it's probably good to have that kind of redundancy. Then again, nerve gas and conventional bombs aren't really comparable to nukes in terms of devastation.
I just would rather bio weapons stay hard to make, which probably wouldn't be helped by having civilians be able to purchase them.

i dont want this bloke and his buddies to have attack helicopters.

Anthrax was extremely easy to precure even by non-gov entities.

>instead of motorcycle gangs, you have helicopter gangs.
All i see is awesome

technically they're not illegal but you won't be able to get uranium without hiring Israeli Mossad to steal it for you or bribing a corrupt Deep State bureaucrat like Hillary Clinton to sell it to you out of the US stockpiles

So should civillians be able to own chemical and biological weapon?

her neck is too tiny

This.
If the people are armed the government is essentially powerless to deal with issues and rule responsibly.
Only the poorest most barbaric societies don't understand the importance of having rulers.

My main problem with them is that due to the nature of biological weapons they are likely to infect not only the nation they are used on, but also all the neighboring nations and quite probably the delivering nation as well. It's not like a nuke or chemical weapons where it's only mutually assured destruction if both sides have them, using a bio-weapon is pretty much suicide regardless of whether the victim nation has them as well or not.

I'm not saying civilians should be able to own bio-weapons, what I am saying is I don't trust the government to have them either.

>should be able to

No.

>should

Yes.

To minimize casualties guerilla forces should have as close to comparable hardware (if not better for specific applications) as is pragmatic.

If the government is only viewed as legitimate because they have the capability and means to kill whoever they like with no repercussions from the civilian populace, then they are little more than warlords who need to be replaced.

...

>Does that mean I can own a nuclear warhead

You already do, just sneeze on someone when you have the flu or TB. You could always just not wash your hands after not shitting.

Run it off a blockchain so power is trustless.

Privately owned Attack helicopters are not a threat to the public

Well, to that i could say that there is potential of collateral with all weapons. Even a gun fired at a statist can go through and accidentally kill an innocent, freedom loving civilian. Same with explosives you claimed were kosher.

Why does collateral by bio or chemical weapons any more worrysome than that of explosives or high-power guns?

>police
yes

>Military
get fucked

Anthrax is a bioweapon and its really not the most effective thing. Lots of bioweapons are kind of meh for effect. Better off with nukes or conventional weapons.

>the only way to stop a bad man with an attack helicopter is a good man with an attack helicopter

I literally and unironically find nothing wrong with this.

The government is the result of an agreement between free and equal men.

Overtime that agreement is forgotten and the government becomes tyrannical, or just big and bloated. In the case of the US, its both.

Then you are literally and unironically retarded?

If that is truly the case then no monopoly on violence is needed. The civilian populace can be well armed because, as you say, their government is the result of a mutual agreement, and thus they view their government as legitimate.

>doesn't want to fly his own Apache

What are you gay or something?

I'm kinda alright with keeping niggers and autists from getting RPG's and RPK's.

That being said anything is legal here with the right paperwork. There are people who do own working tanks, fighter jets and attack helicopters. They are just super fucking expensive to own. Hell there is a group of people who own a flying specter gunship from the vietnam war with its miniguns still intact.

The only thing that we need to do is reform our importation laws and open a lottery for a few thousand new class three full auto's to be made transferable. That way people won't lose their houses because their ingram is instantly almost worthless overnight and people can get new full autos. Eventually the prices would adjust back to sanity.

>Lolbertarian
>Anime
>Probably a burger

Yep checks out, you're fag

You'll never be able to afford it.

Entire nation states aren't capable of building and maintaining nuclear weapons.

Laws don't prevent you from owning one. Cost does.

>complaining about anime images
>on an anime imageboard

There are several scenarios in which it is necessary that guarantees that the government is capable of facing attacks from a portion of the population that does not represent the majority exist.

There is literally nothing stopping you from owning one right now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJ82YCiuYU

>I sexually identify as an attack helicopter and I don't masterbate in public, so flying myself would be very awkward.

kys weab burger

Obivously a faggot.

That would allow 51% of the population to act tyrannical towards the other 49%, which is hardly just even if they do represent the majority, and I would expect any rebellion by the 49% to be justified in such a case.

>Being a lolbertarian
>On a Natsoc board

someone just post some gun porn already

...

Sup Forums is split evenly between NatSocs and libertarians.

strawpoll.me/12581497/r

not only do I 100% agree, but I also believe there are certain weapons government should be restricted from owning. Governments should be limited to conventional warfare only, no bio/chem/nuke capacity

all citizens should be required by law to carry a sidearm with them at all times when outside their homes, no business or government agency should be allowed to restrict anyone from open carry inside thier property
all three time offender felons should be put to death, thier choice: poison, hanging or firing squad
pedos, murderers and rapists dropped in ocean
duelling should be made legal
all elected officials are under oath anytime they speak publicly
only landowners and veterans can vote
anyone government civlian employee cannot vote

weabs must die though

>strawpoll.me/12581497/r
With everyone posting their high IQ's you wouldn't think half this board was retarded

but theyll scare all me bloody sheep

This is the board for anonymous politics, it's not surprising half the people here are idiots.

Thats just one downside of democracy.
We shouldn't ignore the obvious benefits.

You're right, people on Sup Forums are fucking dumb as bricks.

By the way, the Texas shooter was an MKUltra test subject

I see nothing that ensures the continuation of democracy more than an armed populace.

then you are a retard in its purest form
giving a gun to people like you is like asking to get shot cause their body pillow was doing it for them anymore
fucking degerates
give me a weapon
I DARE YOU

>has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like

kys

>giving a gun to people like you is like asking to get shot cause their body pillow was doing it for them anymore
Is English not your first language, cause I have no idea what the fuck you were trying to say here.

weabs are cancer
and guns to everyone wouldnt work for democracy
the weab part is debatable though

>and guns to everyone wouldn't work for democracy
Care to explain how the hell that makes any sense at all?

can you explain me what you consider democracy?

Government where either the laws are voted in directly by the people or through elected representatives of the people.

Democracy means a government system in which a state is ruled according to the majority of its citizens, so how is it undemocratic if the majority of citizens in a country want guns?

sides.exe not found

yeah but weapons would work like money
The guy with the more money/guns would get more power. We already have rich fags to worry about. Giving away weapons would just create a bigger mess to control. Ofcourse thats how i see it

i am not against people having guns.
but i am afraid of the problems it could create

what the fuck happened to that poor SCAR in that image

>The guy with the more money/guns would get more power
You can only effectively use one gun at a time, it doesn't matter if you own 50 guns since that still only leaves you with 1 gunman.

Where I live it is perfectly okay for me to own a damn arsenal of firearms.
But it is ILLEGAL for me to buy a fucking kevlar vest.
State laws in some parts of the U.S. make no fucking sense.
Can someone explain this??

I have not watched any anime in years, but looking at these pics in the thread, I must say, the artists do a great job on the guns. Most of them are very accurate in their detail.

arent we talking about missiles too and stuff like that?
anyway in that case there would still be the problem that the guy with the most money/weapons could make a mob of people and just enforce everything he wants. i mean this already happened a lot of times throughout history but if everyone had weapons then it would be even easier. More conflics would ensure and more people would die.

That is correct, and exactly how and why the 2A is written.
>so private citizens can form their own non-government ARMIES ie militias

guns should not be used by civilians for the simple fact that people can snap out in many different situations and use a gun not for the purpose of self defence but for revenge , for discharging theri inner frustrations or for unjustified violence.

Enforce psychological exams, then.

>could make a mob of people
To get a mob of people to join you you'd have to convince them to side with you, which is basically what democracy consists of.

yeah also this
i mean military/police people go through some sort of testing before they get a gun (although most of the times that test is laughable)

yeah but if for example i had 100 people and 150 guns i could arm them all.
with the other guy had 400 people but 50 weapons he would only arm 50 of them which makes my mob stronger and my ideal stronger.

You only say this because bioweapons have never actually been deployed in battle by a great power. A Cold War clash of bioweapons would be devastating.

The entire point of gun rights is to ensure that everyone is able to arm themselves with guns, otherwise you end up with the scenario you just described, where a select few guys with access to the only weapons the nation has are able to equip people only loyal to them, whether that be the military throwing a coup, or a foreign nation interfering with weapon shipments, or just some gun store owner or black market dealer taking advantage of the chaos.

yeah but lets be honest here
most of the people would sell their weapon
or deny to use or or or.
there are so many problems to consider in the idea of giving weapons to everyone.
thats how it always works. someone will always get more and some will always get less.

>people snap
>it's better to be defenseless when they do

>most of the people would sell their weapon or deny to use
I wouldn't say that, 43% of the population here in the USA owns a gun, and we have a 112 guns per 100 people, so in any rebellion scenario it would be incredibly easy for anyone who wants a gun to acquire one.

well you have a point there but still. My main problem with the idea is that it would increase deaths and rebellions by a lot more. I dont think that making the civilians stronger is a could idea. Instead we should make the goverment have less power

good*

>it would increase deaths and rebellions by a lot more
I don't think that's true. Take away the drug related deaths caused by our idiotic government drug war and you'll find that the United States homicide rate is comparable to any other 1st world nation. Also, obviously we haven't exactly had a lot of rebellions other than the one in 1776 and the civil war shortly after that.

>Instead we should make the government have less power
I think taking away their monopoly of violence is one of the most effective ways to go about this. Otherwise you have the problem of runaway government power, where they acquire a bit of power, then use that to acquire more power, and this continues until eventually the civilians have no power left, and the only way to restore civilian power at that point is armed rebellion.

...

>and the only way to restore civilian power at that point is armed rebellion.
and i think if should try to avoid that

Even at the expense of freedom and democracy?

Bioweapons are too unpredictable, which is why Aum Shinrkyo used Sarin in their attacks rather than biological agents which until then they had been pursuing.