Guns kill people

This is a high capacity clip for an AR15, legal in America.

How do you explain the need for this, gun nuts?

Other urls found in this thread:

congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367
youtu.be/4WXYjm74WFI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>bill of needs

SHALL

So you don't have to reload as often.

>clip
1/10

To carry more ammo. What else?

Someone wanted more rounds in their mag so they didn't have to reload as often, Or carry as many mags. So someone else made a product and sold it to them.

>This is a high capacity clip for an AR15

NOT

>1 post by this ID
its a bait thread you idiots

packing peanut

> How do you explain the need for this, gun nuts?

In order to maintain a well regulated militia, because it is necessary for the security of a free state.

It's necessary to keep the redcoats on their side of the Atlantic.

>didn't have to reload as often
I bet loading this shit up will be longer than reload regular mag.

why do liberals not understand that in order to win, you must fight, and in order to fight, you must kill.

what kind of brainletism is this to deny the ability to adequately defend yourself.

No it's not.

That's why you prepare, Ivan
You wouldn't know anything about preparation, just look at Barbarossa.

Yeah but it's mid day on a Monday, what the fuck else are we supposed to bitch about?

You don't.The mag sucks. Far more difficult to switch than a 30-round mag.

This

It scares pussy faggots like op so i support it

Why do faggots have to be allowed to live? Why don't right wing death squads exist?

>That's why you prepare
Round mag isn't that compatible as regular one. You need some extra tacticool bags or whatever it calls to carry this crap.

>need
why do you keep using this word? it's not anywhere in the 2nd amendment

>need

>one, maybe 2 retarded 50-round drum magazines that wont fit in a molle
>more dangerous than 6-7 30-round PMAGs that you can actually carry in a molle and without using a dufflebag

To deter an orwellian police state like what you see occurring in nations such as England.

Because they don't want to end up cucked like us.
Our voices are being silenced, new 'laws' put into place to silence us.
We have armed police to enforce these laws.
Can't peacefully protest Islam.
Can't post on social media (Britain First now banned).
Can't have our democratic vote respected.
What options are left?
You think the government would have fucked us over quite so easily if we had armed citizens?
You think Mudshits would be quite so fucking arrogant and cuntish?

Believe me, don't make the mistake of allowing your second amendment to be taken away.
There's a reason it says
>SHALL
>NOT
>BE
>INFRINGED!

Antifa rarely riots in groups of less than 10?

So you fill a wheelbarrow with loaded mags and push it around with you.

>Round mag isn't that compatible as regular one. You need some extra tacticool bags or whatever it calls to carry this crap.
High capacity mags are good for suppression fire.

This is a high capacity engine for a Lamborghini. How do you explain the need for this, car nuts? Terrorists use cars to kill lots of people all the time.

>How do you explain the need for this

A right does not have to be justified

I want to have it just because

rosa parks sat in the front of the bus just because

she could have sat in the back
but she chose to sit in front just because

Thats how rights work

you can always move to a venezuelan shithole where guns are banned

fuck off commie

That's not a clip.

>need

>Guns kill people.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm deaths.

>This is a high capacity clip for an AR15, legal in America.
So what?

>How do you explain the need for this, gun nuts?
It's our inherent right. Explain why we shouldn't have the right to own that.

BE

But im not trying to suppress anyone, im trying to remove Tejackson, Tyrone and D'Quandray from my property

>No it's not.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to someone else abusing those firearm rights.

Prove me wrong.

It says nothing about the magazines.
In fact, if we were literal, the 2nd allows only for the ownership of muskets.
So... really, if you cared at all about it, you'd be pushing for the removal of ALL non-muzzleloading rifles

Because fuck you faggot. That's why.

How does banning that stop thousands of niggers with already-illegal handguns from killing other niggers?

Venezuela is actually a really good example of what happens when your guns get taken away. They go full police state and in the case of the Vens they redistributed confiscated weapons to nationalist militias to turn against the people who surrendered the weapons in the first place.

>clip
It's call a magazine you fantastically retarded mongaloid

>Explain your rights
Rights don't need to be explained. Americans have 2nd amendment rights don't like it? move.

Show me musket in the text

>It says nothing about the magazines.
The second amendment is about why firearms are to remain legal, not what firearms are to remain legal.

>In fact, if we were literal, the 2nd allows only for the ownership of muskets.
So therefore the first amendment doesn't apply to computers, radio and television. Right?

>clip

Bait

Knifes kill people.
Just ask Britain.
And get glassed, op.

>1 post by this ID

>clip

Filename
>2stamp
I see the can, it has a funswitch, too?

INFRINGED

S E M I A U T O
E
M
I
A
U
T
O

Everything I know about drum mags makes me wary of using them. First off I don't want to melt my barrel by firing that many rounds too rapidly, secondly I heard they have a tendency to jam.

INFRINGED

No it doesn't. What are you talking about? It states the right to bear arms and form militias.

SBR

It says "arms" which in 18th century terminology meant muskets.
Either you believe that times change and so therefore does the interpretation and institution of the Constitution, or it is infallible and we must understand it as intended.

You can't have both.

This is an American Nigger.

They were kept in check through segregation and legal discrimination. Before that, we could actually get them to work by picking crops and working on farms.

Now they recklessly breed in a 70% out of wedlock birthrate, and commit 50% of the murders in the United States.

How do you explain the need for niggers?

LA Riots.

James Holmes shooting spree ended cause he was using a shitty drum.

Whats the need to ban them?

>First off I don't want to melt my barrel by firing that many rounds
is your barrel made of plastic lol?

I can explain it through the simple fact that I know that my weapons will be needed to eventually kill leftists. We are in a civil war right now that is edging on going hot.

That thing saves lives because only idiots use them, and they jam up.

there are a lot of liberals
a standard clip just wouldnt cut it

Yours probably is...

>Clip

And cannons and bombs and swords and "arms". Weapons. It's a violation of the constitution that high explosives were made illegal at all.

sorry
*magazine

>lolbertarian
Then why doesn't it say "muskets"? Read the federalist papers; the founders were in agreement that the second amendment applies to military arms in common use and they understood that these arms would change over time. This doesn't apply to nuclear weapons, as the braindead always throw out as a strawman, as your average infantryman isn't issue nuclear fucking weapons. United States v. Miller underscored this point by ruling that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected by 2A since a sawed off shotgun had no practical use in the context a militia. Further, assuming you're correct (which you aren't), then 4th amendment doesn't fucking to your car as cars didn't exist at the time the 4th amendment was written. The first amendment doesn't apply to mormonism as mormonism didn't exist when the first amendment was written. The first amendment also doesn't apply to HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC as none of these mediums of communication existed when the first amendment was written. Your argument is a retarded slippery slope.

>You can never change the Constitution when it refers to fire arms because it was written by divine godly men of infinite wisdom who saw the future and knew how their laws would affect that future
Or
>Change the Constitution as times change to keep it relevant and useful (as the Founding Fathers explicitly said it should be).

There were machine guns at the time the 2nd Amendment was included retarded faggot. Fucking into history before you make retarded comments again.
The Puckle Defense Gun, created in 1718 pic related.
The next time some faggot ass faggot says the 2nd only covered muskets show them this shit

>how do you explain this
It is none of your business

sorta

All these threads asking for arguments without presenting a case. It’s almost like someone wants to suss out strategies of the opposite side to create their own ideal narrative that’s harder to disupte with current talking points.

the more funny part is that even though they breed like animals no population study has the percentage of niggers increasing because they kill themselves at equal rates

...

You didn't stop to think that he used that word on purpose? I love guns, and I use 'silencer' just to be an edgy faggot at gun stores and in front of my buddies. Who gives a shit.

And on that note, congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367

call your fucking representative and find out what the fucking hold up is. I've been waiting for my goddamned trust to clear for 3 months now

I agree. In a literalist interpretation, cannons and muskets and swords and Puckle guns should all be legal.

Sup Forums is for political discussion, not unfiltered autism. Find a different thread or at least sage if you're going to respond to obvious bait.

But it works perfectly as is. We have the right to bear arms, a synonym for weapons. You are making things up because you are scared of guns and meme flagging the opposite of what you believe in for some bizarre reason.

I've used these before, and the sad truth is, they are a literal pain in the ass. They take forever to load, they bloody the loaders fingers, they tend to jam, and unless.you have a fluted, bull barrel, your AR is going to overheat.
But fuck you OP, I can buy one if I want to.
But actshually,, 10 - Magpul 30 round _clips_ is a better alternative for long term, uninterupted fire.

Slide thread. Saged

>clip

See
Times change so we changed the Constitution. When radio was invented we changed it to fit. Why must the 2nd Amendment never be allowed to change? When we've constantly changed the other ones?

Niggers

Gunkid?
Where you and Gecko45 been hiding?

That's only good for shooting giant spiders.
How many dicks of bureaucrats did you have to suck to get that?

For when there are a lot of feds in front of you

>Explain Needs

Anyone else thinking leaf?

We've been fisting each other in his mom's basement

>It says "arms" which in 18th century terminology meant muskets.
And Cannons. So are you fine with people owning cannons?

>Either you believe that times change and so therefore does the interpretation and institution of the Constitution, or it is infallible and we must understand it as intended.
Well again, it's a good thing that the second amendment is about why firearms are to remain legal and not about what firearms are to remain legal then huh?

>>You can never change the Constitution when it refers to fire arms
The constitution can be amended. What you are attempting to do is reinterpret the Constitution.

>because it was written by divine godly men of infinite wisdom who saw the future and knew how their laws would affect that future
It was written by men who knew that the best way for someone to defend their selves was with
armaments.

>>Change the Constitution as times change to keep it relevant and useful (as the Founding Fathers explicitly said it should be).
Then remove the second amendment from the constitution.

Regardless, my rights don't come from the constitution. I have the right to keep and bear whatever firearms regardless of what it says.

Because they're called constitutionally protected rights not constitutionally granted rights.

P.S. Do you believe the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet?

only 7

Rifles were widespread at the time of the bill of rights

Damn OP, you're just looking for shit to piss yourself off. Miserable way to live. all good baby
youtu.be/4WXYjm74WFI

Let me fix that for you.
>If we were literal, the 2nd amendment allows the private ownership of ICBMs

Oye mates this proper bloke here gets it

Have you SEEN LA?
It doesn't work perfectly.
Chicago has a higher mortality rate than fucking warzones.
Detroit is just gone.

If you believe in the inalienable right to carry weapons, then EVERY citizen must be allowed. Get those gunshops in the ghetto so Tyrone (called Lil Fentanyl by his friends and family) can get his gun as the Founding Fathers intended, right?