I want every gun grabber and european on this board to try their hardest and prove that guns should be banned

I want every gun grabber and european on this board to try their hardest and prove that guns should be banned

Other urls found in this thread:

northwestfront.org/about/nar-constitution/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

guns r bad mmkay

they shouldn't.

we can discuss cannons or advanced missile systems but guns should be legal

feels

I don't care what they think.

>yurop is one country

I'd say if you can afford an advanced missile system you're not much of a concern and are extremely unlikely to be a criminal

You can show them proof/logic about the availability of guns leading to a huge amount of gun crime and they revert back to feelings and muh freedom

I remember you from that other thread based Guatemalan gun owner.

Your guns are decently aesthetic btw

Thanks my man
You can show them proof/logic about armed populations having lower incidences of crime and they'll revert to "muh fee fees, muh children"

>honduras, murder capital of the world

>honduras, a country with strict gun laws and low rates of civilian gun ownership
Exactly right, friendo :^)

Why would we make it easier for people to kill other people?

Why not?

you wish

Because the majority of the people don't want an increased chance of getting killed and a state is supposed to follow the will of the people.

Now answer my question

this is easy, Australia banned guns and we haven't had anymore shooting deaths since.

>You can show them proof/logic about the availability of guns leading to a huge amount of gun crime and they revert back to feelings and muh freedom
But our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm deaths.

>this is easy, Australia banned guns and we haven't had anymore shooting deaths since.
Our firearm rights aren't subject to others abusing their firearm rights.

Should you have your freedom of speech restricted because someone else says naughty things?

we have heaps of shooting deaths

Killing isn't always murder
You need a means to defend yourself and getting a gun is a good way to do so

Shooting deaths were on the decline before the ban, and the ban arguably had no effect on this downward trend

but you're only defending yourself against other people with guns (that they bought illegally i know)

Defending yourself against a gun would be worse than defending yourself against something that is not a gun. You won't be the only one with a gun. The criminal will also have a gun. Also, generally bringing justice to killing someone in self-defence or not is difficult.

>Why would we make it easier for people to kill other people?
Because the second someone else attempts to take your life, property, rights, freedom etc they've forfeited their life.

Don't like it? Don't attempt to take that which doesn't belong to you.

They only want to disarm American whites so it's easier to subjugate us when the time comes

>Because the second someone else attempts to take your life, property, rights, freedom etc they've forfeited their life.
No, they haven't forfeited from life. Shitty opinion.

Even if it was morally acceptable in these days, determening if someone did in fact attempt that and you killing him was completely justified is difficult. To top that, the person that attempts to take your life, property, rights and freedom will be more likely to kill you if guns were legal.

Have you ever tried to defend yourself against a knife?
It's damn near impossible and even if you pull it off your hands will be stabbed all up to shit
Guns are the great equalizer and allow you to defend yourself without great physical strength and martial arts training
Bring a gun to a knife fight tell me how well it goes for the mugger

So people should just be able to injure and kill you without you putting up a fight?
Also it's less likely if guns are legal because then you can have one to prevent the attacker from killing or injuring you

Killing someone with a knife is much rarer than killign someone with a gun.
First off, actually killing someone with a knife is harder than killing him with a gun.
Secondly, it is much more savage and difficult for the attacker to use a knife than using a gun.

>No, they haven't forfeited from life.
Yes, they have. You want to take what's mine from me? Prepare to fight to the death to get it.

>Shitty opinion.
No it's not. I'm not willing to give up anything just because someone else thinks its their right to take from me.

>Even if it was morally acceptable in these days, determening if someone did in fact attempt that and you killing him was completely justified is difficult.
Doesn't matter. My rights trump what the laws say or don't say.

Even if self-defense was illegal under the law, I'd still have the right to self-defense.

>To top that, the person that attempts to take your life, property, rights and freedom will be more likely to kill you if guns were legal.
Just as my ability to defend myself with firearms will be more than likely to occur.

If that criminal knows that he risks death to take from me, he'll be more likely to stop or go after another target.

your guns arent rights you dotard

lol no we havent, you cant name another shooting like port arthur since

>So people should just be able to injure and kill you without you putting up a fight?
No, but the government should make sure that the chances of death in such a scenario would be as low as possible.

>Also it's less likely if guns are legal because then you can have one to prevent the attacker from killing or injuring you
The attacker can also have a gun that can kill you or you can kill the attacker without a propper justification.

>le "all europeans are anti gun" meme

>Your honor I am not guilty of murdering that mailman because taxation is theft and I was just defending my property by reducing government spending.
It works in all cases.

>your guns arent rights you
Yes, they are. Our firearm rights are inherent and they are not granted to us by the government. On top of which, they're a right that the government can never take away.

>dotard
Only reason you're saying that is because a communist said it against someone you hate.

Go look up your violent crime rate you fucking loser.

>what is a cartel?

Guns are bad because I'm indoctrinated by the media and hollywood and can't form opinions unless they fulfill my self righteousness.

What's the government supposed to do?
>"when seconds matter the police are only mi utes away"
Also
>someone trying to take my life isn't justification for me to kill them
I fail to understand your logic

>Prepare to fight to the death to get it.
Okay and me as the government is going to intervene and minimilize the chances of you two fighting to the death.

>Doesn't matter. My rights trump what the laws say or don't say.
Me as the government cannot allow you to go against law and order.

>Just as my ability to defend myself with firearms will be more than likely to occur.
Yes and in that case both of you will most likely die than if you did not have guns.

>If that criminal knows that he risks death to take from me, he'll be more likely to stop or go after another target.
He can just assume you are not armed. He likes you as a target, you are armed and things turn ugly. Either way the criminal knows he has more experience and is probably prepared for the assault.

>>Your honor I am not guilty of murdering that mailman because taxation is theft and I was just defending my property by reducing government spending.
Then you'd have to prove that the mailman and not the government was the one taking your property.

Your argument would work better if the person hypothetically being killed was a politician or an IRS bureaucrat.

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

How else will we fight off your mom.

noun
an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition:
Example: "the Colombian drug cartels"

>What's the government supposed to do?
Lower the chances of one of you getting killed in the conflict. Snitching guns off your hands will decrease the chances of an actual murder.

>I fail to understand your logic
My logic is that we can't allow people killing others out of self-defence and expect that there would be complete justice delivered when. This is a nightmare for the justice system.

right to bear arms doesnt mean shit, the idea had muskets in mind not handguns or other automatic death cannons

How will the government intervene exactly?

By legislation. Legally removing the means of causing death.

it's more about the gun culture in America Switzerland has a lot of guns too, but you don't see mass shootings happening there

>Guatemala and Bulgaria discuss gun vs knife issue
You're omitting crime levels out of the discussion. I observe this process in Central Asian countries and they try to legalize guns where crime levels are spiking.

Most of the killing is done with illegals guns and the chance to die depends not on whether criminals want to kill you with a gun or a knife, but on the existence of the said criminals. People want to be able to shoot their heads off and not die as sheep.

>Okay and me as the government is going to intervene and minimilize the chances of you two fighting to the death.
As long as it doesn't reduce or remove my rights I'll allow the government to do that.

The problem, is the gungrabbers in the government don't actually care about reducing deaths. They want to use firearm deaths as a reason to reduce rights.

If they actually cared about reducing firearm deaths they'd go after the criminals, not the law abiding.

>Me as the government cannot allow you to go against law and order.
My rights trump the governments stances and beliefs.

>Yes and in that case both of you will most likely die than if you did not have guns.
My firearm rights are subject to firearm deaths.

>He can just assume you are not armed.
And that would be a fatally incorrect assumption. He's better off not attempting to steal from others.

>He likes you as a target, you are armed and things turn ugly.
All of which could've been avoided if he chose not to be a criminal.

>Either way the criminal knows he has more experience
He hopes. There is training for life or death firearm related situations.

>and is probably prepared for the assault.
Just as his intended victim would be.

If by gun culture you mean spic gang bangers and niggers, then I agree.

Criminals can have knives and murder their victim
Criminals can rape their victim
Criminals can cause great bodily harm to their victim
Criminals can get guns illegally and shoot their victim
Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns
Why do you want the criminal to live by any means necessary?

>right to bear arms doesnt mean shit,
My firearm rights trump what the bill of rights says or doesn't say.

> the idea had muskets in mind not handguns or other automatic death cannons
The second amendment was about why firearms are to remain legal for the people, not about what firearms are to be legal for the people.

Again though, even if the second amendment were erased from the bill of rights we'd still have the right to firearms. They're constitutionally protected rights, not constitutionally granted rights after all.

High IQ comment
Legislation means nothing without enforcement
Who's going to surrender their weapons after they're banned?
Criminals? Don't think so

Yes, it does mean shit. And the shit it meant was the military grade weapons of the time, henceforth the military grade weapons of OUR time are exactly the shit it was meant to protect.

Don't really care if you like it or not, that's irrelevant.

Back then government also had muskets
Now they have automatic death cannons so citizens also have automatic death cannons
It's about balance of power

you are arguing semantics, bearing arms doesnt mean an assault rifle. it means a musket
you dont know law i know law

Criminals would have a harder time to aquire weapons. Also, knowing that you would get penalized for owning a firearm would make you at least a bit paranoid.

For organized crime it would be a bit more difficult to aquire weapons, but for smaller organizations or individuals it would be nearly impossible. In the end, the chances of a criminal being armed are lower.

>Right to bear arms doesn't mean shit

That's just silly. Without guns, how would you shoot anyone?

>actually killing him with a knife is much harder
Exactly. Guns are a great force equalizer. If most people had them, criminals would be more likely to think twice about committing acts of violence, due to fears of immediate bodily injury.

A country with an armed law abiding populace is a safer country for all, because every good Samaritan with a force equalizer has the potential to save a life.

>Why do you want the criminal to live by any means necessary?
Because this is what makes us civilized. Every person is innocent until proven guilty and causing death to someone no matter what is your personal justification is not civilized.

>criminals follow laws

>you are arguing semantics,
I am arguing my rights.

>bearing arms doesnt mean an assault rifle.
Bearing arms means bearing whatever armaments we wish.

> it means a musket
Then why doesn't it say "muskets only" in the second amendment?

>you dont know law i know law
I AM THE LAW!

...My firearm rights trump your interpretation of the law.

Arms means arms you fucking drongo
It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets"

by your logic you wouldn't have free speech online because the founders only had pen and paper in mind when they wrote the first amendment
try again nigger

>If most people had them, criminals would be more likely to think twice about committing acts of violence, due to fears of immediate bodily injury.
Criminals would think twice, but in the end they are the ones with the plan and the experience to use that gun. A criminal is confident when he goes is performing a crime and him being afraid of the victim he chose would be highly unlikely. His biggest concern would be the police.

>you don't know law i know law
Logical fallacy detected: Argument requires appeal to authority. Disregarded.

>criminals don't follow any laws

"Arms" means weapons in general you dumbfuck. Not just muskets.

>This is a nightmare for the justice system.

>we should allow innocent people to die because I don't want to deal with deciding if they were justified or not
What the fuck is your problem? You're dystopian ruler level of cynical.

>personal justification
You prove yourself guilty by trying to attack me and take my life
People go to court after defending themselves, you know?
You have to prove it was justified
There are self defense laws

>>we should allow innocent people to die because I don't want to deal with deciding if they were justified or not

This is exactly what is going to happen if we make it easier for people to aquire guns. You don't just point out a finger at someone and call him innocent without a court ruling it out. Spreading justice is the job of the state and not the individual.

I wish we had more relaxed gun laws (around use as well as acquisition; you can break the law by shooting a home invader, etc.), but I still feel like you have to draw the line somewhere.
Do some of you guys really think that every weapon on the planet should be made freely available to civilian consumers, or where do you draw the line?

Crime rates DO NOT depend on gun laws. Murder rates DO NOT depend on gun laws. Bad guys are gonna kill you either way and most often death comes from illegal guns.

Your personal chance to survive comes into question and, if you hear of people dying, you start nagging the govt to issue permissions to own a gun. The middle class in problematic countries tends to be armed.

>criminals are innocent people

>You prove yourself guilty by trying to attack me and take my life
I prove myself innocent or guilty in front of a court.

>You have to prove it was justified
>There are self defense laws
Yes there are, but ruling them out in a court is extremely difficult.

They had cannons during the american revolution and explicitly said civilians could own private cannons

>Spreading justice is the job of the state and not the individual.

Self-defense has nothing to do with spreading justice. You're confusing it with vigilantism. Self defense is simply about defending yourself and your property from harm.

Europeans have considered themselves civilized for centuries, and yet only in the 20th century were duels to the death outlawed as a recourse for setlling "civilized" disputes.

Where are your statistics supporting that an unarmed civil society is significantly safer than an armed one?

too much (you)s and im lazy cya faggots

>>>we should allow innocent people to die
Why are you willing to give up our essential rights in a futile attempt to save lives?

Why won't you instead focus on those breaking the and the society that creates and allows such lawbreakers?

>This is exactly what is going to happen if we make it easier for people to aquire guns.
But again...our firearm rights aren't subject to firearm deaths.

Should you be barred from the internet because someone else said "nigger?"

>Spreading justice is the job of the state and not the individual.
The state is comprised of individuals united under common purpose. When the collective state attempts to strip the rights of the individual, they've lost the purpose they were united for.

>too much (you)s and im lazy cya faggots
Coward.

A post from a mexican

>but I still feel like you have to draw the line somewhere.
Why?

>Do some of you guys really think that every weapon on the planet should be made freely available to civilian consumers,
Yes.

Why should they be available to only the government (who kills more people every year than firearms in civilian hands do)?

Self defence isn't about justice, it's about protecting yourself from a crime that is ABOUT to happen.
If someone breaks into my home at 3AM I have no way to know what he's going to do. He could be just trying to steal my wallet, or he could be out to rape and kill me.
Since I don't know, and I don't want to find out right away, I'm going to shoot him before he has a chance to act.
And the law will find me innocent.

On the other hand, if he DOES just steal my wallet and then runs away, and I shoot him in the back to stop him, the law WILL NOT find me innocent because that's voluntary murder.

It's not nearly as hard nor as morally ambiguous as you're making it out to be.

>Do some of you guys really think that every weapon on the planet should be made freely available to civilian consumers.

Sure. As long as they are capable of using it safely without causing undue risk to those around them.

>Why should they be available to only the government (who kills more people every year than firearms in civilian hands do)?

Because recreational McNukes need to remain a meme.
There's no reason an individual needs to own a bomber plane.
I draw the line at tanks.

Once the ethnostate has been established we won’t have any need for guns only for soldiers in case of war. If we have guns in an ethnostate it’d just be arming opposition trying to take down a white government.

>There's no reason an individual needs to own a bomber plane.

Because I fucking want one and my owning one is not putting anyone in unnecessary danger is a perfectly good reason.

Mostly just the theoretical that some mentally unstable rich guy having a bad day, getting drunk and leveling a city? It is a bit of a far fetched scenario, but individuals legally being able to own weapons of mass destruction could cause major problems. Someone could use their recreational nuke to hold a city hostage.

...

t. Dictator McOpressington
Courts and law enforcement can't un-murder you when you weren't able to defend yourself

>Because recreational McNukes need to remain a meme.
Why?

>There's no reason an individual needs to own a bomber plane.
Bill of rights not bill of needs etc etc etc

But the government does need those weapons when they kill more innocents that the citizens ever have?

>I draw the line at tanks.
I don't. Because our rights aren't subject to specific weapons.

If the government didn't want us having those weapons they shouldn't have invented them

>Once the ethnostate has been established we won’t have any need for guns
Actually yes, we will. Because we always need the ability to defend oneself.

In fact, in the ethnostate, weapons will be needed even more because of the constant threat of invasion from the Jews.

> only for soldiers in case of war.
In the ethnostate all Whites will have to serve in the military and in the reserves for most of their lives. Again, due to the constant threat of invasion.

> If we have guns in an ethnostate it’d just be arming opposition trying to take down a white government.
But anti-Whites and non-Whites wouldn't be allowed in the ethnostate nor would they be allowed any political power.

Seriously, read the NWF's proposed constitution. northwestfront.org/about/nar-constitution/

>Mostly just the theoretical that some mentally unstable rich guy having a bad day, getting drunk and leveling a city?
But people are fine when that unstable, drunk rich guy having a bad day is president?

>but individuals legally being able to own weapons of mass destruction could cause major problems.
But government isn't?

>Someone could use their recreational nuke to hold a city hostage.
And yet the USA is the only country on the planet to have ever used nukes and is also the only country that is allowed to determine what other countries are allow to have them as well...

Does NwF accept Sicilian Americans?

Hell, a few of the Founding Fathers had warships. Small ones, but warships nonetheless, more than capable of laying waste to a coastal town in a matter of hours.