I would consider myself very far right except for the fact I don't really care about gun restrictions either way...

I would consider myself very far right except for the fact I don't really care about gun restrictions either way. Why should I care about guns Sup Forums?

fuck off kike

you shouldn't?

they're for tiny pee-pee men

The founding fathers always intended for the civilian population to have access to the same tech as the military. That is literally the entire point of the 2nd amendment, to give people the right to contest the government if necessary.

You should care about your constitutional rights being eroded because of manufactured tragedies.
You should wonder who's behind these actions and why. You should ask yourself why is there such an urgency to disarm the American Citizen.

>far right
>doesn't like guns

I reel tink now

>inb4 kike
Honest question Sup Forums I fucking hate niggers and unironically wish trump would become a dictator. I just never had an interest in guns. I don't really care if people have them

Fuck off kike

>to have access to the same tech as the military.
citizens should have access to nukes, aircraft carriers, and b52s. that's what the founding fathers envisioned!

they also were at a time when both citizens and soldiers had muskets. they also wouldn't allow citizens to have cannons. so i don't understand where your thick skull is coming up with this idea that everyone deserves to own a fucking ar 15

Guns cause 3.7 deaths per 100k of the population. Only an idiot thinks that’s a problem.

It also acts as birth control in da hood.

>You should care about your constitutional rights being eroded because of manufactured tragedies.
you seem more apparent and quick over stupid guns to compensate ur tiny pee pee over the bush administration using 9/11 to start two wars.

give me a fucking break, stop being the _that_ stupid white guy.

>should i care about liberty?

>they also wouldn't allow citizens to have cannons.
Where's the proofs?

>i don't understand where your thick skull is coming up with this idea that everyone deserves to own a fucking ar 15
How would the citizenry overthrow a government with muskets? Remember, the first amendment says that the right to bear arms is necessary for securing the FREE state, not just the state.

Own no land, own no gun and you're basically a slave.

I guess that explains why donald trump is pro gun ;)
CAN I GET A GLUBBA BUBBA TUB TUUUUB

>first amendment
second amendment

own no right to healthcare, own no right to good quality education, you're asking to be a hill-billy

Fuck off back to whatever sub reddit you spawned out of. Sup Forums is and always will be a PRO GUN BOARD. Also remember faggots.

S H A L L

The second amendment is inextricably linked to American whiteness. Whether you agree or disagree, if you give an inch when it comes to gun ownership you're cucking to non-whites.

...

So we can overthrow ZOG.

You could swallow some tide pods
through your mouth, and ass

>we need muh guns to overthrow the government.

>Meanwhile a skeleton and his friends kicked out British with their non violent movement.

Admit it murricanz you love guns because you've love to destroy stuff.

>Where's the proofs?
common fucking sense. the people were dirt poor, super decentralized, had barely any roads, super uneducated, and had nothing to even access these things.

>How would the citizenry overthrow a government with muskets?
look up shays rebelion or the civil war
>right to bear arms is necessary for securing the FREE state
ok cool no need for a fucking tank or an RPG along with 15 variations of ar15s, you can easily have a hand cannon. you wonder why the media is so "crazy" over how the fbi didn't act on the "indicators" in the florida shootingbut those "indicators" couldn't be acted on because the person has that inherent right to kill people.

so much this

I would consider myself very far left except for the fact I don't really care about gun control either way. Why should I care about guns /reddit/?

Yeah so? Got a problem with it shit stepper? Bring it the fuck on faggot we'll glass ur entire turd bin for shits and giggles.

>they wouldn't allow citizens to have cannons
What are letters of marque? Congress authorized private citizens to own frigates and gunships lmao.

>common fucking sense. the people were dirt poor, super decentralized, had barely any roads, super uneducated, and had nothing to even access these things.


I'm with you but that doesn't make for an argument.

You have the right to own a $500 million home but the right doesn't go away because of your inability to buy it.

The whole point they are arguing is that they have the right, whether they have the resources to get it are a different matter.

People privately owned war ships back then.

You got to first learn how to deal with a dozen rice farmers and a bunch of hajis. Then think about taking on us. But you're free to try bby.

>citizens should have access to nukes, aircraft carriers, and b52s. that's what the founding fathers envisioned!
The frigate Alliance fired the final shots of the American Revolutionary War; it was also the last ship in the Navy. A faction within Congress wanted to keep her, but the new nation did not have the funds to keep her in service, and she was auctioned off for $26,000 in 1785 to a private bidder.

India super power 2020 confirmed.

ok right is a pretty loose term, you're actually making an extremely valid point. i think the better word would be "privilege." like you have the "right" to own a giant ass house but you don't have the "privilege" granting you the explicit access to it.

thank you.

nobody should have access to nukes, call it a grey area during the interim process of removing all of them.

But sure why shouldn't a civilian be able to own a large flat-topped sea-vessel, you know the same kind that bring goods into america

B52 isn't illegal for civilians and isn't even close to the most deadly aircraft that a civilian owns in the USA


It's not about what they thought warfare could or would be, it's about the tools of warfare needing to be in the hands of the people.

You best believe it weedboy. We coming with that Hindukush.

Nope. You've never seen real war. If we ever got serious human rights would fly out the window and you'd see somd nice hot sticky loads landing on your hut apu.

You shouldn't, but I can give you reasons why America and gun ownership will never be separated.
1. Self reliance, freedom, and individuality are ingrained in the culture, the consensus is we need weapons to defend these things.
2. The amount of guns that exist are greater than the amount of people in the US, this and first point makes confiscation unfeasible
3. We border Mexico, a black market would instantly and naturally form.
4. Our population is not homogeneous, and incredibly large. This may seem like it doesn't matter but it does influence many things, for example, healthcare.. Not trusting other groups and not wanting to take care of people unlike you is human nature. This explains why many social systems are as they are in the US.

uh, dude, they literally signed off commercial gunships

Former Trump supporter here. not gonna lie It was all hilarious watching the right crash and burn, but seriously weapons of mass destruction have no place in our schools.

you guys forget that only white elites had access to these things.

refer to this poster, he made a good summary of the second amendment here

>Real war.
>Can't beat a bunch of farmers with the best technology provided to them.
>Vets come home and whine about 'muh war'

Hilarious.

cant wait

That wojack is too high quality to have been made by a real shill.

I know you're excited.

Trump is about as far from a dictator as you can get. He’s a capitalist through and through.

The fact you're willing to make improvements to your arguments automatically puts you above the retarded "muh gunzzz" people..thanks.

The thing is we don't lise wars, we concede them because the death toll on the other side gets too large and our politicians get pressured by the peopel they have to answer to when wars become unpopular.

Just look at the K/D ratios on wiki(I think it was 50k American deaths and two million+ viets). we're really good at war, but not good at seeing them through -at least for the more modern ones.

ill be fucking frank, i just shill the fuck out of this board. im irl super fucking liberal and i just like to see if i can ever make this type of meaningful discussion with people who have polar opposite world views from me.

lose*

I get the underlying significance of the 2nd. I just think there are certain people who have no business owning firearms. Just like I don't want blind people driving. I also don't really get why the left puts so much focus on assault weapons. As long as the gun owner is checked out as a sane human who cares what they own.

I just mean I wouldn't be opposed to him governing with no checks

look what's going on in Brazil

Because as we descend into becoming Brazil-tier, decent folks are going to need to be able to protect themselves.

To paraphrase those we oppose, the far left..
Don't let those who would oppose you seize the means of revolt, ie: your guns.

The second amendment is there to ensure the government can't 100% prevent you from opposing it. If the government wants to restrict your access to said guns than your government is trying to fuck you and as a citizen of the UNITED STATES OF THE FUCKING AMERICA it is your constitutional right to say:

>no, you're not gonna take my bang bang sticks you giant swamp monster. eat lead cowboy! yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw!

Wouldn't it be good to limit the amount of guns available to low iq shitskins though?

That is the most bassackward argument I've heard all day.

>The elite whitey wants to maintain his boot on the necks, and will keep it there by giving everyone under the boot access to hammer.

If you aren't concerned about guns, that's fine. However, conservatively speaking it's a matter of individual rights. That's about all you need concern yourself with.

>I also don't really get why the left puts so much focus on assault weapons.
1) easy talking points and 2) they are the ones that actually are used for mass shootings.

>As long as the gun owner is checked out as a sane human who cares what they own.
and that's what everyone wants, yet politicians in congress put out this narrative that they want to march in and take your guns away. for example, you want to get a car, but you first need a drivers permit, then you need to take classes to drive, then you get certified to drive, then you have to have the car manufacturers put safety measures to make sure both the driver is safe and doesn't massively fuck people over through safer window breaking tech and airbags and autobreaks.

this needs to happen with guns, there NEES to be more gun control. that's just a fact.

Assault weapon is a Californian gun grabbing made up word used to scare ignorant people and mistakenly believed to be the same as Assault Rifle, a real term describing automatic or burst fire rifles.

This is an assault weapon. It has a pistol grip and adjustable stock. Those features make the bullets do +500% damage and therefore are much more dangerous. Also the black polymer adds +200% reload speed, making it the weapon of choice for all mass shootings.

...

Basically wouldn't increasing the scrutiny for gun ownership affect minorities anyway. Most white people would be able to pass background checks and psych eval way easier than the nigger class

meant for

>elongated skull

The regulation and background check argument has been going on for decades, and as events like these happen they get more strigent but the facts are people will always fall through the cracks. We would have to monitor and keep tabs on gun owners to have a system that the left would be happy with

>In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers.

Yet they still have an astronomical murder rate. Yeah, maybe it'd be good to limit stupid people's access to guns. Or maybe you end up with predators picking off prey who have no equalizing factor ie. guns. Bottom line is, as long as our culture keeps celebrating acting like a complete nigger, people are going to keep acting like complete niggers.

If that's an assault banana, why doesn't it have a bayonet lug?

You ever been in a situation where people want to fuck with you and you wish you had the chance to flash a gun and get them to leave you alone and LEGALLY not get in trouble for brandishing it?

Having a gun not only levels the playing field in a life-or-death situation, but a social one as well. Nobody fucks with someone with a gun.

Kys commie

Sure, but you're asking conservative white folks to give this power of oversight to the same people who are blatantly anti-white. We understand that for a lot of Democrats, they're only willing to make what they call compromises because they can't go all the way yet. They want guns out of civilian hands, period.

This is why.

hey newfags. These are part of the next wave of shill threads.


Template: As a conservative, trump supporter blah blah lets get rid of guns.

Fuck off nigger kikes.

It's all about making the government FEAR the private citizen.

By any means necessary.

Because guns secure your right to exist. So long as you have the great equalizer you have a say in your right to exist. Guns allow you to stand your ground against tyranny and aggression. Certainly they can be used to commit evil acts, but that's the thing about freedom. By entrusting men with freedom you expose yourself to the abuse of such freedoms. But there is no more just system that men can live under.

You're probably right.

Interesting to see them treat us like guinea pigs.

>As long as the gun owner is checked out as a sane human who cares what they own.
>and that's what everyone wants
Wrong. Dems won't budge on HIPPA. We can't keep mentally ill people from buying guns because "privacy". Do away with HIPPA.

>I would consider myself very far right

>except for the fact I don't really care about gun restrictions either way
lol, no you're not 'very far right'

FPBP

>Im right, i promise goy
>I just dont care about our rights, or self defense
>t. kike shill

I just don't get why both sides are so extreme with their rhetoric. It's either confiscate all guns or give everyone tactical nukes. Is it really that difficult to have a system that prevents crazies and retards from getting guns while still allowing the rest of the population to own firearms? Even your children will be taken away if you are deemed mentally unfit. I don't get why keeping guns from crazies is so difficult to accomplish

you should get gassed

We used to lock anti-social and crazy people up in state hospitals. But these places were extremely unpleasant and they were done away with. Also, we don't just take people's kids away for having any sort of diagnosis. There's a formalized system where they get due process of some sort. And lastly, there is a mental health aspect to federal background checks on gun purchases, but it's not legal for a doctor to share your medical info, so the best we've got is records on people who have been court ordered institutionalized.

HIPPA
I
P
P
A