Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?

Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/megadrop/bGw3uOwul6M
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes.

Yes.

But it doesn't matter if i need it or not.

SHALL

Yes

>need
It's a right not a need, what other rights are you going to try to take away?

I would assault her rifle with a high capacity if you need what I seriously.

No.

Your children will be slaves with no recourse. Ours will be able to break themselves free.

Do you seriously need to bolster a point with a rando-thot?

Yes, of course

Yes

Yeah I need a gun in general to make me feel better about my small dick, cause I know a girl as cute as in your pick would just point and laugh.

It's not like America is a hostile shithole where you can get shot stabbed or mugged any moment by the people we're all forced to be around with less than nothing to lose... Oh wait.

>Bill of Needs
>all fields

Do cops and soldiers need them? Yes. Why do they need them and I don't? I'm in good mental health and can operate the weapon at an acceptable level of proficiency and safety. I respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't want trouble nor do I go looking for it. Why should I not be able to defend myself against all bad people?

Not always. Sometimes I would rather just pull your tongue out of your face and wrap it around your neck and save my ammo.

>Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?

I can because it shall not...

Want or need doesn't factor in.

But my government would never...

>Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?

Haven't we had enough of these threads? S A G E

Yes

Yes.

>17 replies
>18 posters
saged shill thread

Whats an assault rifle?
Im only aware of sportsman rifles

>Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?

If Assault Rifles weren't as widespread in the USA as they are and were y'all would lose WW2 and would be invaded a few times after that.

not yet

when I do need one, I'm going to be pissed I don't have one

This is what we would be up against.

Yes, I believe the right to own a fucking 30 round magazine is the very minimum I should be given.

Ultimately, does anyone need anything?

We're all just clumps of cells.

Legally, I have the right to military grade small arms just as you have the right to trap anime.

I want three M240Bs with full equipment loads, two 81mm mortars, and a pallet of ammo for the neighborhood watch.

It is time to realize that America must have more regulations on what type of weapons can be purchased. Regulations on who can purchase a firearm. Regulations on how certain weapons must be stored, separate from it's ammunition.

I AM NOT SAYING BAN AND TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!

A pistol is fine for self defense out in the world, conceal carry. Not open carry, because honestly you'll be the first one shot and your gun taken from you. A shotgun is the perfect firearm for home defense, a 00 buck hits the same as nine 9mm's hitting at the same time. Hunters need thier shotguns and rifles, and people that shoot for sport should have thier .22lr plinkers to have fun with.

What NO ONE needs is a rifle that holds excess of 5 rounds, and here's why:

If you can't kill a deer within 5 shots, you need to stay home because the deer is gone after the first shot.

A rifle that can shoot accurate at 300-500 yards is not for "self defense". Your life is not in danger and shooting someone at that distance is 100% murder.

No nation will ever attempt a land invasion of the United States, it's a fantasy that Russia or China will invade us. Red Dawn is a movie.

Lastly, some may feel that we need these type of weapons to intimidate our own government and are convinced that they may attack us or we may need to overthrow the government. I am sorry, but armed with an AR-15 type rifle with infinite 15 or 30 round magazines, you do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of standing toe to toe with the United States military armed with Predator drones, AC-130 gunships, A-10 Warthogs, M1 Abrams tanks, 105mm Howitzers, Stinger missiles, and more. It is pure fantasy to think of such things.

...

How bout "no"

The idea of the us government droning me to death really makes me want to disarm...

>The first assault rifle was not made until 1944 in Germany.
Nigger faggot. Kill your uneducated self.

> I am sorry, but armed with an AR-15 type rifle with infinite 15 or 30 round magazines, you do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of standing toe to toe with the United States military armed with Predator drones, AC-130 gunships, A-10 Warthogs, M1 Abrams tanks, 105mm Howitzers, Stinger missiles, and more. It is pure fantasy to think of such things.
How about armed with an AR-15 type rifle and as many Russian heavy weapons as the "advisors" they will immediately send to the rebels can sneak into the country.

...

You haven't watched Red Dawn.

10 years ago it was extremist Muslim camps across the country that were going to arm up and attack that people were saying this about though.

...

>why doesn't the U.S. government just bomb the insurgents to win the guerrilla war?

It's not a need you faggot. It's a right for the citizens of a free nation to reach a consensus to take their military grade weapons, March to town hall. And forcibly remove the local governor from his position if he tries to seize their rightfully purchased land. And not I said military grade, that's because the second amendment was crafted to give civilians access to military grade weapons as was the intent of it's writers, clearly documented in their writings.

Don’t categorically “need” high capacity assault rifles, but I *want* them, so it’s moot. Don’t need s fucken Lambo either, but fuck it, I’m rich.

>Lastly, some may feel that we need these type of weapons to intimidate our own government and are convinced that they may attack us or we may need to overthrow the government. I am sorry, but armed with an AR-15 type rifle with infinite 15 or 30 round magazines, you do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of standing toe to toe with the United States military armed with Predator drones, AC-130 gunships, A-10 Warthogs, M1 Abrams tanks, 105mm Howitzers, Stinger missiles, and more. It is pure fantasy to think of such things.
is there an argument that's more retarded and/or disingenous than the 'an american civil war would be civilians vs bombers and tanks on an open field'?

It's a realistic outcome for any major uprising or rebellion. They might not care who wins in the end, but the Russians and Chinese definitely want the US locked down, and that means sending a bunch of deniable help. Combine that help with people already being armed and it's a lose-lose situation for the US government.

>what other rights are you going to try to take away?

All of them if we give up our guns... that's sort of the point.

You just don't get it...

You'll die cowering on the edge of a muddy ditch if you get what you want. I'll bet you don't even believe that's possible... None of them did.

You think they didn't debate the same arguments before disarmament? Things don't "just happen", it's just a logical series of events... The consequences of an event aren't only immediate. If you were capable of critical thought you could see where the dangers lie ahead of you.

...

The existence of a 'left-wing' in America proves that we definitively do. Until it is destroyed and its ideologies banned forever, we need to get more weapons into the hands of the public.

*i want, i gets

How else am I going to exterminate the liberals when the civil war comes?

That is exactly what you are saying, you dirty shekel-grubbing Jew shill fucktard. Kill yourself.

NOT

>Do you seriously need gay marriage ?
>Do you seriously need the right to vote ?
>Do you seriously need illegal immigrants ?
>Do you seriously need universal suffrage ?

>Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?
Criminals love the fact that these weapons are legal. Our weapons industry is arming the mexican cartels. soon the cartels will move their armies into the united states and really cause some havok.
And no, you won't be defending yourself from these criminals with your own guns. criminals don't fight fair. They will strike when you don't have your weapon on you.

And machine guns, tanks, missles.

>Do you seriously need high capacity assault rifles?
Do you need a high capacity brain... oh wait

>being a godless commie
Hell is for ever!

BE

Because the Democrats are bad people. The ones most eager to seize guns are invariably those most in need of being shot. The main targets self identify for us. Time to water the tree of liberty.

I N F R I N G E D

Hand to hand combat kills more people than rifles every year. Every year. Do you really need gyms? Ban assault weights.

To kill those who try to take them away.

Why would we fight them? The idea is to kill the leftists. ALL Dems are targets. IT would be foolish to fight the military or the police. You strike your enemy's weak points, not his strengths. The enemy's weak point is its base. Niggers, spics, soyboys, and feminists. If we eliminate them, the problems all go away.

Reminder that, due to pluralism, the legal system is going to change (or change back to, if you want to look at it that way) to codified law.

The Constitution (document) says that nothing that can be considered an effective weapon could be reduced by the federal government. But that's not how it was interpreted so:

does anybody need a high end Mercedes? do you NEED an iphone?

this argument is weak

I don't need, I have a right, you leftist pig

wut am i suppose to use if the gov attacks it citizens? like it almost did with the business plot

kys memeflagging nigger

The point is not that you can win pitched battles against a professional army with all its ordnance as a rag-tag citizens militia with small arms. The point is that you CAN FIGHT. You can bleed them. When they come patrolling through your neighborhood, you might be able to take a couple of the fuckers with you. Hell, you may even be able to run away and do it again - theoretically you wouldn't be alone and they couldn't engage in endless "manhunts" for everyone who resisted them. And they'd never feel safe; there could be a shooter behind any window.

Of course they could call in the artillery and air support and level your neighborhood; sure. What would this get them? Well, it would piss a lot of people off when innocents died and play into the hands of rebels. It would make a lot of the soldiers in that professional army seriously consider whether they were doing the right thing or not. And finally, it would simply kill people, and no one wants to rule a nation of corpses.

The aim of a tyrant is to control, not to kill. What they want is to be able to have militarized police/gestapo units point guns at people and cow them into submission to whatever dictates they may want to impose. If those people are instead waiting behind their doors and ready to shoot first when the jackbooted thugs come around, they've already failed.

So the point is to fight. If you resist, you're not being controlled, and you're also undermining attempts to control others who can't or won't fight; you might die, of course. That's why Patrick Henry said what he famously said, more or less.

As long as people can resist, they can be free, and tyrants can never succeed. But when you're talking about using swords and knives and clubs against modern military weapons it ACTUALLY becomes pointless, because you can't bleed them at all - they'll just shoot you with beanbags and rubber bullets and water cannons and microwave guns etc.

That is why having guns is so important.

>caring what women who have the minds of children think of you

Absolutely disgusting. That's how I know you're a turbo leftist. Nu males assign value to women's opinions when there is none.

Unironically I should be able to own these. Shall not be infringed leftist turbo cucks.

>A pistol is fine for self defense out in the world, conceal carry.
Most mass shootings are performed with pistols, you just made a loophole for the biggest cause of death. What was the point of these regulations again?

>A shotgun is the perfect firearm for home defense, a 00 buck hits the same as nine 9mm's hitting at the same time.
It's decent, but long barrels are not always optimal in enclosed spaces. And currently sawed-offs tend to be very illegal.

>A rifle that can shoot accurate at 300-500 yards is not for "self defense". Your life is not in danger and shooting someone at that distance is 100% murder.
Assuming it's my life I'm protecting...
It's not so much to actually shoot targets at that range as it is to engage a one sided threat to de-escalate the situation before your life is in danger. At this range you have the ability to take your time, fire a few warning shots, and even pick a non-lethal spot... the assailant would be an idiot to try it. The alternarive is to rely on something shorter range, wait until you have a matter of seconds. Try to pull off the shot under duress & adrenaline and be forced to go for the kill shot. Easier for the assailant to feel lucky and try it.

> I am sorry, but armed with an AR-15 type rifle with infinite 15 or 30 round magazines, you do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of standing toe to toe with the United States military
Muslim sheep farmers in the middle east do this every day.
And again, it's not about actually execcuting such a plan. It's to make that option as unpalatable as possible from the government's perspective. Sure... they'd be able to win eventually from a strictly tactical perspective. But there's the economic side, the logistical side, and the political component (Vietnam proved you can win tactically and still lose the war). They'd have to go full atrocity mode to pull it off in a timely manner and that'd provoke other countries to intervene.

You Have no power here

I dont have to fight the government retard. I just have to drag people like you out of your house and execute them until the base that supports gun bans is gone so there's no longer a threat to the second amendment.

Shills everywhere is Saturday morning go eat brunch with your degenerate friends.

Muh virtue

I actually do not care what anyone thinks of me and have no desire to procreate because of how disgusting and opressive society is.

All I'm saying is I have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness and to defend myself from all threats forgein and domestic even if they come in the form of gun grabbers.

Implying having a gun makes a woman think better of you. Fucking idiot we do it because we want to, women like you are afraid of guns more often than not. Hard to compensate masculinity for something you keep in a safe or concealed in public, theres no social game to it at all except among other male peers.

Agreed.

...

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because if the government has a weapon then the people will need something just as powerful if the government becomes tyrannical.

The military would be the ones confiscating guns, correct?

And the military is mostly right leaning, correct?

If both statement are correct there is absolutely no risk of gun grabbing, not because there is a risk of violence on part of the population, but because the forces meant to grab guns wouldn't do it.

So, why do you purposely vote to increase the defense spending of a military that will use the money you just gave it, to grab your guns?

Yes, good goyim, don't have white children, let your race die, succumb to nihilism

yes i do. because im slow at reloading, and children are fast.

>Every member of the military will disobey direct orders because in aggregate they tend to vote republican.

My enemy has them, yes.

I made a mega folder of gun-control-related stuff.

mega.nz/megadrop/bGw3uOwul6M

You don't need an account, and it'll download automatically.