Why is Sup Forums against gun control?

Why is Sup Forums against gun control?

Don't want guns banned? Fine, but let's at the very least put regulations on them. I don't see what would be wrong with that?

Attached: ar-15-like.jpg (1886x597, 139K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/6SxjBWJPf78?t=3
youtu.be/RFVG4TWv4W0
youtu.be/ylnVxrc8kzY
youtu.be/6ymLTb1ybXI
youtu.be/I_V0eXPB-aY
youtu.be/99id6ODkRhY
youtu.be/GukPxsVIrb4
youtu.be/H1q1jnZLqrc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

There’s already regulations out the ass on guns.

There's already a ton of regulations on them. Whatever retarded gun control being proposed now would do fuck all to stop mass shootings and only serves alienate the average gun owner.

SHALL

Attached: IMG_4381.jpg (1966x2621, 3.28M)

The regulations are already in place.

Op is a fag

no regulations.
shall not be infringed.
i want my grenade launchers and tanks!

Why should they be regulated? There was no such thing as (((inner city crime))) before the welfare state.

Die in a fire faggot
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

how about we take off all the regulations that have clearly never worked in the history of gun regulation legislation?

Fuck you asshole

We in the states already have gun control, it’s called the 2nd Amendment and Sup Forums supports the Bill of Rights and thus supports gun control.

Now go fuck off.

Attached: B197AF7B-064F-48D5-AFAF-6E0B44D7C995.jpg (500x500, 99K)

why does anyone need such a big dining table. surely you never have more than 2-3 gathered to eat dinner. its time for common sense resource redistribution to others who dont have a place to sit

Idk about Sup Forums, but I think they should do a better job in regulating guns. I know anons are going to bash me for this, "yes goyim more gun control" but we need to do something. Don't get me wrong why should people hand over their protection over a couple of happenings? Only thing that pisses me off is how (((they))) are using kids to push their agenda.

Idk mostly because if the government would do their fucking job,and people would be responsible gun owners and lock up their guns. Not to mention not give their mentally Disturbed children access, most of these shootings wouldn't of taken place.

Attached: 1385429287266.png (1600x708, 746K)

BE CLASSED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS AND BANNED

It only affects people who don't commit crimes.

Gun control is nothing but feel good nonsense for literal retards.

Only crims will have them. You'll get life in American rape camp for it.
You'll have to get a licence.

No. We have regulations, and many of them are idiotic and based in ignorance, like our stupid as fuck federal sound suppressor regulations. I refuse to even come to the table for compromise with a group of people so profoundly ignorant and anti-reason. If you want my guns then come and take them. That is your one and only option.

Attached: 1521940201374.jpg (640x640, 324K)

then what?

Attached: IMG_4582.jpg (1867x2800, 551K)

There already are regulations dipshit, want me to list all of them? I'll start
>national firearms act of 1938
>omnibus crime control and protection act
>brady handgun violence prevention act
>regulations of interstate commerce and firearms trade (forgot what it's called)

someone finish it for me, I NEED A SPOT

Cognitive dissonance: the post

>Clips

I'm triggered

Attached: Manlets+are+more+rabid+than+i+thought+_487e4527b028e09322f1d4f353401b2d.jpg (313x254, 21K)

Guns already are regulated. You can't buy one without going through a background check.

>very least put regulations on them

srsly faggot? have you ever picked up a gun before?

>Why is Sup Forums against gun control?

Q predicted OP would be a faggot.

The truth is no amount of regulations helps so long as straw buying is so easy. I live in Chicago and it's scary how easy it is to get a gun illegally. The cops dont believe they can stop it so they dont even attempt to.

>I don't see what's wrong with that

“...a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

Attached: chesterton.jpg (993x560, 133K)

>but let's at the very least put regulations on them.
Nah nigga fuck off

Attached: 1511313488482.png (259x195, 8K)

youtu.be/6SxjBWJPf78?t=3

why do you want to piss and shit on the Constitution and Bill of rights, pervert?

> regulations

do you know what "shall not be infringed" means? it means guns are used for security, so no laws interfering with security, that means the 1934 National Firearms Act is 100% anti-Constitutional anti-American bullshit written by a fucking communist and passed during a communist administration, FDR

the regulations in place currently by the federal government are the rules of an armed gang that knows jack shit about America and wrecks the reputation of Americans in foreign societies

what a bunch of fucking retards

>shallnotbeinfringed.png

>HK clips
>Loaded backwards

I like your style.

Attached: draper reaction.jpg (413x395, 17K)

You're wrong, bruh.
youtu.be/RFVG4TWv4W0
youtu.be/ylnVxrc8kzY
youtu.be/6ymLTb1ybXI
youtu.be/I_V0eXPB-aY
youtu.be/99id6ODkRhY
youtu.be/GukPxsVIrb4
youtu.be/H1q1jnZLqrc

Attached: 1.3.png (2533x1231, 244K)