I'm curious, after 20 children get shot dead, and now 5 police officers...

I'm curious, after 20 children get shot dead, and now 5 police officers, what WOULD actually need to happen for America to control guns, or is the right to bear arms so deeply intrenched that nothing, no matter how bad ever be bad enough?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment
masshist.org/online/54thregiment/essay.php?entry_id=528
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The right to have guns is literally enshrined in our constitution. Doesn't get more entrenched than that.

25 people die every second, banning guns wont change this.

It's a core principle value will likely have a civil war before that changes

But it's not the guns that are the problem it's the people.
America's cities with the highest gun crime rates are those cities with the strictest gun controls.
Countries with stricter gun laws then the USA tend to use bombs for mass killings.

I'd like to know why everyone is more concerned about the tool getting used to murder people rather than the people committing those murders.
And if any Anons have a decent response to my last statement I'm actually interested in other opinions.

It's not really a gun problem, it's a nigger problem. I'd happily give up my guns if the U.S. was entirely white. People don't push for the second amendment because they think we can fend off the government, it's because we need defense against these apes. Blacks will be criminals regardless, and we want to protect ourselves. Liberal retards like yourself willfully refuse to acknowledge that niggers are subhuman, so everyone has to pussyfoot around the issue and claim ulterior motives to get shit fine. If liberals really gave a fuck, they'd stop crying about muh feels, put on their big boy pants, and open their God Damon eyes before sitting at the discussion table.

I'm just not sure how easily you'd be able to kill 5 police officers if you only had a knife

Rather think about solutions for what needs to happen so that people don't WANT to go shooting other people. The legalization of guns has nothing to do with it.

Fuck the constitution

(The NRA's true genius is not their apparent lockdown on gun rights policy and discussion, but their very forward-thinking investments in cornering the world's supply of Kool-Aid in the 1970s...)

This isn't true, as a liberal, if we had no niggers I bet uneducated faggots like you would run around killing others.

Maybe if you kill yourself on livestream, it would convince America to ban guns.

I'm a britfag and by no means a liberal and also the op, we have a nigger problem here aswell, but the difference is our niggers don't have guns, (yes I'm sure SOME of them do, but the majority don't, the same can't be said about ameriniggers) and we just tend to leave them in Brixton, and us decent white folk just simply don't go there, its basically a third reich ghetto but the walls are social barriers to work and education that they can't escape from, so they just stay in there and kill each other with knifes, which is a-ok with me.

That's entirely dependent upon your level of motivation and your skill with a knife.

And that's really not my point, I never said guns don't make killing people easier, because of course they do.

But even without guns people seem really motivated to kill each other
And no one wants to talk about that
We just want to say "guns are scary! Make 'em go away so I'll be safe!"
Well that's a complete load of shit, you're not safe with or without guns

Putting a ban on guns is the most fucking logically sound thing for America to do. Unfortunately America is full of fuck wits.

...

But I'm more safe without them. Guy with a knife is only as deadly as his arm is long. Tell that to a guy with a 9mm.

everyone is thinking it, im just saying it....... niggers

Just look at 90% of the trump voters for evidence.

Maybe you should just kill yourself now so you don't have to live in fear anymore.

I completely disagree with you
I totally support the second amendment because I'm confident our government/political leaders will eventually want most of us enslaved in some capacity
I'm also equally confident when that time comes most Americans will support giving up our liberties in exchange for the appearance of safety
So in the end keeping guns will probably be a little moot, but i like shooting shit, so?

If you want to remove guns from America, you have to literally pry them from the dead fingers of the people who own them. That's the entire point here.

The concept of a national police force was never imagined when the 2nd constitution was drafted. Well, it was, but they would have considered it a standing army.

THIS IS SPARTA!!!!

Not a gun fag or antigun fag here, just interested in discussion. Why is it always assumed here that strict gun laws create gun violence? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the laws were a response to violence rather than the cause? I mean do you think people would pass these laws when no one around them are getting shot or do you think they acted on this after violence was already taking place?

Only 1 post in this thread isnt a kike shill. Do you parasites sit in one room or is it a big building?

his arm long, his legs fast

I can run pretty quick
I fight, so I can close distance pretty quickly
If I had a knife and the desire I could probably kill you.
Might be a little more sweaty at the end than if I'd had a gun
but you'll be just as dead
As you're being stabbed will you think "damn, at least it wasn't a 9mm."
Oh, and by the way, getting shot puts you in shock, getting stabbed is supposed to be way more painful.

You are already a slave.

...

We're watching you. There's an opening in your tinfoil hat.

I don't believe stricter gun laws create more violence.
Not sure if that's a generally head belief or not and not sure where you're getting that question from.
I don't think gun control creates violence, but I also acknowledge there is evidence that strict gun control laws doesn't remove violence either.

probably
But then so are you.

>Calls everyone a Jew
See, folks? THIS is a knee-jerk reaction. America is so full of them right now. Most jerks knees go so high now, the rest of the world thinks we're all goose-stepping. (Sadly, they're not far off.)

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, yet you can still buy fertiliser

My hat is water proof rabbi

Imagine a world where you are not allowed to freely post your thoughts about the constitution online because you would end up jail immediately and you could never hope for change because you and your neighbors are all fully cucked. And the government tells you this is the right way to behave. Good little boy. Now kill yourself.

Not murican, but nice try at D&C shilling. Next trick, goldberg

Answer me this, lets say you got what you want, guns in america are banned. Its final, now what do you expect most gun owners to do? You really think ppl would turn it in? I wont ever give my guns up. Let alone the black market gun coming in from mexico, you would still have criminals with guns. Thats if it dosent turn to a cival war. States vs states

Agreed. Nigz already have shit ton of guns. Actually its easier and 40% cheaper to get black market pistols in south central LA than legit firearms.

civil war sounds good. you fags waste each other whilst the rest of us get on with not shooting each other.

It's pretty obvious m8 it's a helluva lot better sound bite to hear politicians blaming a singular organization like the nra than it is to address the already-taboo topic of how shitty our mental health care is even today

Moron response

>not from America
>from fagland
>presumes to know shit about shit
Fuck off m8

Americans lol
youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0

'
...Really wish I had a good comeback for your statement, but the NRA has all the Kool-Aid, and I can't find my tinfoil hat...

I know its hard for your morbidly obese fingers to type a paragraph without sweating but please try to construct a decent counter argument, you're making the rest of us normal americans look like idiots.

Is that really it though?
So if we had better social service programs, free health care, ect we'd stop wanting to kill each other?

this made me actually laugh out loud

You dumb fuck
If a gun is obtained illegally, no ban can stop a murderer from getting one. If a murderer bring a knife he kills one, so... One is acceptable?
Your logic is as solid as jello nailed to a wall

In the GTA demo I used to play some 15 years ago you always got more points for killing cops. Too bad they didn't manage to lure them on the subway tracks, though.

Maybe wouldn't stop us WANTING to, but we might actually have the support and coping mechanisms to not actualize the violence.

No murder is acceptable but if you try and cast your mind back to maths class you might be able to remember that 1 is in fact smaller then 5

Well, that's only partly true. I'm sure most determined killers would be able to get guns no matter what the law, just witness Paris, but an autist recluse like Lanza? Here in Europe, he'd have basically no way of ever getting his hands on a gun.

You're so cute! If the government actually wanted to that, it could, no matter how many guns you have. And you know why? It's organized, you're not. Guns don't mean shit.

Fair enough.

Personally believe health care should be free, and not just "government subsidized" but legit free
Like we pay into a fund that pays the salaries, supplies, rent, ect for doctors, nurses, hospitals, ect
However as an Amerifag in the military I can attest to the fairly disappointing service you receive from government run heathcare
Any Britfags feel like commenting on the state of their healthcare system?

Australia has free healthcare and not a single mass shooting since the gun reforms

Tell that to the American colonists and British empire.
Yes, I realize they have guns that shoot more bullets now

Actually, fuck that. Tell that to the North Vietnamese.
They pretty effectively (with mostly modern weapons) told the American government they can get fucked.
And we went left.

Works that way in Denmark and Holland and various other places, and Oh Look! Practically no gun violence. Can't be connected in any way, right?

Wrong. We have atleast 1 shooting per week here in sydney. "Mass shooting" is 4 or more. There has been several since port arthar. Piss off cunt

Well, yeah, they were organized. They were not isolated individuals talking about their rights. They didn't care about whether guns were legal or not. Because that's never a problem, you know.

The left-wing terrorists in Germany, which has very strong gun regulations, just kidnapped some GI, used him to get into an army depot and soon enough they had bazookas and whatever they wanted. But it wasn't about guns, it was about being organized.

Please elaborate:
What works that way?
Those countries heathcare systems?
There gun control laws?
I'm not sure what you're referencing.

The Constitution can be edited. The part about guns was added later. It can be deleted now.

If criminals are planning to kill people, they either: A) aren't going to let a few laws stop them and are going to obtain the guns illegally like most do now, or B) find new and creative ways if killing people. Like shove an AIDs infested needle into a guys urethra. Long term suffering. Short term work.

Just waiting for one of these to get stolen by blacks in Dallas that know how to operate it.

Not other user but it's not a cause or effect. In fact, it's the lack of effect. Keep in mind that the USA is just north of the Mexican drug cartels and through Mexico, we also have access to the other major drug countries in South America. So banning guns wouldn't prevent smugglers from getting them to us. And the cities and states with strict gun control are proof that banning them won't stop it. Can't stop guns, so need to stop people. Fixing the real issue is more important.

Brits were on the other side of an ocean from Yanks, and didn't have bombers or drones.
We were on the other side of an ocean from Vietnam, and had a "Yeah, fuckit, this isn't worth it" attitude. So... Yeah. Oceans.
Worth note; last time folks rebelled with their trouser snakes in hand round these parts, WITHOUT an ocean between, they got trounced by the Bluebellies... and they STILL whine about it 140 years later.

But when it comes down to it we're not "isolated individuals"
We're members of towns, cities, ect
Mostly surrounded my similarly minded people, and by that I mean most people will choose to fight for their lives rather than be enslaved/murdered
and my believe in peoples desire not to be enslave might be a little misguided, but they'll mostly definitely not want to be killed.. I think
Point being I think those "isolated individuals" will rapidly become organized given the correct motivation.

Ok, tell me how an antisocial retard with no skills in anything whatsoever will kill 20 people without a gun. I'm listening.

added later?
what history books are you reading?
the second amendment is a part of the bill of rights
and that was included from the get go.

What makes me sad is that everyone immediately cries 'this is a racial issue'. I'm sorry, but if you're pulled over, and reaching into your back pocket for your wallet while telling the cop 'I have a gun'.... it doesn't matter what color your skin is. Add to it this pattern of blacks and others thinking they don't have to follow orders from law enforcement, this is just going to be a scene played over and over.

Primarily health care, but also stricter gun controls. However, if cause (instability and privation) are removed, gun controls are less important. (For example, take Canada...)

>california made of guns

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

as long as niggers and gangsters have guns, you HAVE TO HAVE GUNS.

Fair enough. I do think you're a little optimistic here but that doesn't matter. But this just proved my point that it's not about guns. They don't mean anything without the organization.
For the time being, what I see is people who claim to fear the government yet somehow expecting it to play nice. Why should a tyrannical government not just bomb, hell, nuke some insurgent town?

Apologies, I'm loosing you with your vernacular
Bluebellies?

(Bill of Rights was added after the Constitution was ratified, and was quite contentious at the time, so that poster is correct. And since the Bill (and the Constitution itself) has/have indeed been edited over the years, their argument seems valid.)

If you avnt black culture,
World hate you more America

Are you talking about the Irish? They did get their own state, so, some success there. But of course the government played nice. Western governments mostly do but those afraid of imminent tyranny never do seem to get that.

Spiderman has no guns. Spigerman NEEDS NO GUNS.

yanks northern forces - they wore blue uniforms, the south was in grey.

Actually I assume he was talking about the civil war. North soldiers wore blue, and thus were called bluebellies.

Ah, ok, very good point indeed. And, of course, the North was holding back and didn't hurt the civilian population as much as it could, and maybe should, have.

A few deaths is not reason to overturn the second amendment.
Freedom and the responsibility of maintaining it come with inherent risks.

Well, when it comes to that, the person pushing the button that launches that bomb or nuke at that town is a member of the military.
The United States military is primarily conservative and mostly have a strong belief in the almost sacredness of American society.
how many of them will really want to murder their fellow citizens?

And that statement is totally contrary to my reason for supporting the second amendment, I realize this
And I agree I'm probably overly optimistic, but I also don't think we should make it easier for anyone to throw us in camps or whatever it may be they feel like doing with us

This wouldn't have happened if the police didn't shoot that guy.

We need to ban police from having guns.

Actually talking about the USA, in this case. You know, specifically the SAWTH. -They used all these exact same arguments that time, too. (-'cept back then, only whites had guns.)

>it's not the guns that are the problem it's the people.
idk, why is owning a bomb illegal then?
why don't we give everyone the launch codes for nuclear weapons?

the NHS in the UK is excellent - rates as one of the best in the world on all metrics, and at a lower cost than most. Unofrtunately we have a COnservative Government (like the republicans) a rich people party intent on privatising everything and selling it to their rich mates so they can make a profit and take money away from health services. so they are running it down and defunding it, to force it to look bad and inefficient - current health minister is telling lies about doctors and forcing a new contract on them - to drive doctors to quit, so they can say "look it is broken we have to bring in private health care to fix it"

Gun Control is a joke. Theres too many arms already out in the general public by limiting guns you'd literally do nothing. This just in bad guys don't buy guns legally so therefore gun control doesn't in any way stop them.

OP thinks the US has a gun problem.

Yes, it is totally contrary to your reasons for supporting the second amendment, glad you realized that.
And, you know, I don't care if you have guns or not, you seem like a smart guy, so go on and play with it. It might even help you not getting thrown in a camp. But only because they shoot you first, no matter what you have stacked up in your house.

I was a soldier (infantry), if my co told me to open fire on civilians I would have refused, but if he told me that Posse Comitatus was suspended and that he wanted me to shoot domestic terrorists I would have done so with a high level of motivation. It isn't nearly as difficult as you think it is to convince people that the wrong thing is actually the right thing

Don't want to be thrown in a camp? Don't elect fascist titbrains who say they have instant solutions to all the world's problems. Democracy: Some attention required.

Not sure I'm getting you. The north was really nice to the south. They could have just killed every civilian they saw but, you know, they didn't. They were civil. Guess that's another way to look at that war's name.

owning a bomb isn't illegal. you just need to apply for a stamp and get cleo approval in order to legally posses one.
the reason explosives aren't generally considered valid or advisable self defense tools on an individual basis is the lack of discrimination inherent in such a device.

Yeah, another thing those cute little second amendment idealists don't realize. They're kind of like hippies, really.

"You're a tyrant, I'll shoot you with my gun! ... Hey, using that tank against me, dude, that's so not cool!"

You need to rethink your arguments.
You could give me the launch codes to nuclear weapons and I'd do nothing with them.
I have the knowledge to construct a nuclear weapon (theoretical of course I've never actually attempted this)
It's the desire to inflict harm upon others that's the issue, not the ability to do so.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment
masshist.org/online/54thregiment/essay.php?entry_id=528

Bro, there were lots of black soldiers in the Civil War. Lots of them fought for the SAWTH too.

gun control is about making it harder for people to shoot each other, which will result in less people being shot.

u dont need a gun, the strong desire to make weapons easily accessible is just mind boggling to any non-american. grow up america we need u

Until a new amendment overrides that gay fag shit from the musket era.