It is clear that the framers of the US constitution counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental...

It is clear that the framers of the US constitution counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

Thank God President Trump is dedicated to protecting this right.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=movNi4JS3tM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Mfw trump takes your guns after 8 years of sandnigger democrat president

The EU has no weapons.
No problem
Americans have weapons and wonder why the crime rate is so high

Freedom
Pic related

False
Britain is the most violent European country

God bless Smith and Wesson
God bless President Trump

>EU bans all guns
>Makes fun of Americans for having them
>Has shootings where hundreds are killed by "banned weapons"
>"LOL Americans don't have gun laws to protect them"

Teach your children to shoot.
It's the responsibility of all parents

Now if we could just get rid of the BATFE

Left and right as non existent when the declaration was written. The party system is a relativly recent development.

>inb4 "School-shooting coming right up!"
Teaching as in "Alright you little rascal who thinks life is some dip-shit Call of Duty: Modern Warfare tier shit, listen closely now, or'll show what fighting for your life means. We teach you to shoot so you can protect yourself and your close one's from those negroes. If you're thinking of pointing the gun on something or something just because you feel offended (verbally) I'll break all your sweaty fat fingers myself! You got that? Now give me 20 (you can't handle the recoil if you're a pansy sissy faggot)"

The crime rate has more to do with socioeconomic inequality than the availability of firearms. The toxic gang culture in poor, inner city neighborhoods causes a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and crime. Guns are the tools used in violence, not the cause of it. Motivation to commit that violence stems from poverty, gang culture, and racial tension.

Strangely enough the racial tension is WITHIN the blacks. I wonder why?

Anyways, this guy gets it.

Generally, they see whites that either live in wealthy parts of the city, or nice suburbs, and that hold positions of power. Rarely do they see poor whites or other blacks/hispanics in those positions of privilege and power, mostly because of that p. much being the reality, but also confirmation bias.

They blame the system for their shitty situations. Their relationships with authority are antagonistic (fuck the Police, racist cops killing innocent black youths, Trump and his supporters hate mexicans and blacks, etc), and they see mostly white people either holding positions of power in those institutions (and therefore being the oppressors), or living comfortably within them, in far better situations (the 'haves' to the 'have nots').

Whites these days mostly don't give a shit because they live well away from these communities. They have bread and circuses, poor inner city blacks really don't.

Honestly, dude, if I was a young, poor black or hispanic in the inner city, I'd probably hate the fuck out of white people, too. I'm not justifying them, just kind of putting myself in their position, if that makes any sense.

The white school shooter stereotype is as true as it gets and stems from the ridiculous sense of entitlement and self importance the American Dream instils in them, right before they reach high school and all the other shitty, entitled, self important kids kick the tar out of them. It's a recipe for disaster, and school massacres are now a set-piece of the education system.

I really hope you're drunk. That typing was atrocious.

Mass shootings account for dick-all of America's gun homicides. Whenever you have a discussion about American Gun Culture, if someone brings up Mass Shootings or refers to them as even remotely relevant to the issue, ignore them.

Anyway, I think you may be on to something with a sense of entitlement being part of their motivation, but generally I think most mass shooters are marginalized individuals with a whole lotta hate. It doesn't help that whenever one of these things happens the media makes a circus of it, giving the shooter posthumous notoriety. If the media stopped giving so much attention to these things, they'd happen less often, I think.

Sadly, I think you're right.
The problem is perpetuated geographically. Blacks are less likely to work, less likely to have a good job because they're way more likely to have been in prison, and when they form a black neighbourhood prices and standards fall and white people dont buy there.
While blacks are so heavily over represented in the prison system this won't change; if it stopped overnight it would take generations to resolve,
This in turn means that no one president will waste his time committing to it, he'll be out in 8 years max and the next guy will probably blow it all up anyway. Why bother?

Yeah. It's a huge fucking problem that nobody really does much to acknowledge. Even if they did, how do we go about fixing it? It has nothing to do with racial genetics or any kind of bullshit like that; it has everything to do with the environment these people are growing up in, and the culture they're ingrained with.

You're right that there's no way to fix it without a constant, concerted effort that just can't happen under one president.

Sure, they're a blip on the screen overall but utterly outrageous and particularly disturbing as a single event. They're also peculiar to America. It's not just the causes as I've hypothesised, but the fact that America is perhaps the only first world country where children -and they are children, let's face it - can get hold of enough weapons and ammunition to actually carry out a massacre.

I have only one idea as to how to fix it, and that entails having a truly long term strategic social effort towards ending this bullshit. China may be a dictatorship but they do at least have the capacity to create and carry out a 100 year plan for their own collective advancement.

>but utterly outrageous and particularly disturbing as a single event

You hit the nail on the head, there.

>Peculiar to America

School shootings specifically, yeah, but mass attacks or mass shootings aren't.

>America is... the only country where children can get hold of enough weapons and ammunition

You may have a point there, but it's not like America is the only country with a gun culture. The V-Tech guy did his massacre with just two handguns; you don't need much (in terms of weapons and ammunition) to pull off this kind of massacre, just a target-rich environment and a way into that. Popularity of firearms in America may be a contributing factor, but I remain convinced that it's our media that mostly motivates them (or, at least, propogates the idea of this kind of attack towards those hateful enough to carry them out)

Relevant song: youtube.com/watch?v=movNi4JS3tM

>It is clear---
NOTHING IS CLEAR

> Right To Bear arms.. Bear.

Girls with guns

...

What a fucking idiot

This /debate

...

We've had our share of mass shootings in the U.K. too, three since 1987 if I've counted right. The US gun control issue is another thing altogether, perhaps not allowing children access to them would be a good idea? Just a thought, it might work if they couldn't be bought on the sly almost anywhere.
The media really don't help, school shootings may be big news but they give the shooter exactly the attention and infamy they want. That's a terrible idea. I'm still of the mind that it's down to frustrated expectations and impotent childish rage.
Given that the environment exists that allows a tantrum to become a massacre, I'm thinking that America needs to look hard at how it raises its children. Not just the ones who become shooters, but the ones who isolate them, mock them and allow that resentment to fester.

...

...

She's certainly not going to get a job looking like that.

>airgun
>that eye relief tho
Oh my

You actually brought an intelligent argument... to Sup Forums?!?!?

Get the fuck you you fucking autist

Goddamn retard

ess Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 29 years from 1977 to 2005

Name one thing Obama did that threatened the 2nd amendment.

Head chef at Wendy's
$9.25/hour

Obviously it's because of the evil white man.

obama wanted to ban guns, but the republicans prevented him from doing so.

>If they couldn't be bought on the sly almost anywhere

... Huh?

>America needs to look hard at how it raises its children

Not saying you aren't on to something- a lot of the kids who do school shootings throw off warning signs that are generally ignored until shit hits the fan- but America's a big place, man, with a lot of people in it. Good luck holding 300+ million people to that standard. Besides, if your goal was to reduce overall deaths, I'd say you'd be better off having America's parents really drill safe driving and temperance with alcohol into their kids rather than 'don't pick on kids who might murder you'.

Yes because criminals follow laws.

Source????
Oh wait..., there aren't any sources because it never happened.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment & own plenty of guns
but please stop throwing out these boogeyman/strawman arguments.
You are NOT helping our cause by continuing to portray us a ignorant nutjobs.

Guns aren't banned.

this

...

Name one executive order he signed, or bill he co-wrote, that threatened to ban guns.

He said he wanted federal magazine limits, but that never got anywhere. That didn't even *start* to go anywhere.

Under his presidency, the ATF tried banning m855 Ball ammo by classifying it as armor-piercing pistol ammunition (it's fucking lead-core 5.56 NATO), but that didn't go anywhere, either, and it wasn't like Obama himself told the ATF to do it.

>meanwhile, in genuinely developed countries

And how would banning guns remove them from circulation in criminal hands?

How would the US government stop guns from coming through from the cartels in mexico, when it can't stop drugs, money, or human beings?

Also, why only compare gun homicides? Use net homicide rates. Why is one murder more notable than the other due to the weapon used? What's the difference between a dude beating some guy's head in with a bat, and another dude shooting him?

Eh, he wanted to take every step in that direction. He did want an AR ban and magazine limit. DHS literally was buying all the ammo produced. He also had a very fond admiration for Australia's gun restrictions. He never said he was going to take them, but I'm sure if it was actually plausible to, he would have gave it his best effort.

Little things at a time. I'm sure he felt that Hillary would have continued to chisel away at the 2nd amendment.

Ok.

Source?
Are you stupid? Look at his history in the senate
Look at Bidens history
Look at Obama executive orders

But don't you guys know?
It was a closely held secret conspiracy between Obama
and the reptilian lizard people from inside the hollow earth.
All part of the master plan of surface-world domination by the
reptilians in conjunction with the Bilderberg Group.

That poster knows the truth because he is smart enough
to get his news from the only speaker of truth:
Alex Jones.

Now we're getting somewhere. Still, see Never said America doesn't have any problems. It's just that our gun culture isn't the cause of those problems.

wut?

Gunshots have a higher rate of lethality than knives/other.
You let guns be widespread and casually owned, you end up with more accidents, assaults and murders. It's as simple as that.

Not that I care much, I don't live in the US, and you probably let the problem sink too much to be recoverable.
Shoot yourselves as much as you want.

see:
no one ever cites an actual source.

Obama by executive order banned people on social security from buying firearms.

By simply signing an order, he is preventing thousands of people in a specific group from buying a gun.

the simple answer is this obey the intended spirit of the law. if you exercise the right to bear arms you must be prepared to answer the call and serve in a military millitia in service of the federal government by executive order no exceptions.
that is why the law was included at a time when there was no real standing army

Gunshots are actually pretty survivable, provided you get to a hospital. Knife wounds are fucking awful, due to the *much* higher likelihood of knicking an artery and causing you to bleed to death.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the availability of firearms doesn't increase the likelihood of murder. That's just bullshit. Murder has little to nothing to do with method and everything to do with motivation.

Case in point: US Homicide rate is at an all-time low in 51 years, according to the FBI. The amount of guns available in the US (Manufactures, plus imports, sans exports) is at an all-time high since '94.

That's great that they're exercising their second amendment rights!

Why is the caption aiming to divide races further?

So you can shoot your baby when your wife is denied an abortion

Is right on the money with the original intent of the constitution- when it was written, the US didn't really have a standing army. During the revolutionary war, much of the materiel the Continental Army had at its disposal was privately owned... including its Navy's warships and cannons.

Looking at the wording, it's clear that the primary, original intent of the framers was an armed citizenry that could assemble into a capable militia in order to defend the state.

It just so happens that, over the years and, with the advent of a standing military, the primary use of American firearms has gone from arming militias to hunting, recreation, and home/self defense. All uses that are, IMO, just as valid as arming a citizen militia.

WHAT'S TRUE: A new Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases.

WHAT'S FALSE: All Social Security recipients are not being barred from owning or purchasing guns, and persons affected by the new rule can appeal their inclusion in the background check database.

In other words..., people who have been adjudicated as MENTALLY INCOMPETENT who are receiving Social Security as a result (i.e. Too fucking crazy to work), get added to the background check database along with the the other people who have adjudicated to be LEGALLY INSANE.

Gee..., how unresonable!!!!

yeah but you don't know that if you get your news from infowars.

I didn't say gunshots aren't survivable, nor did I say knife wounds aren't awful.
I said the former are far more lethal than the latter.

The availability of firearms does increase the likelihood of murder, accidental or not. Period.
Because human beings are unstable by nature and subjects to bloodrushes, bad appreciations of a situation, and more shenanigans. And because nothing ever happens as expected.
Their availability is obviously not the only factor, but it's a multiplier.

You put two drunks together and let them have a violent argument, the outcomes will be different depending if they only have their bare fists or a handgun. It's just common sense.

I understand, and was countering your statement. From my understanding, knife wounds are more lethal than gun shots.

If the availability of firearms does increase the likelihood of murder, why is the US experiencing its lowest homicide rate since 1966 with the number of available firearms continually increasing year by year?

If two drunks get into a violent argument, they can fuck each other up just fine without a handgun. The handgun may simplify things, but if one of them has a knife, or grabs a pool cue, or just starts swinging and doesn't stop until the other guy's head is cracked open on the bar room floor, that's still a homicide, one they committed just fine without a firearm.

There is no adjudication
If I am in a car accident, recieve ss for a disability and ask someone to take care of my finances while recovering.

My rights were taken away with out due process.

But this discriminates against "thousands" of schizophenics.
>inb4 "slippery slope"

You realize the last eight years went by with Obama doing nothing more than saying "you guys might want to update gun laws at some point" and trying to stop terrorists from buying guns legally?

You better not be trying to imply that 'No fly, no buy' is a good idea.

Please do not defend MY 2nd Amendment rights for me.
You are obviously too uninformed & retarded to do so.
Thank you.

Beside the point.

The point is Obama as president did less about guns than Reagan.

The United States Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is an Individual right.

Shall Not Be Infringed

Fair enough, and I agree.

Ok numb nutz
Who does the adjudication?

> why is the US experiencing its lowest homicide rate since 1966 with the number of available firearms continually increasing year by year?
Because medicine got better aswell, and because society got less violent altogether, despite what mass medias have us to believe.
There are probably more factors, but I'm lazy right now.

>If two drunks get into a violent argument, they can fuck each other up just fine without a handgun. The handgun may simplify things, but if one of them has a knife, or grabs a pool cue, or just starts swinging and doesn't stop until the other guy's head is cracked open on the bar room floor, that's still a homicide, one they committed just fine without a firearm.
You're way overthinking this.
That was just an illustration, I could have said that the end result of letting someone suicidal in a room with a box of pills potentially increases a tragic outcome.
It's all about potentiality, guns are an aggravating factor, as are knifes, as is being drunk, as is being of a violent nature. Some are more aggravating than others on average. That's all.

But again I'm not American so I don't care much, I'm just glad to be living in Europe where people aren't allowed to casually own firearms.
Reminds me of a rampage in China where a guy with a knife assaulted dozen of people, no one died. Transpose this in the US, and you have a dozen dead because the chances the same guy would have used a gun are far greater.

Adding to this, the 2nd amendment was thought within the context of the independence war, to make sure citizens could fight off the British, should they try to get their colonies back, in a time where the concept of conscription hadn't been invented yet.
I'm fairly certain the founding fathers would be horrified to see the end result of that amendment today.

Mfw that's definitely not going to happen.

Bullshit.. All that you typed is bullshit
Do some research on the intent of the founding fathers.

No problem, eh?
Those frenchies at Hebdo and that Concert?
Those trucks rolling through christmas markets?
The london tube bombings like 10 years back?

Yeah. No problems and certainly no established patterns either.

Being approved to receive Federal Social Security Disability payments in not a cakwalk, contrary to what many uninformed people believe.

For a just medical disability you first must be certified by a Physician (M.D.) who is a specialist in the area of your particular medical problem.
After that you have to be examined by the specialist Doctors who actually work for the Social Security Administration and pass muster with them.
After that the case, for & against, is presented before a panel of SSA Physicians and Judge, who decide if you get approved or not.

The process is even more stringent for mental cases.
In addition to the Specialists (who in this case are Psychiatrists) you also have to have been declared "Non Compus Mentis" ("Mentally Incompetent") by a Court of Law before you ever get to move on to steps 2 and 3 cited above.

In every State in the U.S. the only way that you can be declared "Non Compus Mentis" in a Court of Law is if they PROVE that you are a "danger to yourself or others".

The SSA ruling we are discussing is quite specific.
Only a total retard would think that "incomptence" refers to someone receiveing disability because they have a broken arm and, therefore, can't sign theit own checks.

Kek. Prob spent more time setting up this photo than drilling on fundamentals. They'll get btfo.

Or you could do some research yourself and educate yourself about the historical, cultural, societal and geopolitical context of that time, and use some common sense to connect the dots.
That's the problem when lacking an education, you're unable to put things in context.

don't confuse hime with facts.
it hurts his widdle head.

So, lemme get this straight. We're not supposed to judge blacks as a group, but whites today can be judged for what other whites did 200 years ago?

That makes zero sense.

>implying she wants to work rather than trade her gibs for guns and drugs. Fuck her.

That's cute how Americans seem to like discover life and the world like wide-eyed children.
Europe have been living with terrorism for over a century.

scotlandfag here.

don't have a great understanding of the constitution of the US, but is the right to bear arms not part of the 2nd amendment? In which case they originally didn't think it was a fundamental right, then changed their minds and amended the constituion to make it so.

Can someone explain it to me?

Don't share the site so it gets fixed by snapchat! s'n'a'p,ch'at,y'com

Yeah, as much as 9/11 was a terrible event, when it happened, the rest of the world was lost at how the US went batshit crazy over it like it was some kind of extraordinary twist in Human history.
It felt like their whole world shattered. Tells you a lot about how Americans are uneducated, oversensitive and secluded from the rest of the world.

In 1812, 10,000 firearms were provided to the U.S. government from two American gun manufacturers. The 2nd Amendment discusses two issues. A organized and disciplined military and the citizens right to own firearms won't be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment was written in 1791 and is part of the original Bill of Rights.

You're right, there are more factors. It's almost like the availability of firearms *isn't* one of them.

>You're way overthinking this

How? All I did was point out that people are capable of murder without being armed.

You don't commit murder because you *can*, you commit murder because you want to. Being given a gun doesn't magically make you want to commit murder. Just like how, if you're suicidal, you're going to try to kill yourself with what's available. If you aren't suicidal and are given the means to kill yourself, you won't suddenly opt to commit suicide due to the availability of it.

I'm glad you're glad; just like I'm glad I live in America, where I can collect, own, and shoot guns, and use them to defend myself if need be (though the chances of that being a necessity are small as fuck).

Fuck off with that bullshit. America doesn't have an epidemic of violence, and if it did, the presence of guns aren't the issue. Mass shootings are irrelevant, more people kill *themselves* with guns than each other, and the leading causes of untimely death in America have nothing to do with firearms, and everything to do with shitty diets, lack of exercise, and a sedentary lifestyle.

Besides, are you REALLY trying to say people like Thomas "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of the patriots" motherfucking Jefferson, or Benjamin "Those who would trade liberty for security will receive none, and deserve neither" Franklin would trade personal liberty in exchange for a lower homicide rate?

I'd also invite you to compare deaths involved in mass shootings where the police arrived and stopped the shooter, versus these shootings where an armed citizen killed the shooter.

Hint: The ones with an armed citizen intervening have less deaths.