No one is coming for your guns you stupid rednecks

>no one is coming for your guns you stupid rednecks
>by the way here is a list of restrictions that I think should be placed on guns so that no one can own any
>also there should be 0 restrictions on abortions and birth control and they should all be paid for by the government

Other urls found in this thread:

dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You got too many issues going on for one thread. Yes, but they took my gun after Jade Helm 15 and put me in a fema camp

My own opinion is, that background checks for pistols/semiautomic rifles, sports guns should stay at range you don't actually need those. Absinense is natures birthcontrol. Can't do that? Then pay up. No-one is giving men condoms on demand when that would be cheaper and disease free.

Shall not be infringed you sperglo Piece of shit

I support your right for bear arms, but if situation would be 0, and you didnt have mexican/nigger problem thats how I'd have it.

Read

If you can't post anything without rambling incoherently, go somewhere else.

works every time

I think everyone should be able to own as many guns as they want, except for military weaponry. I think abortion and birth control are both good things, but neither should be funded by the government, or at the very least given out for free.

So what you're saying is that if I write software for the military then as soon as I hand it over then I'm not allowed to have it anymore? I can't even fix or improve it?

Did you huff too much forest fire smoke?

Shall not be infringed

BILL OF NEEDS

The most popular rifle in America is the civilian counterpart to our service rifle.

Define 'military weaponry,' and elaborate on specifically why you think individuals do not have the right to own it.

Background check: yes
Anything else: SHALL

I will concede however, that guidance systems are not weapons and it should be illegal to attach them to weapons. That and explosive ordnance should require increased handling and safety training as well as a psych evaluation.

That is the sum of all sensible gun laws, thank you and good day.

Get fucked. Not a thing in the wrong with a private sale.

And I say if Hillary Clinton can launder guidance system rockets over to ISIS then let's have them as well, hey?

The Constitution is a living and breathing document

I suppose I mean like assault rifles, SWAT weaponry, and weaponry used against enemy combatants

>shall not be infringed
>except for these infringements I arbitrarily find alright

Background checks are a slippery slope. Everything's a mental illness, these days, and disagreeing with liberals can literally get your arrested. Not to mention, to fund a government bg check system, you have to steal money from the public to fund it.

Most swat weapons are the most popular weapons in America.

Also it literally says shall not be infringed

>assault rifles
Why?

>'swat weaponry'
What does that mean?

>'weaponry used against enemy combatants'
Knives are used. Pump-action shotguns, handguns, fucking shovels. Bolt action rifles that are built on the same action as popular hunting rifles. What logical reason would you have for saying that these guns are unfit for civilian ownership, but others are totally fine?

how many magazine clips can that assault machine gun carry? I'm extremely triggered right now.

The Constitution isn't permanent, the Founding Fathers couldn't have accounted for a weapon that could kill 50 people in less than a minute

I suppose I just mean assault rifles and highly destructive weaponry then, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. Anything that can kill a massive amount of people in a fraction of time should be disallowed

Fuck that. SHALL on all.

If someone fucks up with a gun, fuck that person up. Do not punish the many for the crimes of a few.

All background checks have done is throw a wedge into the door for future bans. They don't have to do a sweeping ban, they can just expand what prevents you from passing a background check. That's why they're going so hard on the drug-use, mental illness, and domestic """"""violence"""""" route.

*isn't permanently unchangeable, rather

lets keep it contained to guns for the moment.
What is your conceptual definition for an assault rifle?

>I suppose I mean like assault rifles, SWAT weaponry, and weaponry used against enemy combatants

You're a fucking imbecile.

>The Constitution is a living and breathing document

Actually it is not.

The Bill of Rights, which encompass the first 10 amendments to the US constitution are not in play. They cannot be altered, or changed in an way. All attempts to do so thus far have been treason.

>highly destructive weaponry
Define this, and then definitively state why you think those weapons are unacceptable, but others are fine. You've repeatedly dodged this question, and it's important to the discussion.

>Anything that can kill a massive amount of people in a fraction of time should be disallowed
But it's perfectly fine for governments to own it, which are made up of people? Why? Again, specifically. Not "because death maaaan"

Governments have murdered more people than nonpartisan individuals could ever hope to, and you specifically want to allow them to have WMDs, but NOT individuals?

That's fucking stupid logic, though.

Counting ALL firearm crime, not just fatalities, firearms still have a safety rate of 99.9% in the US. The weaponry isn't the problem, criminals are.

>abortions
>guns
Why not both?
>No-one is giving men condoms on demand
Let's fix that.

If you support their right to bear arms, then that's it. Unqualified. No further discussion needed. What you really mean is that you don't really support their right; instead, you just pay lip service to it.

>The Constitution isn't permanent, the Founding Fathers couldn't have accounted for a weapon that could kill 50 people in less than a minute

They could actually.. At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted there were fucking cannons, artillery pieces and honest to god WARSHIPS in private hands. They specifically accounted for militairy-tier weapons when they drafted the Second Amendmend... Hunting weapons were a non-issue at that point in time, as basically everybody needed those.

>Anything that can kill a massive amount of people in a fraction of time should be disallowed

Gasloline? Fertiliser? Automobiles even?

Yes, they could. The Puckle Gun was already in existence. Jesus Christ, you're thick.

This.

What's funny is that the right to keep, and bear arms was not an American invention, but a British one. All the Americans did was codify it in law as a limitation on the powers of government.

>the Founding Fathers couldn't have accounted for a weapon that could kill 50 people in less than a minute

I think we should be allowed to use whatever a marine rifleman can use. Period.

Yeah, that's a good point too.

Leaf, why should it be okay for the government to be the sole possessor of this type of weaponry? Are the people in the government somehow more trustworthy or accountable somehow?

dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/

Don't say they're not coming for my guns when it's happened before.

The Founding Fathers were huge fans of the Puckle Gun and realized the potential for new and improving guns.

What you're doing is essentially calling the Founding Fathers stupid, and it's quite insulting.

Also: Never forget that guns had been improved upon in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers up until that point. There were also guns in the hands of the British militias that were an invention of a Scottish-Brit which was a breech loading rifle. Not smooth-bore musket. Rifle. Unique among it's achievements was also the fact that it was one of the first rifled muskets to be capable of mounting a bayonet. There was also the Puckle Gun. Firearms advancements were being made right in front of their eyes while they wrote the damn Declaration of Independence. They knew guns would change. They didn't give a damn. The right to keep and bear arms was more important than the discomfort of future tyrants.

In Germany you can concealed carry if an entity in the executive says it's ok (no rights whatsoever on your part). This is just some common sense gun control, amiright?

you know we can pick out reddit shill threads pretty easy faggot. Don't worry your day will come

Knowing the German government, they'd give that right to Rapefugees and Turks before they gave it to native-born White Germans.

In fact, I'd wager they'd give it to the former for specifically for use against the latter.

>implying the founding farthers were some kind of infallible gods and their laws are set in stone
I never got this appeal to authority, what's wrong about demanding your rights on your own behalf and not because "muh founding farthers said so"?

>"lol obama isn't going to take away your guns you rethuglican redneck retard"
>cue obama leading the huge push for AWB, mag cap bans, and other such fuckery
>"lol obama never tried to take your guns away you rethuglican redneck retard"
some people just live in an alternate reality

They give it to nobody, that's the cynical joke behind my post.

>MUH SHALL
You're fucking idiots.

A little 8 year old kid can't go into a store to buy a pack of cigarettes, they can't get a gun either, they also can't drive a car, buy a beer or pay for sex. Where is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED outrage?
Obviously there are going to be some restrictions no matter what. It's all about where you draw the line.

When someone says they support background checks yelling SHALL is literally not an argument. You wouldn't use the same ''argument'' if someone said that someone currently in jail shouldn't be able to order a truck full of drugs to arm everyone in the jail.
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! GUN FOR EVERY MAN IN JAIL!!!

I think there are gonna be more strict gun regulations but they will never full on ban guns its unconstitutional

>The bill of rights explicitly protects the rights of 8 year olds to buy cigarettes

>societies will allow children to buy cigarettes and drive ferraris unless government steps in

Shaming people for drug use and reckless behavior is the burden of culture. To say it's more moral to jail or rob a store because a 17 year old bought cigarettes is silly.

>in jail
>rights

Literally what are you talking about?

Regardless, the reason it's more important to us, culturally, is because kids smoking cigarettes don't help overthrow tyrannical governments. Civilians with guns of the same capability as the government, do.

why would you not wan't the government to regulate abortions and make them safer for women?

SHALL

Maybe he'd rather women take responsibility for their actions instead of forcing him to pay for them to murder their children

>When someone says they support background checks
we already have background checks, moron
>yelling SHALL is literally not an argument.
we already had all of the pertinent arguments back in 2013
anti-gunners don't fucking listen and never will, and we won anyway, so it's a lot easier to say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" these days :^)

p.s. don't you have a potato to scavenge for you malnourished baltnigger?

So, your argument is that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to restrict the sale of cigarettes to 8 year olds.
And you expect to be taken seriously?

You're literally not making any sense. Can you not read?

You're LITERALLY trying to equate something not protected by the Constitution with something that is.
Have you not read the Constitution?

>what's wrong about demanding your rights on your own behalf
Nothing. But Americans were given basically ALL modern rights by their Founding Fathers, so why would they try and reinvent the wheel?

We weren't really given these rights. We believe that everybody has these rights already as a consequence of being alive, and we just thought it would be a good idea to write it down somewhere.

>You're literally not making any sense.
No, u.
>Can you not read?
Have YOU actually read the Second Amendmend to the United States Constitution?

Protip: It doesn't say 'Lung disease being necessary for the security of free 8 year olds, the right of the children to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed'...

Since assault weapons are such a huge problem in america why don't we do this instead!

The fingerprinting smart guns are a good first step, but they still leave open a lot of room for abusive by an authorized user. I propose that guns should not only need biometric unlocks, but also that the user should need to call up 911 and have the operator remotely unlock the gun for use it they concur the user is in a legimate life threatening situation. Also, mandating cameras attached to all weapons, especially concealed carry ones, which record and transmit to a cloud storage.

Guns should also have a feature whereby they can only fire if they are pressed against the target. This will prevent mentally unstable men from killing children at long range.

Magazine limits are common sense, but also the first round loaded should be required to be a warning foam round. The foam rounds used by police forces are effective, but still require training to use safely, so the mandatory civilian foam rounds should be much less dense, and not designed to inflict pain, but to make sure an attacker 100% knows there is a gun present and give them a chance to flee- thus reducing overall gun deaths.

We should should also license free thought and speech. We can control the spread of bad ideas by putting biometric scanners on all computers, cell phones, video game consoles so that certain ideologies cant spread.

Obviously dangerous speech and ideas are easily concealed in various ways, so all information about our populace will be public record and searchable.

All people should have an override put into their voice box so that they can have their voices muted if they start saying something potentially hurtful or expressing dangerous ideas.

Help me come up with some progressive ideas that will help me target the greatest killer of this or any other century. I know with some time we can stamp out dangerous free speech and ideas.

I know that's the theory... But in practise, you've been given them by the Founding Fathers, and ever since then every subsequent governement has been trying to take them away from you.

If people in jail don't have rights then that's already an example of rights being infringed.
You can't say ''ALL PEOPLE CAN OWN GUNS!!! NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER!!'' when people in jail can't buy a gun. The shall not be infringed mantra is bullshit. Your rights are and they will be infringed.
In some cases it's even a good thing, like when someone in jail wants to buy a gun.

You idiots haven't even thought about the topic and you go ''WOAH!! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??'' like you're braindead. You've never thought about it so someone questioning these ideas blows your mind. You can't even fathom the idea that people in jail are getting their rights infringed, and that maybe it's a good thing.

Fair enough. Good thing they wrote it down tho.

And like on actual parchment or whatever it was, not just typing it into a computer somewhere.

I wasn't talking about cigarettes, you fucking moron. It was an example. At no point I said that there was anything in the constitution even close to that.
You're braindead.

That's like saying it's infringing somebody's rights if you execute them for being a mass-murdering serial rapist.

If you infringe upon someone else's rights, then you give up your own.

...

Goddamn I love this country. Thank you Ronald Reagan for giving my family refugee status.
Europoors will never have this much freedom.

>If people in jail don't have rights then that's already an example of rights being infringed.

People in jail do have rights, user.

>You can't say ''ALL PEOPLE CAN OWN GUNS!!! NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER!!'' when people in jail can't buy a gun.

But that isn't what American law says, and it isn't what the Second Amendmend means... If the Constitution were to be taken that literally, jail in itself would be unconsitutional as it infringes the right to travel freely..

>The shall not be infringed mantra is bullshit. Your rights are and they will be infringed.

This is a reason for you to just give it all up? Kek. Are you Homo Sovieticus?

>In some cases it's even a good thing, like when someone in jail wants to buy a gun.

Which they can't, user. Not legally anyway.

>You idiots haven't even thought about the topic

No, u.

>You can't even fathom the idea that people in jail are getting their rights infringed, and that maybe it's a good thing.

Pretty sure we can, and we agree.. Also pretty sure that 'we the people' does not mean 'we, the criminal scum that is in prison'

Exactly.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Keep that thought in mind and now try to combine this idea with ''shall not be infringed'' without having cognitive dissonance.

>Since assault weapons are such a huge problem in america why don't we do this instead!
tl;dr
Because you started with a completely false pretext. "Assault weapons" (whatever that is, does it include knifes and bike wheels?) are and never were the problem, niggers are.

>refugee status
Where did you come from?

As usual a fucking leaf

>I wasn't talking about cigarettes,

You were.

>It was an example.

Not a very good one

>At no point I said that there was anything in the constitution even close to that.

Then why even bring up the 'shall not be infinged' phrase form a specific article of the Bill of Rights into a matter not covered by the bill of rights?

>You're braindead.


No, u.

Kek, are those repackaged and shit to be 922 compliant, or is it just rebranding?

That has literally nothing to do with what was being talked about before.

If you haven't initiated force, you have every right to own whatever weapons you want.

By committing a crime and say, killing or raping someone, certain rights are revoked because you are a danger to society.

>is not even allowed to say "no" when somebody orders you to bake a cake for him
>muh freedum

But if I initiate force are my rights to bear arms going to be infringed?
So their rights ARE going to be infringed?

>'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

This is the normal situation. Nobody is arguing that there are no exceptions to the normal situation.. Why are you trying to make extraordinairy situations be the norm, or the base of legislation?

Family is from Lebanon

Because in America, it's impossible to hold opinions that fall into different sides of the "political dichotomy" at the same time. If you agree with Republicans on one issue and Democrats on another and neither one on other issues, tough shit, your voice doesn't matter. Do you hate America? Pick a side, asshole.

Not sure what you mean, theyre packaged in the US, but are manufactured in Romania

I am talking to braindead zombies like you who can't think for a second. Your head is either empty or full of shit.
You idiots can't even comprehend basic concepts or even realize that someone who is making your brain go OW OW might actually be on your side.

No, because you no longer have the same rights. How is this in any way hard to understand?

You can't infringe a right that someone has willfully given up. That's like saying "If I steal something, it's infringing upon my right to property if the previous owner takes it back."

>>no one is coming for your guns you stupid rednecks

Fact is, 99% of weapons are already illegal to privately own and its getting whittled down yearly. The only ones left you can have (depending on country, city, state, etc..) are a very feature-limited set of small arms and weapons of antiquity.

>muh living constitution

the left loves to shill the living constitution myth. get fucked commie, amendments can change the document, but the interpretation is not up for debate. it says what it says, which causes extreme amounts of butthurt to marxists. anyone who has purposely interpreted the constitution incorrectly is guilty of treason. supreme court justices included.

Doesn't matter where you're from originally (although pride in your heritage is cool), you're an American now. Fuck yeah.

So infringing rights isn't infringing rights because you did your mental gymnastics?

Oh, we can take guns away from someone who is ''racist''. It's not infringing, because they wilfully gave up their rights. haha. I am making arguments :DDD

You obviously don't know how government property rights work.

My whole family is voting for Trump, we love this country, but we're scarred. We dont want to live in Mexico 2.0

>Not sure what you mean, theyre packaged in the US, but are manufactured in Romania

Weapons and certain weapon parts manufactured outside of the US need to be either broken down into parts or modified to be 922 compliant and to count as 'manufactured in the US'... The official reason is to keep American streets safe, but in reality it's to keep your gun lobby and manufacturers happy and wealthy.

What the fuck are you even on about, user?

...

You mean government property abuses?

Piss off degenerate. You are talking such a huge pile of bullshit, that I don't even know which nonsense you wrote to crush first.

Fucking liberal scum. Stupid as ever.

>Oh, we can take guns away from someone who is ''racist''.
You can't. Not in the US anyway...
>It's not infringing,
It is.
>because they wilfully gave up their rights. haha.
They didn't.
>I am making arguments :DDD
No, you're an odd lad...

Racism isn't infringing upon someone's rights. The examples I listed, are.

Good try, though, Latvian intellectual.

>>no one is coming for your guns

That's correct goy.
>nothing to see here
>go back to shopping

Ted Nugent was right.

>Weapons and certain weapon parts manufactured outside of the US need to be either broken down into parts or modified to be 922 compliant and to count as 'manufactured in the US'... The official reason is to keep American streets safe, but in reality it's to keep your gun lobby and manufacturers happy and wealthy.

Its not my fault that Colt doesn't know how to make a proper gas piston weapon.

Colt can't even make an up-to-par DI gun.

meanwhile in Israel...

So if they only banned ammo you would be ok with it?