Does Sup Forums think about Assault rifles now?

I think in the US, AR's just need to be banned as a whole. There is no way they can be used only for self-defense.

A lot of you like to use the argument that cars do more damage than guns, and yet we don't ban them. The only problem is cars aren't designed to hurt people. I do, however, like comparing guns to cars in another way.

Cars can be good. They take you places, do things. You pretty much need cars, though some would argue you can take routes like biking or buses. Guns are the same. A ton of people feel their homes are safer if they have a Winchester or pistol in the home. A lot don't, but many can respect those who do feel safer. It's like cars. A home defense gun can be used to kill up to maybe 10 people in a mass shooting. In a mass car rampage, you can maybe kill 5 people before something stops you. But not too many people make a big deal out of a killing spree with a shotgun or a car.

On the other hand, AR's are nothing but killing machines. They are excessive as home defense, and built to kill people. They're like a car that's equipped with blades, saws, flame throwers, and everything else one could need to kill pedestrians. Sure it does its normal job as a car, but is unnecessarily dangerous, and nobody should be able to own it. Why have weapons that can fire 700 rounds a second be open to the public? They just shouldn't.

TL;DR: We should ban assault rifles.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=z49iZ0O1bSs
history.stackexchange.com/questions/9856/which-single-car-accident-in-history-caused-the-most-deaths
liveleak.com/view?i=0c0_1465817672
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Now I wait for butthurt rednecks to defend their weapons of mass terrorism with the second amendment

I think in the US, armed police just need to be banned as a whole. There is no way they can be used only for self-defense.

A lot of you like to use the argument that cars do more damage than armed police, and yet we don't ban them. The only problem is cars aren't designed to hurt people. I do, however, like comparing police to cars in another way.

Cars can be good. They take you places, do things. You pretty much need cars, though some would argue you can take routes like biking or buses. Police are the same. A ton of people feel their homes are safer if they have a constable or sergeant in the neighborhood. A lot don't, but many can respect those who do feel safer. It's like cars. A policeman with a nightstick can be used to kill up to maybe 3 minorities in a spurt of racist hatred. In a mass car rampage, you can maybe kill 5 people before something stops you. But not too many people make a big deal out of a killing with bludgeoning or a car.

On the other hand, armed police are nothing but killing machines. They are excessive as law enforcement, and built to oppress persons of color. They're like a car that's equipped with blades, saws, flame throwers, and everything else one could need to kill pedestrians. Sure it does its normal job as a car, but is unnecessarily dangerous, and nobody should be able to have one in their neighborhood. Why have policemen that can shoot 700 persons of color a second be open to the public? They just shouldn't.

TL;DR: We should ban police with guns.

S H A L L

A) you're fucking baiting
B) Assault rifles are the best weapon of defense. Consult anyone who knows anything about guns. Fucking liberal cuck

Now I wait for butthurt bootlickers to defend their fascists of colored oppression with the "without police we'll have anarchy" schtick.

It's a good thing I have an AR-10.

What's an assault rifle OP? Define it categorically please.

Beautiful... The only problem is that armed police go through intensive training to earn their guns, and even THEY don't use much more than hand guns unless they're high up

What don't you understand about this?

Is pic related so fucking hard for you to understad? you fucking third world immigrant

And you're a dipshit if you think weapons that can fire 700 rounds a second are safe

AR-15 =/= Assault Rifle, M16A1 and subsequent derivatives = Asssault Rifle.

I think it's dangerous that anyone can get one

>There is no way they can be used only for self-defense.

So they're too powerful to own, but not powerful enough to defend yourself?

Which one is it? Too effective, or not effective enough?

I am willing to bet my anal virginity that I can outshoot any cop any day. And most CCW guys can as well.

Get 10 random CCW guys and 10 random cops. And I bet more CCW guys outshoot the cops.

ban guns, ban muslims, ban terrorists.

it has to work right?

A gun that can fire more than 3 bullets a second, one that belongs in the army and not in the hand of the public

You only said AR-15s, I own an AR-10. No problem.

If the government comes at my door and tries to pull shit, no singular gun can save me

We don't have machine guns. Now go back to Tumblr

Pure Coincidence
youtube.com/watch?v=z49iZ0O1bSs

True... But if every armed American gun owner shot at the cops coming for the guns. There'd be no cops left.

Assuming they kept trying to the last man. More gun owners than cops.

Its not to save ourselves individually, it's to save an ideology. Something you selfish cowards cannot understand.

I said "only"
They CAN be used for defense, but fucking seriously? Way more often than not, they can be used to attack

Gun grabbers have taken all they're gonna get. We're not giving any more up.

nice bait bro. do you get you paid or are you just a faggot naturally?

All these gun threads b/c of the faggot shooting in DisneyWorld is giving me a headache.

For fucks sake, the 2nd amendment is not just for self defense against other citizens. It's main purpose is to allow Americans to defend against tyranny; read up on Elementary American History before you start cucking for shitlibs

I don't understand how anything of what you just said has any correlation to what I said.

>I could outshoot a cop
Yeah that's smart

I never specified?

Applying this sort of criterion is destroying our entire system, as is the case with hate speech. Our foundational freedoms are recognized without criterion. We do not justify ourselves to the government, our government is supposed to justify itself to us.

Do you feel that the police, military, FBI etc. should have "assault" weapons?

>Bumping your own thread
>Arguing with yourself
>Samefagging on a board with IDs
This is pretty pathetic, OP.

why do you keep replying to yourself

>we don't have machine guns

Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second.

Don't have to have machine guns. Assault rifles are deadly as hell and that's a problem

>I think in the US, AR's just need to be banned as a whole. There is no way they can be used only for self-defense.


When Sup Forums became such cancerous?

Your outrage at "Assault Rifles" seems somewhat misdirected, the vast vast majority of all gun killings are done with handguns. Why not ban those instead?

Yes, only the government should have guns.

Obviously, the criminals won't have guns either, because they obey laws.

:^)

You're honestly retarded. If the public can use weapons that the United States military uses, that's a problem. You can love your guns all you want, but anything more than 3 rounds a second is insanity

SNBI

I don't give a shit, you're not going to lone soldier the United States government, no matter what gun you have. That said, you CAN lone soldier a gay bar and kill 50 people

TLDR you are an idiot, you are defective, kill yourself, I'm done arguing with idiots, you want to come take them, try it, I want a civil war, I want to be rid of people like you.

Proxies. proxies all day. The perpetrators of the attacks in Orlando and today in Paris wave the same flag.

Ever see one of those kindergarten walk leashes with sometimes 20 kids on them?

A car could turn that into a 20 person massacre faster and easier than any legal firearm.

I could have burnt that club down and killed all inside with no more tools than a 30 minute shop down at the local store.

It's not the tool, rather the person and what they're capable of.

...

I think they're rad.

Handguns are a problem, but there are too many who have the right to claim handguns are good for self-defense. But there is no way you can say that about assault rifles

history.stackexchange.com/questions/9856/which-single-car-accident-in-history-caused-the-most-deaths

lol, makes Brevik look like a try hard bitch.

but what does an assault rifle do for you?

Why should we be restricted to arming ourselfs with ineffective weapons? You can't fire 800 rounds in a minute with an AR-15 btw, but you know that hence your weasel language.

sick burn bro ya got him there

...

did you guys hear the shoot out with the swat team and him

its a video but mainly audio and its crazy

they fucking lit him up

liveleak.com/view?i=0c0_1465817672

You're right, the revolutionary war was only lone wolves with guns. The British army in the 18th century was completely incapable of dealing with lone wolves with guns, which was unfortunate for them because that was the only resistance they came across.

Exactly the same thing as every other gun, retard. There is no justification for banning an AR-15 that does not logically extend to banning all guns, and then in turn, every other weapon. (like, knives of every kind. Right birtbongs?) Though no other weapon has the the equalizing power of a gun and thus are all inferior for self-defense and self-reliance.

Oh no, my analogy has been disproven by a virtually impossible scenario in which a teacher walks 20 kindergarteners along the side of a road

Soros or DARPA?

Okay well thats the long term goal dumbass but we're still on assault weapons kthxbye

Why not ban handguns and allow assault rifles for self defense? It doesn't make sense, if you think banning a particular type of gun will cut down on murder, ban the one that murders use most?

Or, you know, any given street in New York City between 9am and 4am.

Chromosomes aside, your "3 rounds a second" crap is just a start. It'll just lead to more bans. We're not giving shit up.

So any gun that's not capable of mowing people down is now ineffective?

>They are excessive as home defense

Confirmed for not knowing shit about firearms. An AR-15 is perhaps the best home defense weapon, unlike shotguns they are light, easy to handle, have low recoil and have less chance of over penetration with proper ammo.

By comparison shotguns are generally heavy, require lots of manipulation to use, are slow to reload, have punishing recoil + flash. In addition individual 00 buck pellets leave a lot to be desired in terms of ballistics, a 55 grain 8-9 mm round pellet traveling 1200 fps is really not impressive, being about equivalent to a hopped up .22 in terms of energy. only through a large amount of pellets impacting the target and at an extreme close range (due to pellets being aerodynamically poor and bleeding velocity quickly) can a shotgun live up its reputation... But truth be told most firearms at point blank range are extremely lethal not to mention shot placement has always been more important anyways.

And yes you do have to aim with a shotgun, you are accountable for every pellet that goes down range, best be sure of what you are shooting at and aim lest you kill or maim an innocent while defending yourself.

Those fighting were militias. Do you know what we do when we have problems with other countries now? Use our military

You can kill 50 people in a bar with other weapons. For example, a fire-starting bomb. And it will happen in a country with guns bans. We haven't had massacres like this before because we haven't had killers that were really aiming to kill as many as people as possible instead of just killing a bunch of people. Ideologically motivated terror achieves that, like ISIS terrorists, or Breivik. Breivik is not part of larger group but Islamic Terror is stronger than ever, and not even close it's peak. Arm yourself for your own sake, or let yourself be killed.

Is there a difference?

AR is a meme rifle, he would've got more hits with higher penetrating rounds like the 7.62 istead of the .223

You can kill a lot of people with a car bomb. America just didn't have terrorists aiming for the highest possible number of murders, until recently.

We should not only ban muslims from this country, but we should also ban them from guns.

If we banned them from this country that would do it, however.

If you'd like to refer to the main point of this whole thread, the aim would be to ban assault rifles because they themselves are excessive and deadly. I would rather have the more destructive one be removed, then move to handguns

"We're not giving that shit up" is what leads to legally purchased weapons being used to terrorize the nation

By the way I don't own any guns or have any interest in politics or religion whatsoever. Just here to troll.

This. /k/ommando here and this user has properly stated the main reasons for why many of us prefer short barrel AR-15's for both home defense and property defense.

>Now I wait for butthurt rednecks to defend their weapons of mass terrorism with the second amendment


Easy peasy, libshit.

Just ban people from the middle east (specifically muslims) and the second amendment will never apply to them.

Trump obviously is on to something there.

Because they want to ban handguns in addition to AR-15s, and after that all the other guns. They don't care about whatever assault rifles are. It's just something they can ban and once they crack the second amendment they can shatter it.

And who fights the US military when our own country is the problem you dipshit?

Do you need to put 20 bullets in someone within 3 seconds to ensure that you're safe?

We aren't giving up our rights, ever.

I don't even think the car analogy is fair, because cars have enormously more utility than guns.

Almost every economy in the world runs just fine without easy access to guns. If you magically took away all cars things would get completely fucked.

>"We're not giving that shit up" is what leads to legally purchased weapons being used to terrorize the nation

The libshits are on to something here. If they can force us to import enough muslim terrorists, we'll be forced to "give 'shit' up" like our rights.

something something RADICAL ISLAM something something

Why not? It definitely does ensure I'm safe. Why go for the minimum safety insurance. It's my life, and I cherish it.

Your own argument is that there is no way to stop terrorism.

Why not? It certainly will ensure that I'm safe. Why should I settle for minimum safety ensurance? It's my life, and I cherish it.

>It's just something they can ban and once they crack the second amendment they can shatter it.


Obama knows what he is after when he refuses to recognize the muslim enemy. Ideology trumps all.

It's an amendment to an amendment, and has been done hundreds of times before. The first amendment has had something around 15 additions to it to prevent certain instances of free speech. You do give up rights, but it's not always a bad thing

The first amendment has never been amended. There are virtually no instances of free speech that are prohibited in the USA. If you think there are you are probably misinformed.

>Almost every economy in the world runs just fine without easy access to guns.

Meanwhile european countries are being flooded with rapefugees and their citizens cannot even publicly object without being charged with hate speech.

Yeah, that's running "just fine" if you are a nasty little libshit.

Frankly it's always been his policy to never admit ISIS (ISIL lol) is real, and since Islamic terror is the ideology of ISIS it's logical that he would also not admit it exists.

So does the right want to amend the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom of religion part?

You can have any religion you want, on American soil. But immigrating to America isn't a right.

Ban shotguns as well since they can do the same amount of damage with a wider spread. You literally know nothing about guns, so stop talking on the subject.

>It's an amendment to an amendment

Libshits claim they are are the educated ones.

So, because a shit skin terrorist attacked us, we should turn in our weapons and disarm ourselves?

We should turn around and drop trouser too. Can't be giving the muzzies trouble as they rape us can we?

SBR home defense masterrace

N O T

Do you understand the current process of immigrating to America?

>White boy shoots up a church
>We need to ban the confederate flag
>Muslim shoots up a gay bar
>Ban to quran? That's racist!

...

www firstamendmentcenter org/first-amendment-timeline

Yes. Illegals can't do it. They knew that, though. I've never seen anyone defend illegal immigration on first amendment grounds before, because it's a complete non-sequitur.