Why do Americans feel they *need* to own a tactical strategic assault weapon...

Why do Americans feel they *need* to own a tactical strategic assault weapon? Do they genuinely reason that their *desire* to own a lethal assault weapon equipped with armour-piercing rounds overrides the right of their compatriots to feel safe in public spaces?

Other urls found in this thread:

torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Race_and_crime_in_London
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes
Fuck the people Americans can only think of themselves

If you think they're are no restrictions on Assault weapons come to America and purchase one, and then take it to the airport. See what happens

Why go to an airport when you can go to a comfy hotel and shoot fish in a barrel instead?

Stop posting this
Stop replying to this

Put some effort in your bait please.

americans think they can protect their rights with guns, the bigger the gun the more rights they can protect

F to dead burgers

>anything over 10 rounds is high capacity
For fucks sake my small ass 9mm carries 13

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHA

*breathes*

HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH NO NO NO HAHAHAHA

>tactical
>strategic
>assault
You don't know what any of these words mean
Self defense is a right, comfort isn't
You are responsible for your own safety

A lot of Americans justify it as a home invasion defense weapon. The non-mentally unstable world calls this a "hero fantasy".

Get fucked cunt.

t; severed head who couldnt be protected because locals are controlled by drug lords who disarmed public

It's a cultural thing to be honest. Like Americans just think having guns is an integral part of thier cultural identity and they get really mad about it. It's why people who otherwise are receptive to comparisons between the US and other countries laws (on health care, education etc) will flip the fuck out if a Brit their gun control methods are also better.

Most I've talked to justify it with "because I can, fuck you". And you know what? They're absolutely right.

Drug lords your country trained, armed and keep flushed with cash.

Friendly reminder that the OP posting this is a retarded Sup Forums faggot who spams this pasta on purpose to sound like a whiney cunt because he's desperately trying to poison the well for anyone who wants more regulations.

Would it be feasible to reeducate Americans so that they may have less of an emotionally-charged reaction to outside suggestion?

>Educate
>Americans

>Self defense is a right, comfort isn't
>You are responsible for your own safety

For America to seriously change I guess we'd have to lose a big war first.

>drug lords who disarmed public
Doesn't the prove that only a government is capable of defending the public and that armed citizens are basically useless?

Didn't your government more or less just do the same thing after Las Vegas?

So US Federal government train, arm and supply drug lords who disarmed Mexicans and keep them under violent control.

And now Americans having guns is bad?

>only a government is capable of defending the public and that armed citizens are basically useless?
Quite the opposite.

But the odd thing is that the Second Amendment was just that — an amendment. It was added later to the Constitution. Clearly it's not an immutable right, then?

>the opposite
But drug lords are armed civilians, they're not the government, and in countries that aren't half-run by narco cartels, it's not armed citizens that are preventing crime, but the police and judicial system.

>But drug lords are armed civilians, they're not the government,
And the drug lords are in control cause they are armed at or near the capacity of Mexican government. So the point that civilians should have access to firearms to remain control still stands.

>Clearly it's not an immutable right, then?
Only way to remove 2nd Amendment is to add another Amendment stating the 2nd Amendment is being remove. See Prohibition.

Not... really....

shooting isn't even fun, i find it boring to shoot my semi-automatic gas airsoft despite the firepower and recoil effect, don't see how shooting an actual gun is less boring, unless the target is a person

Shooting is not for everyone, just like any other hobby. But don't compare airshit to real guns, because they are not the same.

Jew, why do you want to take our guns?
What is your plan?
You don't know what "amendment" means either in the context of the constitution, do you?

It's a deterrent against government tyranny. It's not for self-defence, home protection, or any other reason. We have second amendment to prevent the government from violating Constitution

Not really rocket science mate

British people dying isn't even a bad thing

>government tyranny
I would be inclined to believe this if literally anything had happened in last 100 years of the US government doing evil, immoral acts to it's own people and around the world.
If it hasn't stopped govt tyranny in the past, it ain't gonna do shit in the future.

So a person with a gun is as easily subdued as a person without

No amount of gun control legislation on Earth would have stopped someone like Mr. Paddock.

They could add another amendment to declare the second amendment null, but that will never happen. First of all, adding an amendment to the constitution requires 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate and ratification by 3/4ths of the state governments. Most states have a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self property and State in their own constitutions. Also, the first ten amendments were passed as a single unit about 4 years after the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights. They're more culturally sacred and highly regarded than the rest of the document put together. To repeal one would be practically unthinkable, like abolishing free speech, right to a fair trial, right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and the rest. It could never happen practically.

If Drumpf had a military take over of the government then a well armed militia would work, but that's not how modern politics work in the information age.
The modern state subverts it's people using propaganda, corruption, surveillance.

The only difference between the UK and the US in this regard is the US does it secretly and illegally, and no amount of guns will prevent the state from doing the shitty stuff states do.

But more importantly, there's an estimated 100 million firearms in this country. So how would you possibly confiscate all of them anyway?

To defend their homes and possesions.

Why do you need to?
Is anyone seriously pushing to ban guns?

Just made it so people who own guns have to have them registered and have a background check to show they aren't some psycho or are going to shoot themselves and then ban the use or sale of tactical gear e.g. extended mags/flash hiders that has no use for hunting or self defense.

Give them a year or two to get their guns registered, and then going forward someone can be arrested for owning an illegal unregistered firearm.

Why do Americans always have this approach that everything is a flip of a button, either ban all guns or make it so you can buy them at a garage sale, there is a middle ground if people stop listening to the NRA.

That's true, but the amendment is about the rights to life, liberty, and property. Having a right to these things necessarily includes having a right to protect them from others that would harm you, oppress you, or steal from you. Self defense is a personal as well as a collective right. These days, the way the collective right is exercised includes the police, national guard, and military. Up until the 1900s, states provided most of the troops and equipment used in military operations. The states regiments would be under command of a federal officer but lower officers would be part of the state's armed forces.

Just because a right is exercised collectively doesn't mean it can be denied on the individual level. A person has a right to protect their own life and property that is not surrendered through the presence of collective enforcement. In fact, defending oneself is often more effective for individual incidences than relying on the police who (according to the supreme Court) have no responsibility to protect or defend the individual citizen.

So self defense is exercised collectively and individually, depending on the level of threat. Individuals may also join together collectively to exercise their rights if they are oppressed by a collective but democracy is intended to resolve such issues without resorting to violence ce.

It's closer to 400 Million these days. There are more guns than people in America.

>Why do Americans always have this approach that everything is a flip of a button
NRA and anti-gun lobbies drown out any reasonable voice with their stupid "WITH US OR AGAINST US" partisanship

That said, most people who support registration also support there being requirements for who can own them, and oftentimes are fairly strict
I'd be fine with registration but not modification bans because in the end modifications just make things easier
The real problem has to do with the illegally obtained weapons being used in crimes, which can be solved with registration and confiscation of unregistered firearms

These guns get all the controversy but I've never met anyone who even has one, or even wants one.

>fairly strict
How strict are they suggesting?

To get a license here you need to go to a police station and do a gun safety test to prove you aren't going to shoot yourself by accident, have two references to prove you aren't in a gang and to prove you have a safe place to store your gun so it can't be stolen, and I guess pay $150 every 10 years to renew the license.

I don't know how stringent these would compare to the proposed ones here, but honestly it only takes about a day to get your gun license and that's it forever, I feel like that isn't going to violate the right to bear arms because if anybody actually wants a gun they are going to be willing to put a tiny amount of money and time into it.

With these guns we have non-existent gun crime, with the last mass shooting being 3 decades ago. But it also helps that we actually treat our mentally ill.

Many pundits and individuals in the US are pushing for Australia style bans, buybacks, and the like. An assualt weapons ban was in place between 1994 and 2004 but expired. It's unlikely to be put in place again because of resistance and ineffectiveness. Opposition to another AWB has grown significantly since 1994 and the AR-15 has been normalized, and it's the most popular rifle in the US. Due to rumbings about another ban, there was a period of massive panic-buying and inflation flooding the market with AR-15s. They are everywhere.

The ban itself was largely pointless because it banned cosmetic features without impacting the functionality of guns available. Weapons like the Mini-14 which are functionally identical to an AR15 were unrestricted. Magazines are quite easy to make and modify to be larger. In Canada, magazine restrictions are enacted by placing a pin in the magazine that limits capacity. With only a drill one could remove the limit.

A ban is not politically feasible and Democrats keep on attempting the same strategy they used in 1994 over and over again without result. It's a lot easier to get people to rally around "getting these weapons of war off our streets" than any impactful regulation.

It is ineffective in that only about 3% of murders are committed with rifles of any type. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with pistols. Pistols happen to be the weapons most useful in cases of self defense. Restricting pistols is difficult for a number of legal reasons as well which I won't get into.

>The modern state subverts it's people using propaganda, corruption, surveillance.

Because it can't do so through the military

Except no western country in the information age regardless of it's gun prevalence has had a tyrannical takeover because it just so happens that if it did happen all the countries allies would basically come in to save them.

Pistols are a bit of a weird one, self-defense isn't a viable reason in our country due our low crime rate so you can only get a pistol with a special target shooting license.

>Pistols happen to be the weapons most useful in cases of self defense
I would have thought shotguns would be due to the spread, but a glock would definitely be a close contender.

Strict as in "If you have been diagnosed with a mental health issue at any point in your life, regardless of its severity, or if it has been absent for some time, you are full-stop barred from obtaining a gun license" strict

I've also seen proposals for gun license laws similar to the one you've said and honestly I wouldn't mind it, but they usually flop because they stack unnecessary baggage onto the legislation and it falls because of catches like the thing I mentioned above

>stack unnecessary baggage onto the legislation
Intentionally like a wrecking amendment or just because of incompetent legislators?

>all the countries allies

Namely the USA. So guns in the US are also keeping other countries safe from tyrannical takeover.

More like show off the moderate part of the legislation and draw away from the finer text which includes dumb shit

That and incompetent legislators

>guns in the US are also keeping other countries safe from tyrannical takeover

>The USA is the only western military power
Cmon, take off the Czech proxy

Because the right to self defense and the tools necessary to defend oneself are guaranteed by the federal government, the supreme Court has ruled requiring a safe unreasonably discriminates against the poor. Other financial obstacles that serve to restrict ownership would also probably be illegal. Likewise inspections of storage is considered unreasonable search because someone who has done nothing wrong and is exercising the rights guaranteed to them should not be required to let agents of the states into their home without probable cause of wrongdoing. Requiring a license is also an infringement on ones rights, as one need not ask the government permission to exercise their rights.

Aussies and Kiwis don't have the same legal system or conceptions of a right to defend onself and therefore it is very difficult to apply the laws that work in your legal context to ours.

When you purchase a gun, you have a background check to verify you are not a felon or prohibited person. You receive a free gun lock with your purchase and a pamphlet explaining that you are legally responsible if a minor gains access to your weapon and someone is injured. When you fill out the background check form you swear under penalty of perjury that you answered truthfully and that you are not buying the firearm for someone else. Some states laws have other restrictions, such as requiring handgun owners to obtain a license before purchase. These have not been tested for legality yet. The second amendment was only incorporated against the states in 2010 which means the outlines of it are not fully defined yet. Incorporation means that state governments are bound by the Bill of Rights. Prior to incorporation, the bill of Rights only restricted the actions of the federal government. State governments were not bound and could restrict people's free speech, right to a fair trial, etc. It's a process that's been going on since the 1920s.

>has ruled requiring a safe unreasonably discriminates against the poor
I've always found it funny that America prevents financial troubles from stopping gun ownership yet think it's perfectly acceptable that the poor should die in the street because they can't afford healthcare.

>inspections of storage is considered unreasonable search because someone who has done nothing wrong
I do agree with this one though, I don't believe gun ownership should warrant having to cede your privacy.

>very difficult to apply the laws that work in your legal context to ours.
Well yea, you guys have a weird hard-on for your constitution whilst we don't even have one.

>yet think it's perfectly acceptable that the poor should die in the street because they can't afford healthcare
Nobody thinks that's acceptable
We're deadlocked on how to solve it, it's not that we don't want to

>you guys have a weird hard-on for your constitution
Rule of Law rules absolutely

Self defense is a viable option regardless of crime rate so long as individuals have a right to defend their life. That's like saying "we don't need a right to a lawyer because we have a low crime rate". Its a difference in mentality, culture, and law. The state I live in has a lower murder rate than New Zealand (1.1/100k) yet firearms are widely available and you can carry a pistol for self defense without a permit.

Í ďóň'ť hávě á přóxý, mý fříěňď

USA is the only military power in the west capable of large scale operations and country invasions. If a country in Europe were to go full tyranny, who do you think would be stopping them? If it's a mini-state like Slovakia or Belgium, yeah, France and UK could probably muster enough to change their mind. But if Britain or France had gone rogue, who is going to force them? Germany and its broomstick wielding army? V4 alliance?

>USA is the only military power in the west capable of large scale operations and country invasions

expect every weapon that are sold to civilians are semiautomatics

>USA is the only military power in the west capable of large scale operations and country invasions
Good meme

>a country in Europe were to go full tyranny, who do you think would be stopping them?
A little alliance called NATO? Do you think Great Britain or France could stand against the combined weight of the armies of the European union? The EU has more active personnel than the USA.

You act like the world isn't extremely connected via trade and information with defense treaties everywhere in the west.

I don't believe any other Western country is capable of that without the US's support. They lack any real force projection capabilities, some have a single aircraft carrier but that's about it. Maybe if they could drive there.

You don't have to go overseas to invade a country
Unless you're a loser country like Australia lmao

When you're talking about a nationwide policy, you need to look at large statistical averages. You can't just take one single event and use it to characterize 100 million American gun owners.

It's like banning pools because 5 toddlers drowned in a pool one time.

This guy killed 58 people. Meanwhile, 55 Americans die in car crashes every single day. 41 Americans are murdered every single day
This is how a rational person thinks, instead of an unhinged reactionary lunatic

The fact that this type of emotional-driven politics works on people is a testament to the idiocy of the average person

>Has a homicide rate comparable to Africa
>School shooting every month
i-its just emotional-driven politics guys!
A rational atheist like me see through the media narrative. *tips extended mag*

>>Has a homicide rate comparable to Africa
Only in large cities. And that's because the population there is comparable to Africa
>School shooting every month
pic related

The only solution to this issue would seem to be some sort of compulsory mass schooling so that Americans don't grow up feeling wedded to their murder tools. Because at present, any sane dialogue is quite impossible.

>MUH GUNS
>emotional driven politics

the rest of the world doesnt have mass shootings

>pie chart without a source
makes me think

>Only in large cities
Why does that make a difference? Most of your population lives in cities, why should their lives mean less than rural people.

>because the population there is comparable to Africa
Well that's your own fault, shouldn't have enslaved the blacks, then discriminated them until the 60's and then wondered why they are all poor and criminals.

>A little alliance called NATO?

Is designed mostly against outside threat. If you leave out the US and a big NATO country goes rogue, the situation would be very different and NATO would be literally a little alliance and that's not counting nukes into the equation.

>Good meme

Tell me, which European country in the past 50 years has conducted a full scale country invasion without the help of the US? Frenchies have around 3000 men in Africa but that's with support of local governments. Britain's last big solo exploit was the Falklands.

>the rest of the world doesnt have mass shootings
So? Murders are simply committed with other means.
In the US, hammers are used to kill far more than guns. And knives even more than hammers.

>Most of your population lives in cities
The cities I'm talking about are the large mega-cities with huge black populations that all have murder rates comperable to an African warzone. Detroit, Chicago, south-central LA....etc.

>Well that's your own fault, shouldn't have enslaved the blacks, then discriminated them until the 60's and then wondered why they are all poor and criminals.
I'm just going to assume you're trolling here

>Is designed mostly against outside threat.
That's true, but considering the NATO countries have been wrapped into attacking brown people for no reason (even us who isn't even in NATO) I find it hard to believe they wouldn't protect against domestic warfare.

>NATO would be literally a little alliance
With one of the strongest combined military in the world?
>Be Germany
>Take military dictator control
>Own country is fighting against me
>Less than 200k troops
>Surrounded on all sides by over 1 million soldiers.

>Tell me, which European country in the past 50 years has conducted a full scale country invasion without the help of the US?
You never said country, you said military power. The EU is a military power regardless of it's individual strengths or whether it has invaded somewhere else recently.

I'm going to assume your trolling, it's fine because it's just niggers killing other niggers? Don't you care for your fellow country men at all or is ghetto violence just the price of freedom.

most of these large cities already have gun bans
Actually, a lot of criminal activity such as robberies, theft, and muggings might be stopped if we let people own defensive firearms. Maybe these budding criminals would have to find a different line of work

>so?
enjoy getting shot

Are you really this delusional? Canada was a safe haven for blacks escaping slavery but they're just as bad here except there are fewer of them here.

torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php

>I'm just going to assume you're trolling here

not the same kiwi, and i'm going to assume he's not

you cunts put a lot of time and effort into ensuring they couldn't integrate, then after you finally bowed to pressure, you wanted to walk around complaining why they aren't behaving like american citizens are 'supposed' to

that's a pretty fucking raw deal m8

They're similar everywhere.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Race_and_crime_in_London

I agree. Assault weapons should be banned
but on the same token, I also believe all law abiding and mentally healthy citizens should receive mandatory concealed carry permits, and handguns/hunting rifles should be readily available.

Using a firearm, an old woman in a wheelchair can defend herself from three 6' 5" 240 pound muggers
A woman can defender herself from a man
A child can defend himself from a home invader

It totally equalizes the playing field. That's why when you're living in an area with a large criminal population nearby, people usually own them

The law doesn't afford rights, it guarantees or restricts them

A government can restrict your right to free expression, but it can't take away that right

Look mate, just be grateful you don't have them

Then by this reasoning, if the US government had confiscated a firearm prior to 1791, it would've been violating your supposed right to self-armament?

Honestly I can't really comment because I don't really know how Canada treated it's black community over the last 150 years, but didn't you guys treat your native Inuit like shit?
Like I don't know, because the only other answer is race realism and you get into pretty shitty territory when you start walking around saying blacks are genetically predisposed to crime and where does that leave you? Do you start kicking blacks out? Policing them more?

>attacking brown people
>domestic warfare

Two entirely different things. Nobody in Europe is ready for domestic warfare. Bullying brown people is relatively easy when you can bomb them to shit with impunity because their AA is Russian 80s scraps and then march in and get shot at by gorrilas. Europe has more or less the same tech. Air superiority would be much harder to gain.

>picking Germany as the one to go rogue

Germans are cucked and they know it, their army is a meme. But if a country like France or the UK have gone dictatorial, odds are the rest of Europe would let them instead of trying to take them over. Hell, look what's happening in Turkey and if anyone is doing anything about it.

>EU
>military power

Don't make me laugh. EU is hardly a political power even though it keeps bragging about how we are stronger together. Everything military is coordinated either on country-to-country basis or through NATO.

>it would've been violating your supposed right to self-armament?
yes

>Do you start kicking blacks out?
T H I S
H
I
S

And what is to stop me making up any right I please, and claiming that the government simply hasn't caught up in protecting it by law?

I can almost understand why liberals treat these people like infants. they practically are. liberals are like over protective mothers who don't want their negro babies to stop sucking at their teet no matter how old they get

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

>5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.
>association between the 2R allele of theVNTRregion of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.

>Policing them more?

Duh

>Germans are cucked and they know it, their army is a meme
They have the second largest army in Europe, only slightly smaller than France. What are you talking about?

>Turkey
Nobody cares about kebabs

>Everything military is coordinated either on country-to-country basis or through NATO
Remember we are talking about some absolute fringe case here where not only does America refuse to help(or has a dictator) and a large European goes off the wall as well.

Wtf I hate black people now

But then you have institutional racism and the state subverting the rights of it's people to protect from harm.
Sounds even worse than banning guns in terms of tyranny.

I don't own any tactical assault weapons or any weapons for that matter.

I might get a pistol one day or something but it won't be in the immediate future. I don't foresee myself ever needing any rifles or shotguns as I don't hunt and I think a simple pistol will suffice for adequate property protection.

>institutional racism
There is already racism in medicine because blacks and other people who evolved around malaria are more likely to get sickle cell anemia.

>making up a right
natural law isn't mutable

Estonia can say that having internet access is a right but it isn't. A "right" that someone has to provide for you isn't a right.

You can have your government guarantee access to something if you want tho, I don't give a shit lmao

I don't see how that is relevant to the point.
btw the sickle cell anemia gene also makes them immune to malaria it's a genetic trade off.