Why does everytime someone asks a pro gun American if guns should stay legal or not, the only argument they have is something like:
>shall not be infringed xDDDDDD
>It's the constitution :-DDDDDDDDDDDDD
I mean, if your only argument pro gun is the constitution... Maybe people shouldn't have guns after all.
Other urls found in this thread:
The only argument they need are monkeys like you
>only argument pro gun is the constitution
You mean the concept that all men are born with certain unalienable rights and they cannot be denied or taken away by any tyrannical government?
Clearly you lack these concepts in Brazil.
Don't you have a bull to prep Hans?
The constitution, and the concept of unalienable rights, can both be changed. If you have no argument past the constitution, you have a very weak argument.
He is correct about the constitution, Brazil.
Rifles of any category accounted for less than 250 homicides in the entire USA in 2014.
What are the very first firearms politicians and antiguns go for when talking about bans? Rifles. Why?
What names are given to these rifles? Assault weapon, assault rifle, sniper rifle, killing machine, weapon of war...
The idea isn't to make the country safer, it's to make it so controlled there isn't a chance a citizen could stand up.
There is absolutely no reason to fear firearms in the United States, it's such a non issue that every firearm death has to be thrown together into one big-ish number to get people to go "oh, this is a big issue!" When really the issue is with blacks and the fact anyone seeking mental help is either shunned or almost voluntarily stripping their rights away.
I'm not talking about rifles, just guns in general.
We have a right to life and liberty in the constitution, pretty much the only positive rights endowed in the document. Free speech and bearing arms allows us to protect our life and libery.
>The constitution, and the concept of unalienable rights, can both be changed.
>you have rights
>i dont like that
>lets change the system so you dont have rights anymore!
good luck convincing anybody with that line of reasoning lmao
You speak as if passing a gun law magically makes all guns go away. It doesn't. Drugs are illegal, they are easy to get. How many murders are with an illegally obtained gun?
SHALL
>unalienable rights, can both be changed
No.
>the concept of unalieable rights can be changed.
???
There's no such thing as banning guns. There is only allowing freedom or centralizing gun ownership into the hands of a corrupt elite.
It can be. It damn well shouldn't, but it can be.
>Maybe people shouldn't have guns after all.
So said, the foreign invader.
Sup Forums unironically believes they can beat Nato+U.S Army with their tacticool semi-auto Ar-15 HAHAHA these people are delusional and actually believe they are rambo there is no reasoning with them.
SHALL NOT BE INFR-
american military supremacy sure worked in vietnam :^)
>went to court for murder
>Judge says I'm guilty
>I ask why
>Because that is the law, you broke it and the result is punishment
Why are judges so fucking retarded?
Your logic is that if your chances of winning are low, you throw away whatever it is that's preventing your chances from becoming zero. An armed public prevents the government from doing anything too crazy in theory. Of course, you wouldn't understand.
>The constitution, and the concept of unalienable rights, can both be changed.
So change it but not pretend that law doesn't exist. How about obeying law? Oh wait... brazil ...laws... right.
Isnt Brasil one of those places with staunch gun laws and insane amounts of gun violence?
Keep preaching, scumbag.
I know right, the US has never had any problems with poorly armed militias...
Apart from in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam and undoubtedly they will struggle in Syria.
Gun deaths are such an infinitesimally small number that it doesn't matter. They just get publicized more.
Perhaps you can't beat the army, but you can still kill 5+ cops or 50+ Canadians with a AR-15.
>Totally missed the news where 1 guy with 1 gun shot 11 officer killing 5
Fugg, meant to say iraq, afghanistan, vietnam
Holy shit, you aren't a fucking rice farmer who has nothing to lose. As soon as your internet, airconditioned house, constant supply of food from the grocery store/fast food, is threatened you will hand over your guns. You fucking NEETS honestly think you are going to live in the wilderness and survive with no grocery store no home, etc??? TOP KEK
>Totally missed the news where 1 guy with 1 gun shot 11 officer killing 5
Yeah a military trained veteran killed 5 fat American police officers who have never been in combat and weren't expecting it at a gay pride parade. Sometimes I wonder if you people are trolling me with this shit LOL
because a high percentage of ameritubs have deluded fantasies of them overthrowing a tyrannical government. Could be from watching hundreds of action movies.
I own 3 rifles btw.
Fuck I meant *Black lives matter parade
The media tells you that we "lost" those wars. What do you consider winning a war to be? Killing their tyrannical leaders? Done. High number of enemy/civilian causalities? Done. Spoils? Nope, we're not there for oil. People bitch if we go to war, people bitch if we don't go to war.
>Fugg, meant to say iraq, afghanistan, vietnam
Comparing hardened men who fight to survive every day in their 3rd world shithole to fat Americans who have never had to live without air conditioning, big houses, T.V, Internet, grocery stores, etc.
In real life
Muslim shooter
>Kill arabic people, rape their kids and babies
Black shooter
>Bomb their country, rape kids
White shooter
>Cry on Sup Forums about "fuqin race draidors ::(("
You clearly don't understand what an enshrined right is.
Perhaps you should read a book nigger.
It would require completely abolishing the existing social contract that underpins the United States to do so. You would need a completely new nation.
The 2nd amendment in regards to protection against tyrannical government is outdated, just lol if you believe Americans will choose to live in forests, sleep on dirt floors, and eat weeds to be "FREE" when they are given the choice to maintain current living standards under whichever tyrannical leader takes over the country.
2nd amedment may have been relevant before there were armored tanks, helicopters, mounted 50 cal machine gun Humvee's, etc. Now its just a meme, you won't beat them with your fucking $900 Ar-15 stop being cucks and admit the truth.
NOT
When someone "breaks in" to your unlocked front door and attempts to rape your wife and daughter, what are you gonna do? Call the police and watch? Or are you going to grab for AR and put 5 rounds through the guy?
If the media can lie and mislead the people by skewing or omitting facts, and all you can use to justify it is "m-muh First Amendment", you have a very weak argument
How do you solve the Accessibility vs Safety problem in regards to keeping guns in your house, though?
Basically, you don't want the gun to be so accessible that something bad happens, but you don't want it to be so safe and locked up that it takes too long to get it when you need it.
>A FUCKING LEAF
American/french revolutions were the result of public access to firearms.
Democracy in ancient Greece was the product of citizen's widespread ownership of weapons. That is where they drew their legitimacy for leadership.
Even if this wasn't true, being able to defend myself is 100000x more important than protecting the sanity of liberals who get upset that people have rights to own guns.
We don't need an argument. For the most part we do as we please and owning guns are just one of those things. If you're not from here I guess it's just something you wouldn't understand
>The concept of unalienable rights can be changed
Lol what?
Because if you want something banned, you need to explain why it should be banned.
You don't start from the position "why should this be legal," That's how retards and commies argue.
Gun safes exist. Key or code to get in and done. It comes down to the usual rule of "don't be a fucking idiot". When you keep your revolver in a refrigerator drawer, you're an idiot. All my guns are in a safe with their ammo and magazines next to each of them.
If you think any modern government is not capable of tyranny... Have you been oblivious to what has been happening here in the US? We have Hillary, who has been caught in numerous scandals, which should have her imprison for life at the very least. She is well on her way to take presidency. Seeing as she is clearly above the law, do you really think she wouldn't try anything?
Calling you a retard would be an insult to the retards.
>pic related
I don't think you understood my question. I know gun safes exist, but the question is about the balancing act between the gun being SAFE, but still quickly ACCESSIBLE in the case of a home invasion. You probably won't have time to undo the lock in 30 seconds if somebody is breaking in. That's just if the safe is right next to you when you become aware of the break-in.
Closet of my bedroom. Handguns are easier because you can have a small lockbox or safe in a nightstand drawer. Or even have a locked rifle case under your bed. It's all relative to where you keep them in terms of the doors to your house. If you have a chamber lock you can leave the gun wherever you want really.
My long guns stay in a vault bolted to the floor. My ammo is stored in a locked locker. And there are two loaded pistols in a small biometric pistol safe secured to the floor with a lenght of cable next to my bed. I unlock it when I am home and lock it before I leave. It's not rocket surgery.
>...the concept of unalienable rights, can ... be changed.
And that's why your country is merely a glorified trash heap filled with trash politicians.
Welp, time to post these again...
...
Seriously, have you not learned anything from history? How bad is your Canadian education system?
Tech superiority and numbers don't automatically guarantee a win in war.
Take it from Me. Someone who actually knows.
You can beat an American in an argument 1000 times. It doesent matter.
But at the end of the day. He will never relent once he's made up his mind.
And he would rather die free. No matter how much you outgun him. He will make you fight for every inch of land. Every minute bit of progress.
And in the end. You lose far more men than it's worth.
It didn't work 200 years ago. And it won't work now.
...
Coming from the guy who is currently giving up all his land to Muslims. How's that Bangladeshi neighbor doing? He rape your daughter yet?
Dallas was proof that citizens win in higher ratios when they go against police
It would be an absolute slaughter.
The U.S. army couldn't even keep Iraq and Syria under control.
If a bunch of sandniggers can outsmart and harass nato for decades with black market smuggled soviet surplus guns
Imagine the fuck a developed nation filled to the brim with guns will be able to do
Drones and tanks have to be operated by humans.
Humans with families.
It's all well and dandy. Bombing some Muslim in Iraq while your wife and kids are home safe. They can't get to them
But if your fighting the American civil war. They won't be safe. The rebels will find them. And kill them.
There isn't enough ordinance to destroy or Pacify the entire USA
And this isn't even taking into account defection and Soldiers going awol
When people lose everything. They are free to do anything.
It was a compliment. Why are you mad?
>How come when I ask someone what 2+2 is, they say 4, or 1+1+1+1, or any variation thereof?
Do you realise what a faggot you sound like? It's about personal freedom. The end. If I was an American I would own an entire wall of guns, and I would practice at shooting ranges and shit to become an exceptional marskman too. Just try to grab my guns, faggots. I'd go out blazing.
...
J O I N
O
I
N
the burden of proof is on you
if you think wed be better off without them, explain why
if not, then get the fuck off my lawn
>a hue-monkey telling an American about the constitution
wew fucking lad
>1-7