>Hell yes, we're going to take your rights away
Hell yes, we're going to take your rights away
Other urls found in this thread:
I don't see why something that all other civilized nations do fine without with much bettee outcomes has to be a right. Maybe its just me
it's what comes next, do you think that once the 'unassailable' constitution is changed that they won't immediately move to change what they want changed?
You realize most civilized nations dont have free speech either right?
>other civilized nations do fine without with much bettee outcome
UK literally the knife crime capital of Earth
all Scandinavian countries overrun by pajeets and they can't do anything about it other than apologise for being white
tell me more about how this is working
stfu they want to take that away, too
You still have the right to remain silent. You should probably use it.
Forgetting this gem from an actual standing president?
While a liberal, I don't understand the big push by the Democratic party to take away guns. I mean I understand their reasoning behind it but it's going to take something massive. The 2ne amendment is one of those things that makes America American. If that makes sense.
How exactly do you differentiate between a criminal and a citizen when you take away their guns without due process?
Get a lot of drive-by knifings over there in the UK, do you?
How can they be deemed a criminal if you haven't followed due process?
And if guns are outlawed, all gun owners will be criminals, so, mission accomplished.
How do Dems get a pass on the anti-white rhetoric they are always spewing out these days?
Europe is still a hell of a lot more white than the US.
There is no move to Take away guns.
Banning a certain style/model isn't at all infringing your ability to buy something else.
Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread or are you just clinically retarded?
Republicans aren't allowed to speak up unless their masters say so.
Acid attacks rampant in UK
Fuck off libtard the US is way more white than the numbers say. They just overestimate blacks and Mexicans in the census figures plus there's loads of whites who live off the grid who don't show up in the stats
Its obviously a bot... you can say this in like 90% of the threads these days and still be somewhat relevant
Who's gun DID he take away? Name them please.
And how many of those countries have the same right we do?
People were having the same argument for 8 years about how Obama was going to take people's guns away.
Then you faggots will demand semi autos are taken
All Trump did was ban bump stocks. I handed mine in because they're not really protected under the constitution and personally I think we're all safer without them around.
Not him but if anything the us is LESS white given the millions of illegal spics living here. Not to mention all the kikes and non-whites larping as white.
Time to go back to Sup Forums
Just need a better way to track the weapons, record ownership and backgrounds of individuals to control/limit who can't and can get guns.
Is that pic meant to be an American pretending to be a Swede?
I have only ever heard this on Fox News.
No, he clearly said AR-15 style rifles.
You will be eligible for buybacks for several years.
Go get your free money, buy a good gun
It's all of the American's that think they are apart of some great race, without realizing they themselves are just big muts merged from all over the world.
Fucking hate those faggots that think this way
Well this thread kinda backfired
You faggots pass gun control by the fucking year. Get your head out of your ass. It's obvious as fuck you people won't be happy until ever gun is banned.
Notice there isn't a single nigger in this pic
That's talking about the militia, not the people and their right to own guns, retard.
The state must have the power of armed forces, so people outside the armed forces must also have arms.
Look up what militias were
How is this an argument again?
Hey, how much compensation did you get from the government for that seizure of private property?
Well regulated meant well supplied/ maintained in historical context. Regulation didn't start being used as a common term for control and moderation until well after the constitution was made.
It's a right most leaders would not have thought about, as it places the people on the same level as the government. The government was never meant to be elevated above the people, and was never meant to have more power than being a central leadership. It's no small wonder they want it gone, as it's one of the many things preventing the governing body from total abuse of power. Our two party system divides us, and the government can eventually use that to control our ideas.
It's not. These same people are going to use this bullshit to ban free speech next, saying it doesn't apply to computers and social media.
Look up the definition
well with the bills that just passed committee even cowboy guns with tubular magazines are targeted they want them all
>implying they already haven't been pushing for and succeeding in censoring the most popular parts if the internet
They never waited, personal liberty and responsibility is a farce to their minds. Nobody wants to be responsible for themselves anymore.
They sound WELL REGULATED
>I handed mine in because [I'm a cuck who doesn't mind government cock in my rectum so long as it's a cock that leans to the right]
Of what? Regulated? I just told you, it has an older historical definition that a cursory google search would not tell you. Regulated is still used in that context, but its no longer the common use. If its militia your after, then the meaning would be all abled body men ages 18 to 45.
GIVE UP THE FUCKING GUNS, NAZIS.
Are you on drugs? Militias then and now are citizen military groups who work under the army in times of need. They were just citizens roaming the country side randomly. You can twist words to your purposes but its literally written out and easily understood in the context of both then and now.
It was a memorable day when her nude pic got leaked
pics or it didn't happen
There was a pic of her nude hanging on a pull up bar, it was spread around pol for a while. I can try and find it in the archive.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why do you have to completely dodge this part with your debate over what a militia is? The militia does not have the right to bear the arms, the PEOPLE do. But please, keep telling us how WE'RE twisting things.
I'd be much abliged, user
No my man. Citizen/state militias are seperate entities to the legal definition of a militia in the second amendment. It is defined as the militia being all legal, able bodied men of the ages 18 to 45. This was prior to there being any kind of organized national army. After the revolution, the state militias returned home and it was a while before the formation of the national guard as a unified, traditional army.
Here's on of the archived pol threads with her nude pic. It wasn't spread too much outside of pol over concerns about her age in the pic.
Yeah, but that it's significantly less common than being fucking shot
I remember when bans were being handed out for that pic. I hope you're behind some skeletons.
I want you to look up what George Washington did before becoming president. Was he a general of a national army (the equivalent of because there was no nation yet) or a manager at taco bell?
Why are foreignfags so fucking scared of getting shot as opposed to any other harm? It seems to me that we should just drop a couple crates full of guns on them so they can get used to them and stop being pussies. I've been shot before, dude. It's not a big deal.
You do realize that any gun law past the second amendment is unconstitutional and therefore illegal? Registration is just the first step of confiscation. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say shall not be infringed except for ...
>I've been shot before, dude. It's not a big deal.
Woah tough guy over here folks
>Congress shall make no law respecting a restriction of firearms, nor prohibiting the free carrying thereof; or abridging the freedom to form citizen militias without government sanction.
Having written the 1st amendment why not just use the structure to make it clear guns for everyone with no regulation is the intent? They went out of their way to describe a pretext for why and how the guns were intended to be used and described those who posess them as members of a regulat milita. Its very clear what they meant, you just want it to say something else.
>projecting this hard
>being this retarded
What is projected here exactly? Do you have a rondomizer of incel comebacks you rely on in these moments?
There is over 100 years of legal precedent that decidedly disagrees with your ignorant ass. Every breath you take you prove the Federalists wrong.
Not an argument.
If you read the last part," to form citizen militias without government sanction" that means any citizen can form a militia. To do that he must have access to military arms. And he doesn't have to get permission from anybody. You made my argument for me.
he lead the combined state militias. It didn't stay that way. Like I said, it was written before the formation of an actual national force. Most of the founding fathers were against a federal army forming due to the issue of consolidation of power.
Not an argument
You do know I rewrote that as a hypothetical, right? That is what someone who would want no regulation of guns would write, similar to the 1st amendment. They didnt choose that language though, hence my point.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
It sounds just like some of the stuff Jefferson wrote about the people being able to disband the government by force if necessary.
He led the continetal army which was made up of state based militias - formed in 1775. The constituion was written in 1787 and ratified in 88. Your understanding of the state based army thing is true, and is currently be the national guard.
It feels like the most basic fact will be twisted if it gets in the way of your desired outcome. Look it up. Anyway, good night.
And thats fine, but thats an opinion and not a binding law. The law is written very specifically about preserving the right of militia members to retain their arms.
And the minute men who made up the militia was who? Hint: every able bodied man with his own weapon.
what is with these fucking psychopaths
Fuck off, commie troll.
Yes they do. More have free speech than free guns.
And in the US I hsve to watch what i say or some gun nut is likely to shoot me for attacking his "rights"
You're one retarded bootlicking faggot.
At the time the militia was a conscripted service and all men HAD to join. The minutemen were an elite segment of the broader militia. In war, the minutement worked under the umbrella of the formal army. Why they are cool is not that they were some renegade group, but instead that they were crafty everymen who fought in nonformal ways. They were still part of a state controlled militia who became part of the national military when needed.
Its all out there, read.
I think this almost qualifies as a job sooo...
>Its all out there, read.
No, no... the fantasy is much better.
The were not conscripted. The had sign on. Any able-bodied male age 14 or older had the right to sign on and the right to quit and go home at his choosing. When he showed up, he was expected to bring his own weapons and field gear. All the government supplied was extra powder and shot. They were not even issued uniform because they didn't want them mistaken for regular military.