Reminder that if you call yourself a socialist/communist and you support gun control you should kys immediately

Reminder that if you call yourself a socialist/communist and you support gun control you should kys immediately

Attached: 1570902802869.png (500x472, 443K)

Reminder you should KYS immediately pretty much no matter what.

Just fucking do it faggot

> implying I don't have hundreds of prescription pills and a bottle of gin on my nightstand for that already

Can't argue with that.

Attached: be6.jpg (224x216, 13K)

Fucking kek, even the most turbo leftists knew not to give their guns to the state. Where did it all go so wrong?

pro gun commie here, can confirm all real marxists are pro 2nd amendment

this is why there's two axes: authoritarian/libertarian, left/right

Most modern leftists are insecure, tyrannical authoritarians.

Most righties are as well, sadly.

Few people are willing to accept what freedom would actually mean.

I can't kms if I don't have a gun, idiot.

This is probably going to blow the two brain cells you have left but listen: as the society gets older, we learn more things. Just because the wise people of the past (ahem, founding fathers) were smart, doesn't mean they knew everything and we are gaining a ton of knowledge every day.

tl;dr: we are smarter than people of the past which should be obvious but you are clearly brain damaged.

Attached: shitforbrains.jpg (225x225, 6K)

Just take all the pills dr.noseberg gave you all at once

You have made no effort to refute my post but instead chose to insult and belittle me for having a differing viewpoint. What meager argumentation you put forward is some of the vaguest, most non-indicative bullshit I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

Please, by all means, educate me on what those "things" we learned in the last 200 years were that somehow invalidate those earlier decisions.

We may disagree on economical models, but any 2A supporter is a brother of mine.

I've come to wonder recently : is voting inherently authoritarian? Is the "most important power" of the lower classes really just giving the rulers more power? It's just deciding which clique will rule us for the next few years, no? It would explain a lot : the shit flinging across both ends of the political spectrum would be two flavors of authoritarianism disagreeing with each other

Attached: fuck off.jpg (2560x1440, 1.08M)

aha, Dr, noseberg, I mean really tho, who doesn't know how to do the ole-ropy-ropy-nohopey in this day and age.

The information you need is literally one google search away faggots

Rope is no good, most retards will end up doing a painful suffocation hanging instead of that quick, merciful long drop neck snap.

For real, no bullshit. Socialism isn't what Sweden or Norway have. Then you are surprised why everyone thinks americans are retards, and it's just because you speak without having no idea.
Even the orange bad man is leading the us to a trade war that, if you know anything about international trade, has no sense.

You're not smarter than the smart people in the past. What contribution have you made in any field? You're as dumb as any past and future retard

I'm not a liberal or communist/socialist but I, at minimum, have some respect for any self-described commie that is pro-gun.

it's dumbass liberals that want gun control, not the left

Genuine socialists would be lining up the modern limousine socialists for the destruction of workers rights and wages by the importation of foreign slave class workers and the wealth signaling associated with their blatant virtue signaling in support of that. That is the most libertarian policy and a very right wing idea to say the least. Disarmament of the lower classes of society is just a license for abuse at the hands of the wealthy elite also and definitely a bourgeois fantasy. They want you disarmed and dirt poor and powerless, divided by sexual and racial identity politics that the bourgeois fetishizes about and any genuine working class person doesn’t have the time or interest to have ever cared about

Attached: 9CF13A6C-1824-48FF-9721-9ABC9EEF86E9.png (1136x640, 955K)

>t. uneducated retard burn-out with no future

Getting harder to tell the difference between "The Left" and those dumbass liberals tbh.
The latter are taking all of the left's platforms.

Eat shit and die.
He lived in the 19th century.
Weapons, even military, were single load, single shot weapons.

>no one could have predicted advancements in firearm technology

But yeah, sure, lets listen to you for a minute.
We should just ban all internet and any method of communication besides horseback mail since that didn't exist back then either.

Social liberals or classical liberals? One group is left-wing while the other is a bit more blanket

Always thoroughly hilarious that the people supporting an ideology that abolishes the bourgeoisie are themselves led, represented and spearheaded by those very bourgeois who are just trying to supplant the existing ones.

Definitions are getting muddied up, and both sides are to blame for this. The right wing for essentially espousing anti-liberalism as their point of reference and the left for wearing it as a fucking badge of honor without paying any mind to the sheer irony of it all.

So? Are the military's weapons still single load, single shot weapons? I would think not. The point of "a well regulated militia" is to potentially overthrow a government were it to threaten "the security of a free state". That militia will not be overthrowing shit if they're using muskets against LMGs, let alone artillery, air strikes and armored columns. And if your argument is "well current small arms wouldn't be a match for those either", the point of it is, such a violent repression would be a declaration of war against its own people, which presumably other countries would not take too kindly to, either.

>Are the military's weapons still single load, single shot weapons?
Return of the shitty but accurate FB posts.

Wish I had the one where the guy tells a story about pulling out his musket and flintlock pistols and only disabling the home invaders so he has to draw his sword to go down stairs to finish them off.

Attached: 33136369_2047198202275222_8475700547964370944_n.jpg (950x960, 77K)

Single shot only? Puckle gun and Gerandoni rifle disagree

>Puckle gun
They just claim the puckle gun was a failure because hardly anyone used it and refuse to acknowledge that people did try to innovate firearms back then.

>tyrese, give these niggas a volley

Hell, revolvers and lever actions became a thing a little over half a century later, WHEN THE 13TH WAS BEING RATIFIED. If that logic was true, I refuse to believe every single ratification after that just willingly glanced over the fact that weapons were no longer "SiNgLe-ShOt".

Innovation is not always successful. Its design was admittedly pretty shit, even for the time. But the fact that people did try to innovate firearms should have given them pause for thought, were it an actual issue and not just modern-day pedantism.

Socialism is compatible with capitalism you bearded commie fuck

almost quads

Mein Nikker.