The 2nd

why hasn't the rest of the world come to the realization that being able to properly defend yourself is a nessecity? How can someone allow another to take away their right to save the lives of their family, themselves, and others? Explain yourselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I-I'm
With you user

The rest of the world avoids reality as much as it possibly can. Europeans deserve to die due to their stupidity and lethargy.

The second amendment is a unique document, if not for the shall not be infringed part. It would have been written out of law in any other country.

The elites would never allow such a thing to happen again

>tfw no /out/ gf

Europeans are all pussies
WW2 really scared them
Nations that don't have gun laws because they're 3rd world shitholes already know how important owning a gun is

free people must be armed

>The elites would never allow such a thing to happen again
They never did
Deceleration and it's signers were not part of the elite, they were mostly farmers with books or traders

You've got an invaluable right with the 2nd ammendment.

Once it's taken away they would never allow it to be brought back. Those of us without the right to self defence know we are fucked.

Never allow them to take your guns. All those screaming murder rate/school shootings/dead cops are jumping on tragedy to take your guns because they KNOW once they have them you'll never, ever get them back.

It took thousands of years for the idea of personal property (and the rights therein) to come to the minds of humans, and only a few decades of relative prosperity and peace to forget it.

>A terrorist on the FBI watch list that is known to sympathize with ISIS will not be able to fly, but can waltz into a gun store and purchase a semi automatic weapon with no consequences

>Be American
>Get Shot

Due process

And the fact you shot me in the face before I could make you part of the British slavemind

#notallmuslims right?

The 2nd amendment bridges the political divide.

It is they only thing standing between a free people and a Tyranny.

What, are you advocating mind-crimes?
Laws exist to prosecute criminals who have committed a crime. That is a fundamental aspect of law.

It was never going to happen at that age from that distance and you knoe it
Spain was several times more advanced on you on the subject and even they couldnt keep what they had.
You didn't have a chance in hell, plus half the people in the colonies weren't even english

You know the owner of the gunstore previously put out a statement that he would not sell guns to muslims and then he got threatened by the justice department to get investigated so he sold Mateen a gun.

No, I am talking about common sense. If there is an extremely high likelihood that a citizen is going to commit a terrorist attack, killing many innocent lives, it is absurd to think that you cannot restrict them from having the most deadly of equipment to perform their task.

I guess thats why shootings and terrorist incidents are common place in the USA with that mindset.

It has nothing to do with the people, it benefits elites and authorities to keep people disarmed.

Just before we had immigration, we had a reasonably functional democracy, a homogenous society, and our biggest threat was thought to be Russia. I really don't think we needed it.
Now I have to admit, having a gun about the house would make me feel a lot better.

>that mindset.

Yes, the liberal pussy bed wetting mindset of relying on big daddy govt to keep you safe from the bad man.

Self defense is a personal responsibility. All those shootings are the result of decades of liberal policies and PC disease rotting the minds of our youth.

Taking guns from otherwise law abiding citizens is not the solution. Reference, terror attacks in yurop.

>Self defense is a personal responsibility.

LMAO that is quite literally third world thinking. So walking around in Philly should be as cautious as walking in Islamabad?

It is literally a US Supreme court edict. Several times, actually.

A Supreme Court edict from 1855 states that the government and its agents have no duty to protect citizens from harm, which was famously reaffirmed in 1981, holding that the state is only responsible for citizens when a special relationship exists, like custody. Hell, according to a 2005 ruling from SCOTUS, the government doesn't have a duty to protect you EVEN IF you've obtained a court issued restraining order. From a New York Times article on that ruling:

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

To add to this - police are great for enforcing the general rule of law; if you break the law you can be assured that the police will come find you and bring you before a court

That said, the police can not be everywhere all the time. The ONLY way to guarantee your personal safety at any time is to be capable and prepared to defend yourself at any given moment.

That doesn't mean you have to walk around with your finger on the trigger in constant fear, but a responsible adult should have the situational awareness to detect a potential threat, and the proper training and tools to react to to one when it materializes.

I know #adulting sounds really complicated, but you'll understand when you grow up.

A lot of the rest of the world, prefers the kind of safety and security that comes with being disarmed. Some nations prefer to trust government with their lives/

>muh civilized safety nets will save meee

Except when they don't. Then you're life is forfeit and what recourse have you then?

I figured you ozzys living so close to the brutality of nature ought to recognize this fact. Guess I watched too much Crocodile Dundee

Because your "freedom" "self-reliance" "self-defence" mentality is a product of your environment. Namely, living on what is essentially a huge empty island with no real enemies. You can afford to be silly.

Meanwhile, people in other countries needed centralized power to defend against actual enemies. Those who got ideas about muh liberty were overrun. Russian princedoms learned that lesson in 13th century, Poles learned it much later when their dysfunctional semi-anarchic state collapsed under external pressure.

Yeah. Having every adult with guns, and each house being a barricade must really help all those people looking to overrun the country.

Your level of delusion explains why Anglos can only survive on isolated islands.

>tfw live in police state

Yes, yes, I'm sure. Switzerland, meanwhile, defies absolutely every assertion you made.

Question: where does the 2nd amendment stop to you guys?

You often say it exists to stop government tyrrany but you'll need more than guns to keep up with the technology the military has.

Should missiles be allowed? Grenades? Lasers? Where does it end?

The greatest nations/empires topple from within, not from external pressure.

I agree.

When I was a child I used to play with toy guns or find sticks in woods and pretend it was a gun when I played with my friends, this leads me to believe that children, more specifically boys, have an inherent nature to fight and want to learn to defend themselves.
Well obviously most of the world is cucked, and would never be able to defend themselves in case of an invasion or something.
It's kind of sad.

>Andorra and San Marino, meanwhile, defy absolutely every assertion you made.
I'm talking about actual countries here.
Because they are sufficiently "great" (read: powerful centralized states) to resist overt external aggression.

So who conquered the Swiss? I mean, they were neutral in both world wars, but they never were invaded or conquered.

Your country on the other hand, WERE invaded, and lost land. Sure, you took it back, and then some, but your borders were violated. Switzerland's wasn't.

So who has the non-country again?

The "centralized power" of the EU and US are now just enemy power centers with a plan for white genocide, our own genocide. All the "centralized power" in the world isn't worth shit if that power wants to kill you.

tl.dr a bunch of fucking jews have all the power

>So who has the non-country again?

We do, and every European country, at least every one in the EU.

>So who conquered the Swiss?
They were ruled by Hapsburgs until the cantons united to drive them out, not that it matters.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That being a small insignificant country in the mountains and making yourself useful to European powers as neutral ground can help you avoid being invaded? Sure.

I'm just saying that your opinion of centralized power would change if instead of Canada you bordered communist China, and instead of Mexico you bordered a dozen Muslim states.

>Having the ability to seize the mechanical abilities and bank accounts from the Swiss, but choosing not to in favor of leaving a neutral country in the midst of your expanding empire in WW2.

Yeah. That makes perfect sense. That's why the Germans left the French alone, so long as they promised to be Neutral, and left you alone, despite the fact that you weren't allied with any of the European countries.

Yeah. That happened.

>Because they are sufficiently "great" (read: powerful centralized states) to resist overt external aggression.

The keyword here is 'powerful.'

This is a result of the nation/empire's foundations; notably, the role of government and the power it has and does not have.

Men will only invest in their nation if they feel they will reap the rewards. If they are motivated by 'freedom,' self-reliance,' and 'self-defense' they will be far more productive and successful.

post more photos of ethereal rose

>>Having the ability to seize the mechanical abilities and bank accounts
Is this a case of too much Civilization, or something? I'm probably giving you too much credit.

France and Russia were threats to Germany, actual countries with actual armies. Switzerland was a convenient place to keep your bank account in. If you don't understand the difference and what it implies, you are beyond help.

I don't doubt you, but we find ourselves in more fortunate circumstances.

Exactly. And if you conquered that country, you could take possession of your enemy's money.

Good thing the Spanish believed in genocide and rape, eliminating an otherwise hostile culture with brute force.

The no fly list is unconstitutional too.

Since when is the best way to combat an injustice with further injustice?

>Men will only invest in their nation if they feel they will reap the rewards. If they are motivated by 'freedom,' self-reliance,' and 'self-defense' they will be far more productive and successful.
Nah, you are extrapolating from your experience again. Americans are motivated by the mentioned values because they evolved in a frontier culture, where they could expand across vast land open for exploitation, facing basically only trivial threats. So interference from the government was seen as annoyance and obstacle to realizing their goals.

It would only change, if the power was on our side. And Mexico is invading us more than a dozen Islamic countries.

Actually not. Obongo is importing millions of Muslims on purpose to fuck us over. Once again showing how evil this "centralized power" can be, when it wants to genocide you.

Only good thing is, I have guns. Hard to genocide heavily armed people.

Switzreland was more useful to Germany and other European powers as an independent country than as occupied territory. If you can't wrap your head around this concept, I don't think further discussion is productive.

>Should missiles be allowed? Grenades? Lasers? Where does it end?
They are already.

Recently started thinking about this very subject. What would the people of a country like Japan do with full 2A? I'm has guns in the US, but down here in Samoa, the idea of owning a gun down here rarely crosses my mind.

Wish I wasn't about to fall asleep. Hope to be able to pull this thread up in the morning.

You have yet to prove any sort of logic behind that assertion.

Yep. That's what produced the most powerful nation on Earth.

Our greatest challenge now is that we've run out of frontier.

>LMAO that is quite literally third world thinking

And yet modern civilization was built by those with that kind of thinking

>I enjoy making statements without any semblance of logic or proof! Now give up your guns!

>1620 - Jamestown.
>Decades of Indian Wars.
>Wars with France.
>More decades of Indian wars.
>Wars with Spain.
>More Decades of Indian wars.
>War with France and Indians at the same time.
>More Indian Wars.
>Revolutionary war.
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>More Indian Wars.
>Little Civil War.
>More Indian Wars.
>War of 1812.
>Decades of Indian Wars.
>Big Civil War.
>Decades of Indian Wars.
>War with Spain.
>Finally subdue the Indians pretty completely.
>Get into WW1 because the Krauts try to get the Beaners to invade us.

Tell me more about the safe land without enemies that we exist on. We are safe because the American people without the governments intervention, could fuck up any enemy in the western hemisphere, and those enemies know it, RIGHT CANADA?!

My friend, you are essentially a mental troglodyte. You missed every point I made, reacted with stock replies (I have seen this line about Switzerland several times, apparently it's a canned response in American gun debates) and even misinterpreted my motives (like I care if you keep your guns or not). I'm sure you can find yourself an equally but diametrically brainwashed American liberal, and have your standard muh guns talk with him.

Down here civillian gun ownership is a serious bet. Getting a gun is very, very hard. On the other hand, people feel safe in public places, especially public transit centers, because they are surrounded with armed soldiers on the way to and from leave.

>fighting Copper Age tribes is hard

You forgot the Barbary Wars and when we roflstomped Mexico.

It can be challenging if you don't have guns and they outnumber you a hundred to one. Plenty of frontier families were murdered, scalped and sold to the french for bounty before 1800. The amendment exists PRECISELY because of the experiences of the American frontier, where the governments power was mostly hot air and if you could not defend yourself you were at the mercy of those copper age tribes.

Wow, "troglodyte!" Such a big word! I'm sure you are proud and satisfied with it. I'm so pleased that you have seen this response. A shame that you have been unable to disprove it with any meaningful evidence.

Fifth amendment protects your right to due process before a court of law can strip you of your constitutional rights.
Which should be illegal anyways, they don't take away any of your other rights when you commit a felony.

I was talking about wars in continental US where we were not the aggressor. Times when individual Americans made use of the second amendment or the idea of an intrinsic right to effective self defense that underlies it.

Lives don't matter.
10,000 people die every year in this country from firearms related homicide while a million plus die from abprtion and 2.5 million die of other causes. Terrorism is one of the lowest statistical causes of death in this country.
Gun deaths are such a small slice of the pie that when shown the big picture they aren't all that significant.
I'm not going to let some spineless dipshit liberal tell me what I can and cannot own, I'd rather put a bullet in him than give up my rights.

Government militias, like, say police forces, should be the same as ordinary citizens, and not overlords.

Therefore, anything deployed by any police unit anywhere in the country should be fair game. This includes SWAT teams and the national guard.

In addition, things commonly used by militias outside the US should be fair game as well.

The more commonly deployed or used something is, the easier it should be to get.

>The amendment exists PRECISELY because of the experiences of the American frontier, where the governments power was mostly hot air and if you could not defend yourself you were at the mercy of those copper age tribes.
Well yes, that was kind of my point. The menace from native tribes is basically one step above menace from hostile wildlife. For that situation, gun ownership makes sense. I'm just saying it's not really a comparable situation with countries facing actual external threats.

Russia had its own frontier expansion period when we took over the entire Northern Asia, which had its share of tribes. It was a less violent expansion, but we had our share of tribal conflicts. However they did not shape national mentality, because at the same time the country was facing multiple actual invasion threats, and frontier experience basically didn't really register in comparison.

>The menace from native tribes is basically one step above menace from hostile wildlife.
>not really a comparable situation with countries facing actual external threats.
Actual external threats? So France putting troops in North America, real soldiers with bayonets, cannons and ships, is not a real external threat? Or "copper age" natives with weaponry more advanced than your own troops somehow waters down the significance of the 2A?

Don't you understand? He's AFRAID, he doesn't like to be afraid. He doesn't want to be responsible either, so he want's his safety to be the governments responsibility. The government said that it can only keep him safe if no one has any weapons. (they also said that if he gets killed anyway it's not their fault). But his unrealistic feeling of safety is more important than you're actual, modest measure of safety in self reliant self defense.

Life is not safe, not amount of government bubble wrap can make you immortal. Risk is intrinsic to existing, you cannot eliminate it. The odds of being shot in America are a tiny fraction of the odds of being hit by a car, dieng in a car accident and are even lower than the odds of being beaten to death. Ban assault hands. Why haven't you exterminated all the snakes, spiders, scorpions, and fucking platypus' yet? >Be Australian, get poisoned.

I will not surrender my liberty so that pussies can feel falsely safe.

>don't live in a shithole third world country
>the most you'll ever have to defend myself is a fistfight outside a bar or something

Get fisted faggot everything in this picture is illegal in your nanny state shit hole country. I don't want to be owned by my government. I want the ability to say no when I think it is fucking up. You don't have that right any more.

I'm saying that the threats to American life, liberty and happiness internal and external, are kept in check by the simple fact that there are more guns in america than people.

I may only speak for Germany; generally speaking, Germans are born collectivists.

They do not get the idea of total free speech nor the idea of individual self defense.

Germans have no idea of freedom, I really came to hate my people in the last 2 years.

They would rather be a "good citizen" and get robbed, mugged or killed than to "take the law in their own hands" because such affairs "belong to the police and the state".

Even Napoleon notied this subservience of the Germans; he also noticed that Germans are a people of squealers.

Most countries with the lowest murder and violent crime rates are those where guns are illegal to own.

Seems people owning guns means it is more likely that someone else will take away your life or your families

No, external threats are kept in check by Atlantic and Pacific oceans, mostly.

you are pretty much arguing for him at this point. Saying 'life is not safe' is meaningless to those victims of gun crimes etc. As for dangerous animals, preventative measures are put in place like stocking anti-venom and professional exterminators. We don't just say 'life ain't safe' and leave it at that. Owning a firearm has nothing to do with liberty in any case, if you couldn't afford one or they weren't avaialable for purchase you wouldn't have one even if you had rights to it. It's a luxury the same as a car, tv or bed.

>Brazil, Mexico: guns outlawed

safe countries, no families get muredered at all

>AustriamSwitzerland Czecheslovakia; right to own guns, self defense, and carry (czech)

Dangerous places, London is much safer.

And yet the most gun happy, heavily armed, militia forming people in America are the German immigrants. The American Rifleman learned his craft from a Hessian Jaeger. Come home Germanman, We found our promised land. Here we are free to build whatever strange ill advised shit we want and empowered to defend its aesthetic obscenity and call other peoples creations stupid.

There's actually no correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership.

>glorious switzerland
>everybody armed to the teeth
>lowest crime rate in europe and probably the entire fucking world
hahaha, yeah right ahmed.

>France putting troops in North America, real soldiers with bayonets, cannons and ships, is not a real external threat?
Which war are you referring to?
>"copper age" natives with weaponry more advanced than your own troops
Tribes are never a threat.

It's a luxury to a brit. It's a fundamental symbol of liberty to an American. I am free because the government can point a gun at me and say "kneel" and I point a gun back and say "no".

It's almost like it has more to do with wealth of average citizens, not with gun laws.

This comment has been reported to the Verfassungsschutz for hate speech.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'

>a colonial war between Britain and France
What, exactly, does it have to do with anything?

I should have specified that tribes are never a thread to Modern (say, post-medieval) nation.

Have you seen Kraut and Tea's videos on Youtube? He tears apart these ideals and directly defies the Verfassungsschutz and the former Stasi running the hurt feeling police groups on a regular basis.

(Post deleted by the Central Intelligence Agency)

kek (laughing turns slowly into crying)

This and the race and culture of the people.

Vermon is safe (95% white) Detroit (aproxx 102395% black) is not.


yes, I shot my first gun, a ruger 10/22 at age 4 in South Carolina in the early 90's.

I love guns and know a lot about them. I even managed to legally own guns in Germany, ranging from Blackpowder to Ar-15.

The problem is all guns except the Blackpowder ones have to be reigstered and will be taken away from you anyway if a civil unrest or something seems to happen, I guess.

And of course "thought crime" can get you stripped of your weapons as well, even if you were not convicted.

Most Germans hate guns and want to take the little gun laws we have away as well.

I need to talk to my family about migrating to the US again.

>muh guns keep me safe
While I agree, you seem to be forgetting that the average Swiss is a decent person.

Yes I have seen it, do you know why he does his channel in English?

Because otherwise he would draw attention from antifa scum who would try to identify him and shut him down.

He said it himself in the comments.

>Most countries with the lowest murder and violent crime rates are those where guns are illegal to own.

Sorry. The facts disagree with you.

Tried explaining this to my father.

I said that human beings have an innate right to defend themselves using any means necessary, especially in the case of a home invasion.

Also said that the possession of firearms is a deterrent to most crime. You aren't going to break into a home or rob a store if there's a good chance they're armed to the teeth.

As I live in the UK he said that the possession of firearms is stupid and that the 2nd Amendment in the US should be removed. In the UK we have a "necessary force" law that simply says you can use the most limited amount of force to disable an attacker, any more and its grounds for assault and you can be jailed.

There was a story a few years ago where a man invaded someones home with the intention of stealing property. The owner, using a legally owned hunting shotgun, shot the invader in the leg. The Courts deemed this was unnecessary and the owner was jailed for five years and forced to pay compensation to the burglar who invaded his home and threatened his family. I fucking hate the UK sometimes, such a cucked country.

I wish the UK had a similar law that allowed the legal ownership of firearms for home defense at least. The right to defend yourself is too damn important.

If the government points a gun at me I can stay standing because its within my constitutional right to not acquiesce to their demands without a charge and can later vote against that government democratically. The Army is ultimately loyal to the crown so I don't need to be afraid that an undemocratic party could seize power. See what you fail to grasp is that gun or no if you don't have the mandate of the majority of america you'd fail in any case to uphold your liberty. It must be shit living in a ocuntry you can't trust and in which every rung of government is corrupt. You lost a monarchy and in doing so lost liberty.

Have you made sure to delete your Facebook? There is currently a former Stasi running an NGO that reports Facebook thought crime to the Verfassungsschutz to take away your rights.

Too the naysayers, this isn't a conspiracy theory, there are literally people being threatened with 250,000 Euro fines by courts if they engage in hate speech in the future. What's hate speech in De? Making someone feel butthurt, that is literally the constitutional definition of hate speech.

Here is a typical Castle Doctrine law in the US.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

I like how you honor Sup Forums's characteristik of being a satire board with this comment.

top kek