What's the REAL reason the liberal cucks want to take our guns away, Sup Forums?

What's the REAL reason the liberal cucks want to take our guns away, Sup Forums?

Gunless Eurofags need not respond.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/4o4h65/from_the_archives_q_who_came_up_with_the_term
gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Control.

Irrational fear.

Liberals - because they're retards

The government - because most actions taken by the government are meant to make the citizen's more dependant on it. Taking guns away and tightening self defense laws makes people completely dependant on the government in the area of basic security

>liberal cucks have been trying to take away our guns since forever let's forget the last significant gun control legislation was in 1986 and signed by a Republican
Why are conservashits so stupid?

Control of niggers and variant mud. Most white areas have very redpilled laws.

Look around the world... Niggers and mud with guns are a negative gain. Close the boarders, kill non whites (deport), and the antigun peeps disappear.

He has been disavowed, no one respects gun grabbers no matter the isle

fpbp

If they succeeded in taking away our guns, there are plenty of other things an aspiring anarchist could do to fuck with the system.

Cowardice

>Reagan
>not literally worshipped by the GOP

My guess is because they assume there is a policeman at every street corner with Superman-like abilities, ready to save the day the moment you dial 9-1-1 or here's even the slightest yell of 'Help!'. Of course that's not how the world works, but that's probably what they think.

Key to establishing a socialist state

THIS.
democrats are generally concentrated in the urban areas. they need these people for basic services like trash collection, but are genuinely afraid of them. so yes, jews don't want niggers to have guns. jews can have guns, tho.

Liberals have murderous fantasies and they think that everyone else does as well.

Look at the violence from Hillary paid protesters and the lack of violence coming from well-armed Republicans.

When you have the means necessary to end someone's life you don't find the concept of using a gun to resolve every situation that interesting, funny, or satisfying. It just becomes sad and morbid.

>the only way to take away freedom is in huge sweeping strokes
death by a thousand paper cuts, libshill

they assume criminals who would murder someone will suddenly follow a law and give their gun up for some reason

Guns scare people.

That's literally it. People are easily scared.

Because all memes aside, there is no reason why civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.

We were waiting for you to show up. Ready to segfault Shillary Bot #1828 ?

It's a good thing assault weapons don't exist.

So they can do whatever they want without fear of resistance

If it is not for direct control and enslaving us its for us not to get used to the feeling that one could have the means to defend yourself against criminals or the state so that you view it as perfectly fine that you have to beg the state and rely on the state for help.

Umm, but they do?
reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/4o4h65/from_the_archives_q_who_came_up_with_the_term

Taking guns away is the easier way to prevent gun violence than fixing the economy.

>the GOP
>not literally (((controlled opposition)))

it may prevent gun violence a bit if at all, but overall violence goes definately up.

But my question to you guys is: aren't most anti gun fags white?

I mean niggers need em to rob people. I feel like there'e just something more to this.

Except it still doesn't exist. There's nothing to distinguish an "assault weapon" from any other type of gun.

...

I would say that if it can fire large*ish rounds accurately at a long range with relatively quick succession and employ a large*ish mag it can classify as an assault weapon

Yes. But politicians just need to LOOK like they are doing something meaningful.

If you talk about taking away guns, you don't talk about eliminating the wealth gap between the people who actually work, and worthless "job creators" most of whom have inherited their wealth. Because it involves using the t-word.

If assault rifles are no different from any other gun why are you so butthurt about them getting banned?

If x is same as Y and x gets banned just buy y

Niggers dont make up their minds about legality.

Thats the funny thing: gun control only fucks the people who care about laws.

For example in Germany its wideley accepted that criminals or (biker) gangs just happen to "have" guns.

I mean come on they are the criminals they have to have guns right?

But if a righteous citizen owns guns it offends people.

You know what I mean?

>forgets the AWB signed by Clinton
Fuck off, you're forgetting more recent history. Bush let it expire.

Assault rifles have been banned since the 1930s.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

>I don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I want to regulate it. -Cunton

Why are liberals so stupid?

because for some fucked up reason they believe that evil will disappear once everyone is as helpless as they are.

So you're telling me that it only punishes the fair and law abiding citizen?

I know man. But you have to keep in mind that "gun violence" usually includes suicides and accidental shootings.

That criminals will just keep shooting their victims or each other is a known fact to me.

I am one of the rare German 2nd (and 1st) amendment supporters who actually understand why they were invoked and what they are about.

I know, as a reaction to the shooting in Munich with an illegal gun obtained through the darknet and imported via the open borders from eastern Europe merkel suggested that LEGAL online gun sales should be banned.

SHALL
H
A
L
L

Liberalism, or more specifically, modern welfare state liberalism is the total embodiment of "the road to hell" and all that. That's what it is, it's well intentioned, short sightedness.

It feels good to "give to the poor". But the inherent bureaucracy of a welfare state is so massive that the sheer task of it all is simply cost ineffective, and we all become poorer for it.

It feels good to want to "make your community safe", so the gut reaction would be to take all the guns. You don't analyze the moral implications of limiting someone's freedom, or the personal responsibility necessary for a free republic. They just see problem and immediate solution.

That's why modern liberalism takes center stage these days, why all political discourse is framed around liberal solutions and the opposition to them, instead of conservative solutions and opposition to those. It's easy to fall into a liberal mindset. In fact, I'm willing to be the majority of posters on this board at one point in time considered themselves to be "liberals" of some sort.

NOT
O
T

NOT
O
T

BE
E

Assault weapons are:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
>Folding or telescoping stock
>Pistol grip
>Bayonet mount
>Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
>Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
>Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
>Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
>Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
>Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
>A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
>Folding or telescoping stock
>Pistol grip
>Detachable magazine.

They see themselves as part of the ruling class and the beneficiaries of tyranny.

I understand that idea. I just don't understand how people can just go for that retardation so easily

INFRINGED

Nobody wants your guns, cuckfag.
I assume you're referring to Liberals, and not Clinton supporters(who are not liberals, at all).
Bernie and his movement were actually very pro-2nd amendment.

Being anti-assault weapon and pro-background check isn't anti-gun.

Gun control is an appeal to people's fear--But an unloaded gun isn't deadly at all. Having one around and knowing how to use it could in fact be life-saving. And I'm a god damn liberal sayin' this.

None of those make a gun more lethal.

/thread

...

No actually assault weapons are select fire firearms of any kind. (especially rifles)

Thats the definition of assault weapon.

Selfloading rifles capable of accepting box magazines are not assault weapons.

You lost.

.

..

...

>84654797
There's already a fucking thread for this. Stop opening threads and running away
No (you) for you.

So every gun?

Military assignment for an assalt class weapon is the capability to fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger

I.e. burst shot
I.e. Automatic

Semi automatic weapons of any kind are not considered automatic by sale standard.

I doubt you even know the purpose of the amendment you are debating here.

You're a fucking retard, OP receives (OP)s. Sick dubs though.

I really believe the ultimate goal of the modern left is to enact thought speech laws making it illegal to be right wing and if you speak out they will line you up against a wall and shoot you. Most modern liberals will applaud this. I see it every day with Facebook and disqus comments, liberals under anonymity make it clear they have no problem seeing us dead.

Selective fire with full auto

No, that's an assault rifle.

more like this

Its something you like that they dont control, so obviosly that needs to be corrected.

Any humanitarian reasons are purely excuse. Most leftists probably arent even exposed to guns in their lives except in media.

Yeah. I am actually fucking stupid since I didn't know that.
Anyways, I saw at least 3 threads within the last hour saying the same thing. Same with the Gadsden flag one. Seems like something is afoot tonight.

And I don't like it.

look Im sorry i posted it 3 other times. Something was wrong with my PC and I'm generally new to Sup Forums disregard those other threads

>Semi automatic weapons of any kind are not considered automatic by sale standard.

Wrong. Semi automatic is still automatic. For example, the M1911 was commonly called the "colt automatic" for short, even though it was only capable of semi auto fire.

So you are fine with gatling guns, right?

>recently Obama made pushes for another AWB, without a sunset clause that was the only reason Clinton'said AWB expired
>Muh Ray Gun!
>None of Obama's plans went through due in part to a proactive 2a community... this means he wasn't trying to take the guns

Fucking neck yourself faggot.

this

Nah m8 those are ratatatata crackedy pews (I can make up words to describe things as well)

>if x=y and y=banned then x=banned

Good job faggot.

This. Uncle Teddy explains it quite well.

Because they fear that you might end up using those guns on them instead of using the fact that you own guns to shitpost on the internet.

Like said, it's irrational, because you clearly won't ever do that.

There is only one reason...
And I've never heard it stated...
Because I don't think most liberals even know...

It's simply because most people (or at least believed so) that are in favor of guns are conservatives, and liberals will do anything to try and show their power over conservatives and piss them off.
Don't believe anything else.
This is why.

>Nobody wants your guns
>Clinton doesn't want your guns
>Bernouts were very pro-2nd amendment
>Being anti-assault weapon and pro-background check isn't anti-gun

Huh?! None of those implications are true... What world are you living in?

You pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out.
Not automatic

You pull the trigger and it keeps going
Automatic

Source: Military

The real reason is, and always have been, to remove any chance of resistance for when they impose their New World [Globalist] Order.

I own a few firearms, but nothing to the level of the average American (Remington 700 LTR .308 Win, Ruger Mini-14 5.56x45mm, Ruger 10/22 in .22 LR, Glock 17 in 9x19mm and a Sig-Sauer 1911-22 in .22 LR).

Answer my other question shill. What is the purpose of the second amendment. Do you know?

>Being anti-assault weapon and pro-background check isn't anti-gun.
Anti-(((assault weapon))) is anti-gun by definition. We already have background checks so fuck off gungrabbing scum.

Remember Lithuania.

Nigga the average American doesn't even own a single gun, in America someone with that many guns would get called a nutcase.

Really? I was under the impression that the American Gun Culture was deeply rooted in tradition in every family.

But, then again, I have only talked to people from Iowa and Texas about this matter, so.. I am probably wrong :-)

Do you even know the purpose of any of those scary "assault" features that you copy/pasted?

>no one would ever disagree with me so obviously those who do must be getting paid
The second amendment is:

>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.

Which means that people must be allowed to "bear arms" i.e. own firearms, but it doesn't say "delusional faggots get machine guns." Learn the difference.

Retards keep shooting up schools and other public places on a daily basis.

Criminals have easy access to vast arsenals, forcing the militarisation of the police and a culture of fear amoungst the force.

These are the real reasons.

Why is it necessary for the people to bear arms if they need to?

>Being this deluded.

Only nigger and mud countries have gun laws as lax as the US's .

Only Africa, South America, the Middle East and the USA have such extreme problems with gun violence.

The more civilised the country, the more extensive the gun laws.

All mass shootings in the US except for one in the last 20 years has been in gun free zones. Areas with high LEGAL gun ownership has a significantly lower crime rate than areas without high legal ownership. Criminals will find ways to kill people user. It is a fact of civilization

Also take a read at the chart for your MUH ASSAULT WEPONS

Last time I checked Europe has strict gun laws and look at their recent crime rate.

This was actually settled. Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

George Mason and others made this explicitly clear when the bill of rights was laid down.

Texfag here, Gun culture is pretty rooted in my area and even nice neighborhoods have at least one gun every 1/3 house

>implying gunfags aren't the ones with thr irrational fear thats why they need all their le super cool guns to protect themselves

>Nigga the average American doesn't even own a single gun
It's not as high as it used to be, but it's still pretty good.
gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Realistically you're not getting a successful revolution within the US unless at least part of the armed forces throw in with the revolutionaries

If part of the armed forces throw in with the revolution, the revolution will have access to military weapons. Therefore, civilians bearing arms is not necessary to defend against the government therefore this entire line of argument is bunk

Prove me wrong

The only reason liberals believe anything is for political reasons. They don't believe in anything just out of the goodness of their heart. It's all politically motivated

Especially libs. Libs are scared of words for fucks sake

Better safe than sorry. After all, you probably have a fire extinguisher as well despite most likely never needing it.