Why do Americans feel they *need* to own a tactical strategic assault weapon?

Why do Americans feel they *need* to own a tactical strategic assault weapon?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They fantasize about zombie apocalypse and how they are the hero.

because if you had a gun this wouldn't happen

So what happened to London doesn't happen to us.

guns are cool i wish i could own a couple

so they can brag about how patriotic they are for defending the 2nd amendment

But worry not, most of the " tactical strategic assault weapon" owner are mall ninja

Self protection is a god-given right. There's a very good chance we may have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government one day, and semi-automatic rifles are the bare minimum in that situation.

Kill yourself you were laughed at for being a spastic and you will be laughed at again

So 9/11 didn't happen after all?

None of you yuropoors would ever say that to my face

I sometimes find it hard to tell when it's American /int being in on the joke or /poltards unironically defending this retarded shit. Either way keep up the good work of providing entertainment.

Are you genuinely reasoning that your *desire* to own a lethal assault weapon equipped with armour-piercing rounds overrides the right of your compatriots to feel safe in public spaces?

You're looking at it the opposite way.

"Why does the government have to take away or control this right?" is how Americans think about the Law. Since liberty is a fundamental property (people have all rights by default, until those rights are curtailed) it's up to the other side (the government) to prove that they can't have a particular right, and not up to the citizens to prove that they should have a particular right.

because we stopped caring what the British thought about our guns in 1776

When god made America he wanted us to have guns

My right to be tacticool overrides my ability to register the emotions of others

And the government has decided against it and doesn't need to prove anything to you little brussel sprout.
Not a single person outside of military and police forces needs assault rifles, especially not in your day-to-day life.

That's where you're wrong, friendo. The government exists for the people, not the people for the government.

And a decision to ban assault rifles is for the people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Unironically this

I agree, the many need to arm up and shoot invaders before the invaders become the many.

>t. 56 %

Sure, they simply need to amend the constitution. It's been done before.

Now we're getting to the root of the problem. Amerilards are afraid and weak, that's why they all need guns.

Because muh tyrannical government

>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 2nd amendment regulates the right to bear arms in a militia.

We have a historical precedent of needing them, or at least their historical analogs.

Luckily we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

I've never understood why people in the greatest superpower in the human history are so afraid all the time.

No it doesn't. See DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

The 2nd Amendment right to arms is an individual right.

>you see it's constitutional not because the constitution said so but because the supreme court said so
What are you listening to then? The constitution or a court?

the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution

My desire to not be purged overrides bitches' feelings, yes

The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and has been since 1803.

And the supreme court's interpretations are never final.

Those compatriots are free to get their own guns

Correct, but they seldom change quickly. It took over half a century for SCOTUS to decide that the 2nd amendment applied to individuals, with the previous case, US v Miller, went the other way in 1939.

Another example of how long it takes for SCOTUS rulings to be overturned is in the case of school segregation. Plessy v Ferguson decided that it was ok in 1896, and it wasn't until 1954 that Brown v Board of Education overturned that and outlawed it.

yea then the government drones you a bomb to your house. I'm sure an assault rifle will help you with that unless you got training from the taliban.

Yes yes, and the colonists could never stand up to the might of the british empire. Blah blah blah.

>the government can just willy nilly drone people's houses without repercussions

Stupid logic there.

its a tyrannical government, that is the whole point.

You guys should just let them. Their system was already flawed when they made it. This is just the consequences catching up to them. I mean only they have to suffer monthly mass shootings anyway.

because yours is so stellar...

If things get so bad as to the govt drone striking people on US soil, there's going to be open rebellion.

tell it to the IRA

We have the most powerful military with the most sophisticated intelligence agency gathering a shitload of personal data and being incredibly invasive intelligence gathering when it comes to shaping public view, who the fuck do you think can stand up to that? This isn't the fucking 1700.

Because they don't want to turn into a state police, gunning down butter knifes and who despises the prophet, like the UK.

Degeneracy

nice english mario

I don't care muhammed

The thing is tyranny would never fly in America. It's too big, its borders too long to keep people inside and the people way too entitled to allow themselves be used like that.

The IRA accomplished fuck-all. Will never understand why septics pull them off so much.

and just in the last 17 years we've been stuck fighting rebels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other places

millions of people with guns. You're also assuming that all the people in the military and intelligence communities that swore oaths to defend the constitution are just going to go along with raping the constitution and oppressing the populace.

>It's too big
No, the world becomes smaller the longer time passes and it is incredibly easy to shape peoples views, specially in the usa.

>The IRA accomplished fuck-all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

>You're also assuming that all the people in the military and intelligence
Yes they would fucking do because it benefits them. All that data gathering and that one fuck was the only one to blow the whistle on it. You don't get it, the majority of people get into the government to benefit them, not due to public sense of duty. It is common fucking sense.

>it is incredibly easy to shape peoples views
Clinton would disagree.

You can't compare all those places to the usa or the people for that matter. For every nut job in the usa afraid of the government there are millions who just want to get on with their lives and tell them to shut the fuck up.

No, because unlike you, most people have something called a conscience.

that's true in every country. that was true in the American revolution.

>they would fucking do because it benefits them
Not everyone is a psychopath. Not even in the military.

Hence why Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were such easy wins.

I'm well aware the history of my own country thanks, fact is Northern Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom despite thirty years of zany car bomb antics and the only force that was behind the GFA was Bill Clinton's government. If the Irish hadn't thrown a fit in 1916 they would likely own the whole island as the original discussion on Home Rule included no provision for partitioning the north. So if anything the IRA did less than fuck-all, rather it was counterproductive.

>Not everyone is a psychopath. Not even in the military.
hahaha what? You are one delusional idiot.

>we still have NI and Ireland doesn't

>most people have something called a conscience.
No they don't. If they did, they would had stop the iraq war, the tortures in gitmo, the involvement in syria, etc. It is what benefits them and how they can expand their power and everyone fucking cheers because muh murrica strong fuck terrorists.

That is what most likely anyone would be classify that goes against the government with guns.

we aren't even close to those places, maybe your nutjob retards pretending to fight WWIII but the majority of people in the usa are fat fucks happy to keep eating processed shit and don't want anyone stirring shit up.

>"assault weapon"
Way to fall for libshit propaganda, dumb bongcuck. "Assault weapons" don´t exist in a technical sense: they are just as lethal as any other fudd (i.e. mini-14) semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, with only cosmetic differences.

>everyone in the military would gladly institute a military dictatorship even though they have relatives and friends among those who would be affected by that
Please stop being retarded. Making America into a dictatorship would require a very slow salami method which certainly wouldn't employ drones to bomb people's houses.

>we aren't even close to those places.
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this. But my point was that halfway competent guerilla tactics trumps even the most advanced technology any day. Especially considering how garbage US infrastructure is, the loyalist portion of the military would have quite the time getting from place to place.

>right to feel safe in public spaces
You, my sir, are thick in the head. No such right exists anywhere, in any society. It is the duty of the individual, however, to defend his/her own life against imminent lethal threats, as allowed by the age-old right to self-defense. Unfortunately for you cucked bongs, the means to excercise that right have been taken away from you by a fascistoid government.

>the burgerboo poltard Finn arrives

>Americans think that they will rise against a tyranical government one day
>While they just let themselfs get fucked by corporations daily

You guys are the biggest bootlickers in the world, nobody in the world has so much praise for governemnt armed wings such as police and army as much as Americans, if a tyranical government happened, you'd shun anyone against them for being "unpatriotic". Enjoy school shootings in the meantime

>Making America into a dictatorship would require a very slow salami method which certainly wouldn't employ drones to bomb people's houses.
I was talking about later stages when no one would give a fuck (if no one gives a fuck about some terrorist usa citizen in syria getting drone, no one would give a fuck about a terrorist getting drone here). it is about shaping public opinion, just look at trump, he is a dumb fucking chimp but retards love him.

>implying half the military wouldn't defect if the government started bombing their own people

americans unironically think that in a danger situation a pedestrian from the crowd will just take out his gun and be the hero of the day

>And a decision to ban assault rifles is for the people.
In a communist shithole, maybe. In a free country - never.
>The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The need of the many is to keep government in check, preventing a mao or stalin-style government-led genocide and enslavement of its own people.

>implying half of you bootlickers wouldn't support the government bombing your people
I wish America gets Syria'd

>halfway competent guerilla tactics
What I meant is that we aren't even close to those places in terms of chaos/lack of infrastructure, culture, history, etc. We accept shit because we are shaped to it slowly, specially when we are surrounded by so much media today compared to the rest of the shitholes you metion.

But cops already execute you and are awarded a paid holiday.

who the fuck would defect when you are bombing terrorists?

Except those people with guns would go innawoods in the early stages thus making droning houses pointless.

>if no one gives a fuck about some terrorist usa citizen in syria getting drone, no one would give a fuck about a terrorist getting drone here
Wrong. Droning foreigners and droning your own people is a big difference.

It's always funny seeing Americans say "Well he shouldn't have looked like he was grabbing a gun" when someone gets shot by the police. What the fuck is the point of guns to them even. Just admit it you're all mouth breathing tards with an obsession

>the colonists could never stand up to the might of the british empire
No, they couldn't. You would have remained the 13+ colonies of America if it wasn't for the immense help you got from the powers of Europe.

Fair enough I suppose. But I would argue that separatism in the United States is actually more common than most people think. Nationally speaking, no, we're nothing like Iraq or Libya, but when we speak nationally we also have to take into account Los Angeles and Manhattan. Some individual cities are disturbingly chaotic for a country as wealthy as the United States.

>gungrabber
>recognizes the danger of government in his crusade against the last swathes of free people
Do you not recognize the irony in your reasoning?

drone a hosue, drone a forest, what a fucking difference, except no one would know if you are in the woods.
> Droning foreigners
He was a USA citizen, and doesn't matter if they are citizens, they can be made to believe to be terrorists so fucking easy.

>Do you not recognize the irony in your reasoning?
I recognize the danger of the government but idiots believing guns will somehow stop them are fucking retarded. Greater power is gain through politics.

>drone a forest
Go back to Sup Forums, underageb&

>Sup Forumstard
>appreciating individual liberty
Pantade sosialistsvin. Jag väntar med iver på den dag era oljekällor sinar och ni äntligen förpassas tillbaka till historiens soptipp.

>I recognize the danger of the government but idiots believing guns will somehow stop them are fucking retarded.
They will do more good than harm in a fight against oppressive government. If you do not recognize this, you are thick in the head.

Except that one of the hallmarks of an authoritarian government is the silencing of any and all dissent. You might as well try to talk down a suicide bomber.

Guns are not the problem. In Switzerland, almost everyone who did the mandatory military service gets to keep his assault rifle at home. And yet, we don't go out shooting people.
Also, noone needs a gun at home to feel safe. We have a decent police force, few murders and noone thinks our politicians want to set up some totalitarian regime. Or that you'd need a gun to stop that. In Switzerland, people can cast their vote on almost all issues.

>But I would argue that separatism in the United States is actually more common than most people think.
separatism comes from belief, when we are so shape by the massive amounts of media we absorb, I would argue you are full of shit that it is so common. Label a separatist a terrorists, some shocking images and everyone will howl to bomb them to shit. Even more the shithole cities, people will take and accept anything that promises to fix their shit.

You are kind of a special case though

How do you picture an oppressive government situation going down? Do you think police are going to go door to door down a street and fight with you inside your house?

>Also, noone needs a gun at home to feel safe. We have a decent police force, few murders
Crime statistics and a police response time ranging from 5 to 50 minutes (in urban areas) will not safe you from imminent lethal threat.

Do you reason in this infantile way when it comes to wearing a seatbelt, keeping a fire extinguisher in the house or owning insurance, too?
>and noone thinks our politicians want to set up some totalitarian regime.
Power corrupts and is hoarded until society collapses. Such was the fate of every human civilization known to man. Why do you deny these facts, when they are clearly presented in any history book found readable for free at your public library?
>Or that you'd need a gun to stop that. In Switzerland, people can cast their vote on almost all issues.
When (not if) the shit hits the fan, voting will be of no use.

>They will do more good than harm in a fight against oppressive government
No they wont you fucking retard, they will strengthen the government because everyone will believe when the government tells them they are terrorist nutjobs vent on fucking their normal lives and screwing the norm. You think the civil rights movement would make any headway with blacks walking around with guns? or Gandhi with an army? It is about public opinion and political power that you control the government not with guns.

>Do you think police are going to go door to door down a street and fight with you inside your house?
Power cannot be consolidated without boots on the ground. In other words: yes, the jackbooted thugs will come knocking sooner rather than later, and when they do so, it is not in their interest (and thus in your interest) that you own firearms.

>hallmarks of an authoritarian government is the silencing of any and all dissent.
how did you not understand that power comes from political power than brute strength in this country? You want a voice, go into politics, otherwise no one gives a fuck.