Defend the ownership of guns
Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
>Unacceptable Answers: Second Amendment, SHALL, NOT, BE, INFRINGED, constitutional rgihts, defense against niggers, defense against isis, defense against a corrupt government, apacolypse.
Good luck, gun supporting fags.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
gunsamerica.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
scholar.google.com
scholar.google.com
twitter.com
I'd like to be able to hunt for my own food, and think I shouldn't have to wait for a cop to show up in a life threatening situation
Remember to sage
Violent people will always be violent and will always find ways to be violent. You can kill surprisingly a lot of people with axes and sharp weapons.
The point of gun rights is to have weapons to threaten the government with if the government goes too far with control.
So leave, you dumb fuck. There are 200 other countries you could go to that all ban guns. Nobody said you had to stay here.
...
You put that no guns sign up in front of your house... I'll put this one up.
>be a nog
>can't pay for KFC and crack with foodstamps
>thinking about robbing a house
>about to break in
>see that sign on the house next door
dis gon be good
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
niggers
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
if there are multiple niggers
>defend using guns, gunfags
>using them for defense isn't an answer
wew lad
Where I live, the nearest Sheriff Station is more than an hour away... checkmate!
Put that sign on your front door. Everything else that happens will be self explanatory.
We don't have to defend shit. It's our 2nd amendment right. If you don't like it, then repeal it. Good luck!
Until then, every stupid fucking gun control law is blatantly unconstitutional, and the politicians that pass them should be put in prison for treason.
>Defend the ownership of guns
self defense
>why they're needed if Police are available
the police don't stop violent crimes from 9/11 calls, it's like 1/10k odds that it happens
>every gun-toter in America is an idiot
wrong
>high-capacity magazines are necessary
they aren't but aren't they banned anyway...?
>gun death ratio is so high in America
if guns are available why would you not use one if you're going to murder? i'd much rather die of a gunshot than a hammer beating
>Unacceptable Answers: Second Amendment, SHALL, NOT, BE, INFRINGED, constitutional rgihts, defense against niggers, defense against isis, defense against a corrupt government, apacolypse
>lol u cant say any of the good arguments cuz i already posted them here
If you call the police in my area they either show up 30-60 mins later or not at all. Can't depend on law enforcement so I TAKE IT IN MY HANDS.
>Defend the ownership of guns
You say the Second Amendment isn't an unacceptable answer, but it is. The Government can limit what you can buy but they cannot take away your guns entirely.
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
It takes 5 to 15 minutes for police to respond to a 911 call. I don't know about you but I would rather be able to defend myself in that time period rather than get raped/fucked/killed in the time it takes the police to get off their fat asses.
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
Can't really defend this one. Lots of people are idiots with their guns and this is usually due to poor gun education. Ironically families in the south tend to be better owners of guns because they teach their kids at a young age to handle guns.
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Depends on how high we're talking about. 10 rounds is the bare minimum. In a high stress situation you're not going to hit every shot. More bullets mean you have more chance to hit, and a higher chance of survival. Of course one of the most deadly guns are Shotguns which no liberal ever seems to attack, yet most of them carry far less than 10 rounds. Shotguns are FAR more lethal than any 'assault' weapon.
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
There could be several explanations for this. Not really one that explains every aspect. The abefore mentioned poor education and my personal theory of poor mental health contributes. There are also more illegally owned weapons in the US than anywhere else, often carted in by Drug lords and owned by gangs which ARE the biggest contributors to gun violence. Solving the drug problem is one step that would help. And Solving gang problems would as well. I don't know how to do either of these unfortunately.
1. The police hardly ever show up fast enough to prevent personal harm, only to arrest after the fact. Plus, they are under no obligation to risk their lives for citizens.
2. Gun ownership goes across a wide segment of society. Yes there are idiots, but many other gun owners have degrees. Furthermore, unless illegally gained, guns and the ammo to maintain proficiency are not cheap, so many legal gun owners are hardworking members of society.
3. High-capacity magazines are a meme. With practice, switching mags is a relatively fast process. In addition, I would rather trust my life to a standard mag instead of the larger ones since they tend to jam.
4. Though the gun death rate is higher than some countries, the murder rate remains comparable to other first world nations. In many areas it's actually safer from general violence than most. A person really only has to worry in crime ridden ghettos.
>america free guns
>muslins shots up a place
50 dead people
>france BANS guns
>muslins shots up a place
Over 130 dead
tell me why not ban muslins?
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
did you ever call the cops ? I bet no. Even when they fast they need minimum 5 minutes. But most time it takes much longer. Everything is allready over when they arrive. They don't protect you. Trying to catch the criminal is all they do at best.
But then you allready robbed , raped, beaten up or killed.
>High-capacity magazines are a meme. With practice, switching mags is a relatively fast process
I can't speak for OP but most Libtards think anything higher than 10 rounds is 'high capacity'. Some that think even less should be the standard.
>Defend the ownership of guns
2nd amendment
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
pic related
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
They're not, people with carry permits have less less crime and have lower error rates than even police
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Since when has need ever had anything to do with it?
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
Because we fucking can that's why
I grew up far out enough that it would be a half hour before a unit could make it to my house.
So my options would have been shoot the fucker or hide and hope the cops don't find my body weeks later.
They really do keep pushing the number down don't they? I remember when the freak-out was about those gimmicky 100 or 50 round drum mags.
Because fuck you, that's why.
It's all a slippery slope, which is why we can't give them an inch
I need it so I can defend against rabid liberals who want to take away my rights. Fuck them and fuck you.
TFW progressives don't realize thy're the problem
...
I believe education levels of fun owners are higher than non.
>le guns cost money
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
They're no-- WHY THE FUCK DO I AS AN EUROKEK HAVE TO CONSTANTLY FIGHT MURRICANS OVER THIS?
Fuck off nigga. Where the fuck did your schooling fail?
...
>Defend the ownership of guns
Come take them.
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Police are racist murderers.
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
Evidence?
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
What if you need to kill an entire squadron of racist police about to kill an unarmed black teenage kang who dindu nuffins?
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
The same reason knife death ratio is so high in the UK
...
Nice, saved
...
>not fighting for your country
huh
I thought this was Sup Forums
>Defend the ownership of guns
The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Police dont respond as quickly as a few gunshots.
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
[CITATION NEEDED]
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Multiple people break into your house
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
Niggers
Golly that was easy. You CTR shills are gonna have to try harder than that if you want that 5 cents
"Well-regulated militia".
Ban assault weapons, mandatory background checks.
You cant fight for your country without weapons faggot. Go be a pussy in Europe.
"....WELL REGULATED....."
The pen is mightier than the sword though...
They took away South Africans guns. Now listen to what they get to deal with..
Listen for two or three minutes.
youtu.be
>Defend the ownership of guns
It is the right to defend oneself. A thief wouldn't dare rob a home against an armed man.
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Where's the police defending the people during the shootouts? Oh yeah, they were still driving there. And by the time they made it, it's too late.
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
Because you're a liberal and anyone who disagree with your vision is an idiot
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
What makes you so confident that criminals will not attain them black markets
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
Suicide doesn't count
Fuck off CTR shill
>kidsactivitiesblog
Self-debunking shit only works on impressionable children and the mentally infirm.
You should be ashamed.
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Police only show up after crimes are committed.
...
>Ban assault weapons
Why? They're used is such little crime why ban them?
>mandatory background checks
How do you plan on enforcing that?
"...THE PEOPLE..."
Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan send their regards
what does a fucking leaf have to say about American history anyway?
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
The police aren't always available
The police are under no legal obligation to protect you
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
Niggers
Yeah, because ya know, bombing and destroying vast swathes of civilization and leaving the country in ruins is the best.
This also implies that the military has no heart and would not split, which would give rebels (or Patriots) close to an equal amount of firepower, and also that the American military has ever been effective at fighting a guerrilla warfare.
Unless they nuke themselves, there is not enough manpower in the US military and hardware to kill every American, even when assuming there is zero military coups or defectors.
Not to mention foreign nations intervening.
May they be allies of the government or just straight up enemies of America waiting for a window of opportunity.
It turns out wiping an entire resistant force with surgical warfare is impossible.
COME AND TAKE IT
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Police don't stop crimes from being committed, they just clean up afterwards and do the paperwork.
Threat of a victim retaliating with lethal force does stop crimes however.
Meaning "well-equipped and managed". It's not like regulations as we know it, libfag.
>Defend the ownership of guns
Me owning a high capacity select fire ghost AR-47 loaded with child killer and puppy annihilator rounds does not hurt anybody, why should something be a crime if there's no victim?
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
If seconds matter, the police is minutes away.
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
youtu.be
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Necessary? No. Worth banning? No. Sitting on your ass eating burgers all day long isn't necessary either but I don't see you calling for a ban on junk food and chairs. Obesity kills more people in the US than gun violence per year.
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
Defend why the UK has more violent crime than the US despite guns being banned.
en.wikipedia.org
Basically what said.
Hey fuckface!
You are now aware that there is now a bigger and scarrier "military grade weapon" for sale to the American people. Pic related.
gunsamerica.com
My family went through the LA race riots (inb4 someone says Rodney King) and when the police turned their backs, the only thing that kept rioters and looters off our street was my dad sitting up with a rifle to take pot shots when they started to approach.
I remember that really vividly despite being young, however the thing he says he remembers the most from that time, was how all his friends and other people we knew, were calling him constantly asking if they could borrow a gun or come to stay with us. People who even days prior, ridiculed him for owning guns.
"gun death ratio" is a flimsy argument when you break it down into statistics.
You're either A. a troll trying to just get a rise out of people as half of this place does
or B.A faggot that is genuinely scared of "the big scary boom boom sticks, and you're an idiot who thinks banning all guns will just suddenly make everyone kiss and make up.
Also, I didn't know defending myself from legitimate threats was now not an argument for owning a gun, despite having to chase some dumb punk out of my home with one once.
You're argument fell flat on it's face before you even started typing.
...ashamed of what?
Why focus on guns? Because your argument breaks down when you leave them.
Your argument is for us to be disarmed. Disarmed folks can do a lot less harm in a short period of time. But here's the thing: we are born inherently unequal. A disarmed man who is a bloody hulk can do a lot more damage than a disarmed grandma. However, the classic leftist call for "equality" requires guns here: if this hulk and granny were both armed with a machine, a tool which with one pull of a trigger would render flesh and bone of either party equally, giving both an equal power, then we would have truly reached a utopian society.
This argument has nothing to do with "muh self defense". It is your leftist equality argument for equality of outcome, not that all men are created equal, but that, regardless of experience or background, all men in the end are equal. We all bleed just the same through the holes these weapons make. Men with swords and clubs can be bested with strength, skill, and genetic disposition.
But see, God made some men bigger or smaller than the others, but Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson made them all equal.
>Claim you need a gun because the military and government is too big and powerful
>get proven the military could easily wipe out any fat burger local ragtag group of ebin wolverines
>lol da government wouldn't attack us they wouldn't have the resources!
Which is it nigger
>all gun control supporters are le leftist boogeyman
Kill yourself, or better yet, piss off your wife or something and all they'll have to do is open your secret chest under the bed to shoot you in your sleep
...
Presidents, politicians etc. have men with guns and body armor assigned to protect them. There's nobody assigned to protext my family, so I have no choice but to protect them myself.
Redcoat killed a load of you faggots with muskets and blew the fuck out of the French navy.
So no, not the same, also "2nd amendment" was also a law in England at the time and within the colonies you dipshit, it had a different name but all men had the right to own guns, so sort your picture out or I rape your family.
Also, time for you cowardly faggots to actually use your guns and kill Clinton or someone else in your government that is corrupt, maybe the Federal Reserve leader or something.
Get on that shit you cowards otherwise you have no rights to think you can retain your 2nd amendment.
COWARDS!
Defend yourself when I have a gun and you don't, faggot.
>britain being cucked out of existence my muzzies
>"u r cowerdz"
and if you tried to harm my family, You'd end up more brainless than you are now dumb crumpet.
>USA
>40% white
>run by a Kenyan Muslim
>cucked in literally every city in the country
>UK
>White politicians
>White prime minister
>90% white
>one Muslim mayor nobody cares about in a city people don't care about
I know which I would choose
More than a faggot gun grabber
...
>Unironically believes he can confiscate the firearms in a fairly heavily populated country where there are more guns than people
Good luck, gun hating fags.
>Sup Forums taking the bait this hard
This why this board is constantly shilled and trolled
Nothing you can do about it faggot, I make guns in my garage. If you ban them I will just make even more money selling them to niggers who will rob cucks who put signs like your image in front of their hovels. Stay impotent.
Gun control doesn't work, illegal guns would be a rampant problem in America were guns to be outlawed
Everyman has the right to protect home and hearth
A gun is an equalizer in my country that is over run with nigger crimes done with illegal guns
In a republic you dont have to argue why you need something.
The state has to argue why you shouldnt have it.
So let us hear your well worded arguments.
I'm not even a burger but I get this
>Defend the ownership of guns
2nd amendment, in place for a very specific reason just like the 1st amendment
>Defend why they're needed if Police are available
Immediately available in a case of self defence, active deterrent of crime, by design if police and government enforcement has arms so should the people
>Defend why every gun-toter in America is an idiot
Nice ad-hominon
>Defend why high-capacity magazines are necessary
Police/military have them and as far as I know there just not relevant
>Defend why gun death ratio is so high in America
90% of gun violence is gang related, they will always have illegal guns or simply result to other methods of violence
2nd amendment is an intrinsic part of America's foundation just like the first, if you don't like it move to another country.
One airstrike, and your entire family and house is blown to pieces in seconds.
What is with this mentality pretending like you have any kind of chance stopping the government from ending your existence? You aren't superman. You're a fat sperg who could literally be eradicated. Its not le cuck may may, I'm telling you the truth bro, you don't have any chance
>all these statists who believe that there is nothing wrong with a heavily armed and organised group of people who exist only to protect the interests of the government
just fucking end yourselves
Niggers and tweakers.
I'm serious. I'm planning on getting a revolver of some sort to keep on my dresser in case of a break in.
This
I was going to write the same thing
The
>But muh government has missiles and nukes, theyll just use thoses against your ARs
Needs to end
How are you going to take them away without causing civil war? Even if it could have worked at one time the reality of today in the US is there are over 300m guns and some of the people who have them are not going to hand them over quietly.
In choice between a democratically elected collective of officials that represent my interests in the form of a government, and some backwater chav trash like you from somewhere weird like mid wales or something, it's not a difficult choice to make.
You retarded, like the whole military would defect if a country bombed itself, why doesn't America just nuke itself ay?
But what it would stop is people enforcing tyrannical power over the population through means of violence e.g. the gestapo
What's your gun free zone sign gonna do?
If I want to go on a mass killing spree do you honestly think A FUCKING SIGN is gonna stop me
>inb4 if guns were banned
I don't know where you live but I am about a hour drive from a crime containment zone known a Surrey. The AK47 is one of the few guns here that is banned in all its forms for all license holders however I know (through a friend that grew up there) the exact location of a parking garage where at a certain time on a certain day of the week I could go and buy a full auto AK47 for about $1500 with high capacity drum mags and plenty of ammo depending on what you want to spend on those.
Now if I was going to be dead at the end of the shooting anyways I would drop as much money as possible on the best killing machine I could buy with the highest capacity magazines and all the ammo I could carry
And as I walked into your gun free zone I would riddle your fucking stupid little sign with bulletholes while laughing
Tap the water grid and their entire crew gets taken down.
What's your point?
>democratically elected
>represent your interests
and what exactly happens when they don't?
I'm from essex tho, so not sur whwere you got that bullshit idea about my location from.
>No money, no manpower, no monopoly on violence = no power.
Voting is near useless and democracy is the greatest threat that liberty has ever known
It's like you've literally never heard of divide and rule, to divide a people on ethno-cultural fault lines. Read what happened in yugoslavia. It's not difficult to turn a more powerful society against another and to make a common enemy within your own country.
>argue your stance without X,X,X, and X arguments.
>Oh, you can't? Well I guess I win the debate lol!
Will pol ever learn not to take the bait? How can these red pills be so easy to bait?
Let us get rid of the idea that you should rely on police protection when your ass is on the line. First off, the police have no legal duty to protect you. Saying otherwise just proves that you have not read the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) rulings on this matter. I'll bring up two important cases surrounding this topic. I'll lay out a short version of the facts as found by the courts, and then give a few quotes from the SCOTUS. The first is DeShaney v Winnebago:
>Father gets custody of kid
>Winnebago County learns that father might be abusive
>Kid winds up in hospital
>Doctors suspect child abuse
>Kid removed from father temporarily
>County decides not enough evidence to keep kid out of father's custody
>Father beat kid into coma
>Kid suffers traumatic brain injury
>Brain injury so severe that it is expected that he will have to live his life out in an institution
>Mother sues county for knowing father was abusive and not preventing abuse
SCOTUS says:
>While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. That the State once took temporary custody of Joshua does not alter the analysis, for when it returned him to his father's custody, it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all; the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual's safety by having once offered him shelter. Under these circumstances, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua.
Source:
scholar.google.com
(cont)
The pulse nightclub was a gun free zone so...
The second case is Castle Rock v Gonzalez:
>Woman has restraining order against estranged husband
>Husband only has supervised visitation rights with his children under order
>Children disappear, and woman calls cops
>Cops arrive and say that they can't do anything
>Husband calls woman later, saying that he had the kids with him at an amusement park in Denver
>Woman calls cops and tells them where husband is with kids, in violation of restraining order
>Cops do nothing, tell her to wait until 10PM
>Woman calls cops at 10:10PM
>Cops do nothing, tell her to wait until 12AM
>Woman goes to husband's apartment and finds nothing
>Calls cops at 12:10AM
>Cops say they'll send somebody. They don't.
>Woman goes to police station, files an incident report
>Cop who takes it makes no effort to enforce restraining order. Goes to dinner.
>At 3:20AM, husband shows up at police station and opens fire with handgun. Gets killed by cops.
>Cops find the dead bodies of all three daughters in the cab of his pickup.
(cont)
>and what exactly happens when they don't?
Then I be a fucking man and accept it, then I'll have the chance to vote them out in 4/5 years. Imagine if everyone had to all be happy for a government to work, nothing would function.
as usual, OP is a faggot
SCOTUS says:
>"In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police. . . . However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally. . . . [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to . . . make an arrest. As to third parties in these states, the full-enforcement statutes simply have no effect, and their significance is further diminished."
And also:
>Respondent does not specify the precise means of enforcement that the Colorado restraining-order statute assertedly mandated—whether her interest lay in having police arrest her husband, having them seek a warrant for his arrest, or having them "use every reasonable means, up to and including arrest, to enforce the order's terms," Brief for Respondent 29-30.[9] Such indeterminacy is not the hallmark of a duty that is mandatory. Nor can someone be safely deemed "entitled" to something when the identity of the alleged entitlement is vague.
And also:
>Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders "mandatory" because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. Making the actions of government employees obligatory can serve various legitimate ends other than the conferral of a benefit on a specific class of people.
And also:
>We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
(cont)
So there you go. Except under very specific circumstances, the police are not required to save your life or prevent you from coming to harm from a non-state actor. But lets look at this from a more pragmatic view:
It only takes an instant for a guy with a gun pointed at you to pull the trigger, and the bullet from a typical handgun might be moving at 1200fps at the muzzle. Most violent encounters of this type in the civilian world happen from a close distance, meaning that the time the bullet takes to get to you is negligable. All in all, a violent encounter where you would be justified in shooting somebody could be over in 5 or 10 seconds, from start to finish. If you don't have a cop right there with you if you get attacked, you had better not be relying on a cop for your safety.
Furthermore, requiring that police protect you will in some instances be requiring police to risk or even lose their lives. Cops have Constitutional rights too, and on top of that, would you really ask a stranger to die for you? IMO, that is unethical.
I need a gun so when you come on my land I can shot you