No moral argument against gun ownership

Denying people right to self defense is the ultimate human right violation.

Forcing people to leave their security in the hands of a governing body is not only preposterous, but out right criminal.

If the citizen of a society that has forcefully disarmed it's citizens by means of confiscation or threat of criminal charges gets harmed in a situation where the use of an outlawed weapon could have protected them, THEN thales governing body of that society should be held accountable and compensate the individual or their family for the failure to effectively prevent or stop the crime from being committed.

We all know this would never happen, but it details just how ignorant and ridiculous we as a people have come.

EVERY MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO A FIREARM, NO EXCEPTIONS.

There is no morally sound counter argument against this.

Some might claim that the safety of the majority is at greater risk if people are allowed to carry weapons, the problem with that logic is that they are assuming that the current governing order is protecting them now, when its been stated earlier that it isnt.

Their fear is not from idea of firearms, but from the idea of responsibility for their own safety being put back in their hands(a ignorant idea, since the responsibility has always been there).

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
youtu.be/277Ic2AlFqM
murdervictims.com/murder_statistics.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

based user

Your digits confirm, Kek is pleased.

world would be a better place if blacks and arabs couldnt own them tho

We can't go and establish a system that decided who can and can't own guns.

That's a slippery slope, remember nobody said freedom was free.

>tfw australian "gun laws"

>mfw American gun laws

i have a video with that slut where she drinks cum from hundreds of dicks but I dont know her name.

whats her name?

Get the fuck back to your shitty low-standard-of-living redstate. We don't want you here.

I think it's Suzuki Honda or Mazda Kawasaki

>gun ownership has to do with standards or living
>implying the super rich don't own arsenals of machine guns

Tell king George to suck it

...

Gun ownership is a part of the objectively inferior redneck culture, and the objectively inferior redneck culture is directly related to shitty quality of life in your shitty third world countries that keep sucking up our civilized GDP's through federal programs.

>Gun ownership is a part of redneck culture
>redneck culture is inferior
>therefore all gun owners are rednecks

WEW

>look for source of this
>literally nowhere on google
>don't want to settle for shitty sd stream
>all HD magnet links are dead

kek blesses this thread

therefore all gun owners are rednecks

Heavens no, they are just fuckers decreasing the statistical safety of their communities.

Interesting mental gymnastics, thanks for your "rebuttal"

>Live in 97% white neighborhood
>Black family moves in two houses down from me
>Various thuggery begins happening around the neighborhood
>At 3 AM a couple nights ago the oldest of their 55 million kids attempts to kick in my door
>Chase him away with my shotgun
>Monkeys no longer chimp about near my house

And my liberal friends told me to my face that I should have called the cops instead.

>Hurr if u thnk ur so tuff u shud hav just held the door shut on him mistr big man

Here you go friend

1pondo - 092415_159 - Aoi Shirasaki (白咲碧)
like, 18:50 minutes in

You misunderstood, I know the source, but I can't find a good HD download link.

You should have punched your "friends" square in their face.

Fresh Prince of Belair is the most exposure these people have to blacks

> being such a beta cuck you need a gun for self defence

Oh, well in that case we are both in the same boat.

Ever since KT shut down its been a tough time for all of us

Ok you caught me Canada, you're right only beta males own guns.

There is no reason for a alpha male to carry a firearm in this day and age. Fists are all that you need.

As much as the HURRRRR CUK CUK CUK shit drives me up the fucking wall, my friends are a complete lost cause

>Before I actually got a well-paying job I worked at a retail store in the heart of coon city
>Friend wanted me to help him get a job
>Despite being a massive SJW he mysteriously decided not to after finding out that 99% of the customers in my store were black
>Comes in anyway one day to buy something
>Gets the absolute fucking dogshit beat out of him and mugged
>"NOT ALL BLACKS THEY DINDU NUFFIN THEY NEEDED THE MONEY IT WAS MY FAULT FOR FLAUNTING MY PRIVILEGE" etc etc
>He ended up not getting a job until he was 23
>He only worked it for one week
>He got yelled at by a black lady and couldn't deal with it
>Now smokes weed and plays video games all day while going on about RELIGION OF PEACE bullshit

You have to have your head pretty far up your ass to be this liberal

south africa?

> Posts video of beta man getting robbed by people with guns, followed by fat man chasing them out with a gun

Stop being so fucking beta and learn proper self defence. Guns aren't effective at close range.

Yes, fuck the redneck known as Alexander Hamilton

Canada listen, if you honestly think you can come into my thread and start shitposting with such weak bait, you're sadly mistaken.

Unless you can actually bring forth a rational and morally just argument against firearm ownership (we both know you can't) then kindly funk off.

I agree, but I suspect you, like many others who espouse the right to bear arms, have a completely different stance on the private ownership of CBRN weapons because they're "too dangerous" or some shit. Do you?

People can own nukes, so long as they can afford to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to manufacture one.

When you aren't a beta cuck you don't feel the need to own a gun.

You get a good job, move out of the trailer park, to a city with police.

Just stop being beta / white trash.

America is going to shit with mass murders every day, your guns aren't effective.

Guns make us less safe, in general, but in some cases you need to be able to arm yourself for safety.

But the reason we need guns is to prove to the Feds that they rule only at our discretion.

Good man.

You can't be this dumb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

You guys seen this shit yet??
youtu.be/277Ic2AlFqM

Why should I care if other people are dying due to the neglect of their own safety?

Freedom isn't safe, but it's safer than slavery.

What's wrong with individuals owning nukes?

MAD still applies

>EVERY WHITE MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO A FIREARM, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Ftfy. We can't entrust deadly weapons to the hands of animals.

Every man, regardless of race or religion, should be allowed to own a firearm.

t. Non white

So, using your logic, we should be seeing all kinds of murder and mayhem at the hundreds of gun shows that take place across the country. These shows are chock full of guns, ammo, and all these dangerous people. Right? But they're not.

It ain't the guns fucker, it's the people holding them.

Nukes do not protect the individual. They are an offensive weapon, not defensive. The 2a is in place to 'defend' the people and their rights.

Now, you could make the argument that simply having nukes defends our country from attack (via MAD), but I would argue that that is on a national level (not individuals).

>offensive weapon,
All weapons are offensive. The intended design of the weapon is irrelevant, all that matters is how it is used. Otherwise, you would be giving credence to the arguments MDA uses when they want to ban scary assault weapons because they were made to kill people.

I used offensive for lack of a better term. Precise?

You can't use a nuclear briefcase to defend yourself from attackers, because you would kill yourself in the process.

In the same way, you can't use nukes to defeat a tyrannical government, because you'd kill half of the people you were trying to defend.

Please don't make the mistake that I'm basing my argument on lethality, not what I am saying. Rather, it is more about the inevitable collateral damage of such weapons. "Scary assault weapons" only kill what they are pointed at.

Good thread

...

>"Scary assault weapons" only kill what they are pointed at.
And nukes only kill whatever is in the blast zone (assuming they're modern, relatively clean ones). If we look at historical cases, those scary assault weapons have been used plenty of times to indiscriminately kill people. And explosives have been used to target individuals, or specific groups. There is nothing inevitable about the collateral damage of explosives, nor is it unique to them; almost every day someone gets shot who wasn't intended to.

Nukes are far more useful for defeating tyrannical governments. With a rifle, you can engage a couple soldiers at best. With a nuke, you can engage entire battalions in the field, maybe more if their spacing is favorable and the explosive yield great enough.

>because you would kill yourself in the process
You are assuming that self-defense has to take place within a handful of yards, why? Does shooting someone a mile and a half away constitute a more "defensive" act than blowing them up with an explosive at the same distance? Does shooting one attacker constitute self defense, but killing 50 attackers at the same time make it an offensive act?

Also, we should recall that nukes are extremely expensive and complex weapons, and radioactive decay means they have a finite shelf-life before they stop working. Neither are they doomsday weapons; they are merely very powerful bombs. Very few individuals or even groups would put up the cash to buy and maintain them, so we are discussing an extreme fringe example.

That said, the moral principles that apply to guns apply equally to any other weapon. Lots of 2nd Amendment people seem to contradict themselves on this.

>these people are inferior because they aren't cucks


Rednecks are infinitely more useful than some collectivist cuck like you.

At least a redneck can pull the engine out of my car and rebuilt it. A redneck can at least build a running water/sewer system. At least they know how to wire a house, and a whole other number of hugely useful things that I doubt you even grasp the first fucking thing about.

>and a whole other number of hugely useful things that I doubt you even grasp the first fucking thing about.
This shit right here. When someone dismisses gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense as being primitive or uncivilized, what they are actually saying is that they reject the very idea of self-sufficiency. They wouldn't last a second if our system of extreme specialization and division of labor broke down, which is why these cucks are the first to go whenever a happening occurs.

There is also the argument to be made that if humans have the right to dignity, then violent resistence can be preferred over nonviolent or no resistance (like calling the police) because violent resistance is often times more dignified and thus morally superior.
For example, you could prevent a rape by shitting yourself and throwing up, but it's much more dignified to shoot the rapist instead. You could survive a home invasion by simply handing over your shit, but it's much more dignified to point your AR at the burglar.

So if humans indeed have a right to dignity, which even the left can not deny - in fact it's the basis of many of their positions -, then we logically must have a right to violent self defense which subsequently means we have a right to keep and bear the most effective tools to carry out this dignified defense.

Nah, fuck off freedom hater.

>those scary assault weapons have been used plenty of times to indiscriminately kill people

And in every single one of those cases, the weapon had to be pointed at someone. So, while the person pulling the trigger may have been indiscriminate, the weapon was not.

>And nukes only kill whatever is in the blast zone (assuming they're modern, relatively clean ones)

Truth. However, keep in mind that with this example, you are straying from the straw-man we were originally discussing. Once we start getting into smaller "clean" nuclear devices, we are getting closer and closer to weapons that fall within the scope of the 2a.

Nuclear-based weapons can be used in everything from small arms to warheads that can destroy continents. Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, that line is drawn when a weapon is so indiscriminate that it can no longer be reasonably used to defend the people. It's the same reason that we can't own nerve gas.

Come
Take
It
Try
M8ee

Literally shaking, so scared
What are you gunna do micropenis? 2% of people can willingly kill another human being.

>Aussie thinking his opinion on firearms is relevant
Just open your butthole to the gov m8, let them fill you up! Can't let plebs have scary pointy or shooty things!
Also
>implying I've never killed anyone

I'm for guns, I even own a rifle.
I just know internet tough guys like you are beta manlet faggots irl and I like making you mad.
You couldnt kill anybody, you wish you could, bitch

I'm rock hard right now

is this what passes for Aussie banter these days?

you just sound butthurt for no reason

Fuck off leaf, I'm a fucking free man, I can take care of myself and a gun helps.

Why are liberal cucks so for having the government take care of everything for you?

Have some fucking self reliance you cucks

>butthurt

I'm laughing at "killer" here

>the weapon had to be pointed at someone
What relevance does this have? Does the end result change if the shooter killed 20 people by calling his shots, or if he killed them by spraying randomly into a crowd? Does it matter if he killed 20 people by shooting them with an AR, or if he blew them up with improvised explosives?

If we are discussing which weapons are useful toward achieving some sort of end goal (self-defense, let's say), then any weapon that achieves this goal, regardless of design details, is by definition useful.

It's like when soccer moms want to ban salt weapons because they kill children, but don't give a shit about children dying in swimming pools. Is the end goal not to reduce the number of dead kids? Why does focusing on the method of their death matter?

>weapons that fall within the scope of the 2a
Recall that the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is measured in the equivalent amount of TNT. So if you'd like, we can talk about a privately owned 10MT enormous conventional bomb. Does that fall under the scope of the 2a?

>it can no longer be reasonably used to defend the people
Who decides what is reasonable? I can think of plenty of scenarios where extremely powerful explosives would make the people's defense extremely effective. Just like with nerve gas.

If you're starting to invoke the risk of collateral damage, then I assume you are against the military also having such weapons? Shit, even without them, they manage to kill thousands of unintended targets all the time with small-scale conventional weapons. Which just reinforces my point that whether a weapon is suitable for self-defense can only be determined when and how it is used in a defensive situation, and not based on details of its design, intent, or operation.

Look, I get it. I would be jealous too, if I needed to take an 8 gallon suppository of human semen from the government before I could look at pictures of guns. I get it dude. I'd be salty online if I couldn't control my bowels due to how blown out my ass is from asking permission to own a single shot .22 while Americans can buy RPKs with 75rd drums online. I'd feel sorry for you, honestly I would, but I don't. Pic related mostly

Want some more?

But to get a rifle license here all I have to do is provide ID and sign a piece of paper at the gun shop. Which I have done, I have a hunting license and I'm a member of a shooting range.
???

>burger commenting on how things work in other countries

Please, stop, its like watching a slow motion trainwreck.

>needing a license to own a rifle
>needing to keep it in a safe that the gov can inspect
>needing to be a member of a range
>mfw

It's so easy!
Man in America it's so hard. I had to contact a guy via fucking EMAIL to meet up in the wal mart parking lot to buy my 1911. What is this, 1997?

>???
Your laws are shit, and if you don't understand this then there is no hope for you. Our laws are shit too. Hell, even the Americans' laws are shit. Theirs are just better than yours.

Your mom

Listen up killer kankles, you're a fat manlet with a microdick. The only thing you've ever killed is your chance at finding love.
Posting pics of your steel cocks online won't fill that void.

You mean the agricultural culture that our country depends on?

>mfw i actually searched these

Fuck, I'm retarded

"Rednecks" live in low population density areas, which are statistically safer than high density areas which also have the most oppressive gun laws so ???

Keep moving the goal posts buddy.

>Keep moving the goal posts

But that was my original point, making fun of you
And nice budgie smugglers microdick

Or Jefferson. Or Madison. Or every other founding father and person that lived at that time.

You're not doing a very good job at that m8.

Got you butthurt enough to post a picture of your manlet self

am I supposed to feel burned or something? Is this one of those "ha ha! I was only pretending to be retarded" moments? Is this how Aussies banter?

Blue states have strict gun laws and have the worst gun violence. Cause, ya know, criminals obey the law. They think twice about breaking into a house where it's most likely that someone is armed. And if they don't, they dead. Generally nogs.

In my opinion, the difference is the number of people the weapon is meant to kill at one time.

Knives and other blades: 1 person at a time
All semiauto firearms: 1 person at a time
Grenades: multiple people
Chem weapons: lots of people
Nukes: tons of people
Etc

I'm undecided on fully auto firearms, it could be argued either way.

>I coalburner slut

Holy fuck I was just shitposting before but you're actually a gigantic faggot

>2%
lmao what

you should stop posting you're giving aussies a bad name

oh shit, RPG. Shit taste in music breh. You gonna play tay tay when trump looses and we stage a coup?

My bad, its actually less.
>By far there are less than .06% of people in the USA who have ever murdered a fellow person. Murder Statistics murdervictims.com/murder_statistics.htm

Sup Forums believes that nuclear weapons should be available for private ownership because of the 2nd amendment

jesus christ you say the dumbest shit

>you have never killed someone therefor you cannot kill me!

Crime is part of the objectively inferior black culture, and the objectively inferior black culture is directly related to shitty quality of life in your shitty third world countries that keep sucking up our civilized GDP's through federal programs.

> (OP)
>>EVERY WHITE MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO A FIREARM, NO EXCEPTIONS.
>Ftfy.

Found the Retardittor

Trump is gonna win though?

>In war, even with intensive training and propaganda less than 26% of riflemen even fire at an enemy. 2% of infantryman kill or wound 95% of bullet caused causalities.

> Sup Forums is one person

Kek that pic is my RPG and 1PN34
>at my old shitty apartment

Na I'm just gonna hang out in the boonies and shoot guns at steel plates and maybe pumpkins

That doesn't mean the other 98% aren't capable of killing anyone.

Actually that is exactly what it means.
I suggest you read up on the psychology of killing.

>here is no morally sound counter argument
Morals are meaningless. Who cares if there is or aren't any moral argument? There practical arguments though: if your government can eforce it, you will have to follow the law or deal with the consequences.

Someone has read On Killing. That's why In all modern wars, crew served weapons, artillery, aircraft, and missiles have done all the heavy lifting.

There's still a lot of ice cold motherfuckers out there who pull triggers for a living and don't bat an eye
>Aussie
>talking about war
You got PTSD from those Emus bro?

You're assuming that every single infantryman gets into a situation where they should die their weapon,and that those that didn't get kill shots missed intentionally.

Also, what time period are your statistics from, and in what conflicts?

> Who cares if there is or aren't any moral argument?
Everyone who isn't an idiot or a sociopath.