Hey, dumbfucks, tell me

Exactly how is the 2nd amendment gonna protect you from tyranny when the government has tanks, jets, nukes and battleships? Didn’t think that quite through, did you, morons?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lLrMQCZx9Tw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You're right. I just threw my guns in the trash. Thank God another Norwegian proxy set straight

Can you shills stop posting this exact same thread over and over again? At least be original in your attempt to distract people from your diaper-wearing dement skeleton of a presidential candidate. Thanks in advance.

Good point, OP. These people are fucking retarded.

You're no different than the redcoats that told us to get rid of our arms because the British empire is the strongest in the world.

Or the fact that we have fought numerous terrorist groups and they still haven't given up even through they have basic equipment.

How well did planes, tanks and battleships work in Vietnam? Or Afghanistan? If you can't see how well an armed populace/resistance can fight and deter an army of 10x its size you're an idiot and not learning from history. Most modern armies with some of the best technology available are losing to populace equipped with outdated firearms and equipment but they're the ones holding their countries. If that's not the best argument for gun rights idk what is.

Dear god europeans are dumb.

Thats only one small part of the 2nd amendment. And yes, most americans will agree with you, that we as civilians won't likely get into a shooting match with our own military.

However the very relevant part of the 2nd amendment is defense of home life and property from criminals.

Pic very related (OC)

I just bought 2 x AR-15s today to add to my collection. A smith and wesson and a Bushmaster.

...

Conceptually, something like this perhaps
youtube.com/watch?v=lLrMQCZx9Tw

That was the worst attempt at trying to be a different poster LMAO

Cmon shills make it hard every once in a while

lol you should let us in on some of those shill4hill dollars

oh look he posted this thread again

>samefagging on Sup Forums

Leaf dropping knowledge on you sons of bitches. Good shit Mr. Chan

...

Ask the Vietnamese

Because when they realise that killing their taxpayers gets problematic after a few thousand or so, the other furious millions don't have to worry so much.

i mean the government fears them
but i guess jews fear fascists and that doesnt make fascists good

Sage in all fields.

you're a shill kill yourself sage

>mfw I took an oath to protect the constitution
We would sooner bust the doors of the capital down than fire on law abiding citizens

>that we as civilians won't likely get into a shooting match with our own military.

yes, but for different reasons, our military are Americans too and will likely coup when we revolt

Sage

LOOK, NORWAY POSTED IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S TOO RETARDED TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH!!!!

You can set your watch to this tired fucking thing.

To be fair though, as much as I love our 2nd Amendment, I have to admit the defense against tyranny part is getting dated with respect to actually overthrowing the existing government.

Self defense? Absolutely still relevant. Protecting your house, family, and property. Absolutely still relevant. And you need high capacity stuff for this as well. Look at the LA Riots in '92. Absolutely I need multiple AR's with 30 round mags if all of a sudden dozens of people think they're going to break into and loot my home.

But I dont think I'll ever need to use my stuff against an AH-64 or M-1 Abrams.

wtf I hate overused bait now

2nd amendment is for the overthrowing of a tyrannical regime, though self defense is an added bonus

Hey look, it's Norway again with the same copy/paste fucking thread three times a week for the last couple months.

The most important part of the second amendment is to ensure the means to get rid of a tyrannical regime, the self defense is only a plus.

Denying people's right to self defense = ultimate human rights violation.

Forcing people to leave their security in the hands of a governing body is not only preposterous, but out right criminal. It is impossible for a government to protect their citizens 24/7, a police officer takes minutes (after a phone call has been made, if it ever was made) to get to the scene of a crime.

If the citizen of a country 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 the governing body of that country 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 become.

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. A criminal will break the law regardless, there are men walking passed you everyday that can have a concealed gun, legal or not.

Anti Gunner's fear does not arise from the idea of firearms, but from the idea of having to be responsible for their own safety. (an ignorant idea, since the responsibility has always been there, just covered with theater)

This argument also extends to the type of weapons one man can carry. A man has every right to carry a weapon that matches the force of a criminal, but one is wise to remember that the path to criminal intend has a history of being walked by both regular citizens and governments. As such, the people should not be restricted to regulations on certain features.

american resistance will only last until the battery of their scooters run out.

I genuinely agree that was the main reason the founding fathers wrote it in 1791. In 1791 neighbors were also a lot nicer to each other and there was no such thing as angry black people in America either. But a tyrannical government was very very real in everyones minds.

Over 200 years later however, its most relevant to self (including home and property) defense. I stand by the need for AR's and 30 round mags because home defense against multiple targets is very likely when society regresses further and/or you're in a Katrina type situation.

But you and I are never going to need to shoot at Bradleys and Abrams.

This thread is stupid every time its posted.

well faggot cunt here is what we say to your weak limp Gammer cock

Then how did we lose to a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam?

Who operates the tanks, jets, nukes and battleships?

the limp cocked faggot keeps forgetting that war.....or the cunt thinks they won that war

Vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, afghanistan again, syria, lybia, iran, ect ect

Do you pass this trough the sharpening filter every time before you start the shitty thread?

We were winning, then the us switched to the m16. A war has not been won since the us used the m16.

...

Wow.

It's copypasta. Again.

Cant blame it on the '16.

Our ROE was ridiculous, from the highest levels on down. Purposely not being allowed to bomb useful targets and instead losing ground and air guys night after night on unless jungle....

For whatever high debated reason, our government literally WANTED to lose that ware and made sure we did.