2nd Am = Free Guns

The 2nd Amendment guarantees every American Citizen the right to keep and bear arms, but not everyone can afford to purchase their own. In order to actualize this Constitutional guarantee, our Federal Government must immediately begin a program of firearms distribution which accomplishes a 100% rate of arms ownership across the entire US population. Anything less is unacceptable.

Attached: 1522799322191-pol.jpg (543x630, 114K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dailycaller.com/2018/03/08/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership-cnn/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>the Gibs-Me-Guns Act of 2018
I like it

Attached: resized_JPEG_1522127598976_2063929266465857215.jpg (350x284, 15K)

>void where prohibited

I want a free gun. Do I get a choice? Within reason, of course.

I will gladly purchase a firearm for a patriot who cannot afford one and wants to be able to protect theme selves from tyranny. Background check and ID required, because I am not going to get fucked by the shitty laws (((they))) have managed to sneak in.

You know what would be better? A kill a Liberal, get out of Jail card. You can kill ANY Democrat voter and not have any consequences.

>void where prohibited
welcome to america, ese

I recommend the fully-automatic select-fire rifle with optional grenade launcher.

>provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.
This is a really stupid argument. Almost like that moron David Hogg made it. Everyone is guaranteed one but they chose not to have one or if they can't afford to save 100$ on a gun they have other legal ways to have access to them. Back to the meme lab David. Just like High school. You failed

This is a good idea.

Attached: 3c8e15226f5c8d03ad8814b9b134de55.jpg (236x208, 14K)

If this argument is good enough for abortion (which is not constitutionally guaranteed) it is damn sure good enough for guns!

>the fully-automatic select-fire rifle with optional grenade launcher
What part of you thought this was a good idea to post?

Attached: 1488179756853.png (630x565, 250K)

What? That's the best kind.

Attached: 5d7.jpg (399x300, 14K)

Indeed it is the right to keep and bear arms, but it isn't specifically the right to have FREE guns, and is most certainly not a free pass to get a gun. For instance, a criminal on record isn't allowed to get a gun. Someone with a carry permit can carry their firearm, but there's nothing saying in the constitution the difficulty of getting a gun, whether it be easy or impossible.

Thompsons for everyone.

Attached: 1483818776164.jpg (1920x1080, 281K)

I'll take a free gun.

Ownership rights are negative rights, meaning that their existence simply requires one to abstain from interfering with the actions of a private citizen. Forced redistribution of the guns is a positive right meaning that it is achieved through providing somebody with a good or a service (which means its really a privilege), using coercive means to make somebody relinquish their weapons for the sake of a equally armed society is coercive by nature and would require state aggression to achieve. This contradicts the reason why we own guns in the first place, to prevent the government from denying our rights to life, liberty and property.

I have absolutely nothing against people giving others their firearms of their own volition, but forcing people to give up their guns to complete strangers who are too poor to afford them is state aggression and a denial of the right to private property and self-ownership.

>The 2nd Amendment guarantees every American Citizen the right to keep and bear arms

You're selectively quoting the US constitution, the fifth amendment clearly states that the government have no right to appropriate private property without just compensation.

No. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This guarantee creates an obligation for the federal government to remove impediments which infringe a person's ability to obtain arms. Lack of sufficient funds is one such infringement. We do not live in a country where only the rich are afforded Constitutional Rights. Lack of access due to insufficient funds is itself a violation of this guarantee. The government MUST ensure every citizen has a gun if they want one, else their rights are being denied in actuality.

>fully automatic select fire
If a rifle is fully automatic, its got a fire selector. Saying something is fully automatic and select fire is fucking redundant and retarded.
>with optional grenade launcher
So the rifle comes with or without the grenade launcher, is that what your saying? You do know that grenade launchers can be mounted to anything with enough space on a bottom mounted rail right? Same for any other attachment.
What pisses me off the most though is that you don't even name a rifle. You just throw out a generic description. Please learn to not be retarded before posting.

That's an MG42.

So said anything about redistributing guns already in the hands and homes of the citizens?
The guns being distributed would be newly manufactured.

This guarantee does not obligate redistribution of existing weapons. That would be entirely wrong on every level. It merely guarantees that Govt shall issue weapons, or otherwise cover the cost of acquiring them.

The Democrats have given us the perfect method to ensure broad armament of the populations with the Individual Mandate. It set a precedent that the government could impose a tax on a person if they didn't procure a service. We only have to establish a law stating that there will be a $1,000 tax on those who do not own a firearm and a $250 tax on those who do no keep ammunition for that firearm on hand.

I clicked the wrong thing.

I forgot to put (select-fire) in parenthesis. Fuck. So sue me, lol. Also, the idea is that the grenade-launcher is an option at-purchase, but you can decline that available gear.

Appropriation of firearms from gun manufacturers without adequate compensation is a violation of their rights, the workers made a product and deserve compensation for it. Do you know how expensive it would be to arm everybody? Unless the companies are state owned, which would be an incredibly uneconomical alternative if the guns are issued for free.

That only works in Switzerland.

Attached: Swiss Based Gun Law.jpg (916x606, 88K)

THIS. IS. FUCKING. GENIUS.

Attached: 1520391508300-pol.jpg (880x1140, 95K)

What is a voucher?

Attached: 1520871799878-pol.jpg (640x934, 100K)

Guns are expensive, issuing a firearm to every citizen would exponentially increase government spending, raising taxes. Why am I obligated to pay for a stranger who can't afford a gun? Why is it my fault he can't afford a gun?

I would be entirely happy to cut any other "entitlement" program which is not Constitutionally guaranteed and shift the funds to this endeavor without raising taxes one cent. Pick any of them. I don't even care. How about Social Security?

There are a small amount of fully auto only rifles out there, usually they are home conversions where the sear only goes up when you let the trigger off. That is, they didn't add an auto sear to it, like production models would have. Complete garbage, imo, but they exist.

this

a gibsmedat policy i can actually get behind.
where do i sign up

what if i want the stabby stab on the end of the barrel?

This would encourage and enable non-whites to own and buy many many many more guns. To shoot us (you know how violent and homicidal shitskins are)

Combine that with the anti-white nature of our jewish and non-white judges in the courts, and you have a South Africa scenario in very short time. Your idea bad.

Attached: 1519458185466.jpg (750x745, 109K)

Attached: ug4us[1].gif (577x474, 1.34M)

Well we have gibs for everything else, why the fuck not. This is better than paying for Shaniquas welfare.

And this one actually has a direct and specific mandate under the Constitution, unlike every other fucking BS "entitlement" program they jerry-rigged out of vague verbiage about promoting "the general welfare" of citizens.

Fuuuuuck! I forgot the bayonet attachment option. Yes, this must be included!

Attached: IMG_20171130_031025.jpg (380x359, 36K)

Thanks for your anonymous offer.

This is, sadly, an unintended consequence. I recommend pairing this legislation with an act that strips citizenship from all non-white, non-male, non-land owning individuals who also do not meet a criteria for net tax contribution (pay more than they receive in benefits).

Those options are not in the realm of the possible. We are already in semi South-Africa situation, where rabidly anti-white judges free non-whites who harm whites, while whites are judged with the full wrath and fury of the law.

(not exactly pro-nonwhite, more like pro-left wing judges, who protect leftists of any color, and slam any white right wing defendant he gets in court)

everybody can afford some type of firearm. for sucks sake buy a Savage Model 64, 100$
22lr isn't ideal but it's a firearm and a lot better than nothing.

you don't need a lot of money to arm yourself

no no get the chainsaw

Attached: screen-shot-2017-11-08-at-13905-pm-770x353.jpg (770x353, 24K)

dailycaller.com/2018/03/08/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership-cnn/

what the fuck

Fuck that. lack of gun regulation would just make guns exponentially cheaper, eliminating the need for the state to provide citizens with firearms. So many guns are banned for no real reason, unbanning them would increase their demand and production. Lack of regulation on the market would increase the quality and quantity of gun manufacturers. Besides, why do you trust the state to reliably and consistently provide you with anything when the incentive for profit and healthy competition would give rise to a superior gun industry with actual incentive to make a good product.

You also have the right to life, does that mean the state should supply universal healthcare?

Also an excellent choice!

Attached: sharememe6037865855.jpg (400x267, 45K)

Representative currency. What's your point?

how new are you, faggot?

that gif has been around since the inception of Jow Forums. jesus christ newfags.

There is the Civilian Marksmanship Program which offers cheap training and cheap guns

>lack of gun regulation would just make guns exponentially cheaper, eliminating the need for the state to provide citizens with firearms.
I also endorse de-regulation.

>You also have the right to life, does that mean the state should supply universal healthcare?
That is their argument... however, that only appears in the Declaration of Independence and is not a part of the actual Constitution itself. To be consistent in this manner, the 1st Amendment should be applied to prevent social media from banning any free speech and the 4th should prevent companies from selling your data, but no mandate can be created to compel Healthcare or "welfare".

You improperly assume I endorse appropriation from manufacturers. I do not.

A right does not mean you get it free dumbass

It does in Switzerland bro.

Attached: Switzerland has a Strict Gun Law.jpg (914x605, 88K)

>that only appears in the Declaration of Independence and is not a part of the actual Constitution itself.

In my opinion the right to live would just be natural law, it's a negative right meaning it can be enforced and defended by the individual and not a third party providing a good or service, and it's really just human nature to view one's own life as innately valuable.

>he 1st Amendment should be applied to prevent social media from banning any free speech and the 4th should prevent companies from selling your data

They actually can't, by agreeing to use these services you are agreeing to terms that clearly state that Facebook and other services have the right to regulate what you say and do on their platform, same goes for the 4th amendment, you agreed to these companies using your data. A right isn't violated by a consensual agreement between mutual parties. You have the right to be pissed, but your rights aren't actually being violated.

The Heckler's Veto is itself a violation of the 1st Amendment. These Rights do not only prohibit such action taken by government, but also by private citizens. For example: you, as a private citizen, are likewise prohibited from seizing my weapons or denying me access to firearms purchase, even as a private business owner. And so you should be. (Current case being litigated out of Medford, OR. Will be a landmark ruling.)

Attached: Hecklers-Veto-Strikes-Again-cartoon-man-yelling-no-200px-no-margins.png (236x200, 48K)

Exactly, but if you agree to use my service and part of the written agreement is that I can deny you access to the service if I think your use of if will damage my service's reputation and public image, surely I reserve the right to do just that.

Attached: 1520441207481s.jpg (101x125, 3K)

Nothing in the constitution is a positive right ya dummie

You can say that, but if you enforce that against a precious leftist, the government will crush you and fine you in the hundreds thousans like the religious cake shop bakery.

You can deny service to all the conservatives you want for any reason at all, and be perfectly safe (Jewtube, Twitter)

I do not endorse the opinion that one can voluntarily surrender their rights, nor is any contract valid which includes a violation of rights as a stipulation. Consider: one cannot sell themselves into slavery. (And, no, wage labor is not actual slavery.)

>this

Attached: 1520292556110.jpg (588x645, 180K)

I would be content to have this argument applied universally. As it stands, the government assigns "positive right" status to many such "entitlements". We must choose one principle or the other, not apply this idea selectively.

Attached: Free+ride_280d6c_6328188.jpg (469x960, 93K)

This is unironically what military surplus firearms should be used for. Arming the militia.

MG34 actually. You can tell by the magazine.

Stupid. Why carry it in a manner that makes it slower to bring into action than a concealed handgun?

It's not really the state's business who one denies service to anybody. In my opinion, the only incentive a private business would have to not deny service to a particular group of people would be loss of customer base and damage to their reputation as business.

>a coupon that could actually be reality in better timeline
>not living in that timeline
fml

Dammit, I submit to your superior intellect, user.

Attached: 1480760363854.jpg (1036x1200, 225K)

only property owners should be allowed to vote at this point.

Democracy should be abolished.

Attached: lol.jpg (209x242, 5K)

it already is

Attached: 1518992458951.png (731x709, 49K)

You can't sell yourself into slavery because slavery by its very nature isn't voluntary. You would just be a volunteer worker by that point.

How about training in elemantary school with no possession... Middle school you train tactics and given responsibility in your community, could be garbage pick up, or agriculture/landscaping, and then in high school if you have satisfied your community obligations?participation in volunteering.... you are allowed to open and concealed carry in school.

We need to teach Morality above all. Pic related on how to truly teach a "right"

Attached: maxresdefault (2).jpg (1280x720, 103K)

The Second Amendment prohibits the gouvernment and any organisation from infringing upon the People's right to bear arms.

Attached: have-the-right-to-bear-arms-28839343.png (500x605, 126K)

FUCK. YES.

we know. Our grand parents were fooled by a cult organization who used pcculted knowledge of psychology to make us willing slaves by surrendering our right to property. We all want the war to end for a long long time and we still pay tax

I am with you in principle. I am commenting on what the (((government))) did to that religious cake bakery, (destroy them) and the massive government unconcern, when a libtard lefty business denies service to us .

Agreed.

I will endorse this plan if, and only if, I am the one who becomes Supreme Leader. In all other cases, I prefer to have my vote, tyvm.

The shills don't know, and non-Americans certainly don't know either.
I only came to that realisation two weeks ago, even though I memorised the text last year.

The concept is that any contract (however voluntarily signed) which stipulates you are not allowed to leave a state of slavery cannot (and should not) be enforced. Likewise, any contract which stipulates a surrender of any other constitutional right is necessarily also a violation and has no legitimate legal force.

Also, bring back Marksmaship courses and gun clubs in schools.

Attached: In-1950s-high-schools-taught-marksmanship.png (508x508, 133K)

>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

There ya have it, Constitution says they have to buy me a gun

fpbp
Guns for everyone. Marksmanship mandatory in public schooling.

FACT.

Were those BB guns they used, or proper firearms?