Why do you think you need an assault rifle? Just explain that to me. And don't give me any of that tyrannical government bullshit.
Because from where I'm standing I see a government that has tanks and bombs and drones that would easily overpower any armed "resistance". Of course, there has also NEVER been a tyrannical government since this country started so that kind of negates the whole purpose of needing guns to protect against tyranny or whatever other nonsense the alt-right likes to feed to people.
So what is it? Why do you need an assault rifle in 2018 in America?
because my dick is really small and girls won't date me anymore ever since I voted for Trump. also i'm afraid of anyone who isn't super white and both my parents never loved me.
Levi Brown
Back in Serbia we have more guns
Benjamin Martinez
I'm confused. Are assault rifles useless and uncessesary, or are they dangerous unstoppable killing machines?
Kevin Sullivan
Why does the military need assault rifles if they have all those tanks and bombs?
Why does every standing army in the world still have infantry and equip them with small arms if they are so useless in modern warfare?
>Ethic replacement policy >More than 1% tax >Control money supply >Not tyrannical Get out hombre, we don't want your third world lifestyle here, White's want freedom and America is a white nation.
Michael Bell
>Why do you think you need an assault rifle? Just explain that to me. To kill fags who want to take them away.
>what is 2+2? and don't give me that 4 bullshit sage
Connor Ramirez
We have Semi-Auto guns. You need a Cat D license ya yank
Angel Rogers
Whoah, something to think about.
Nicholas Ross
>Why do you need Since when did need become the primary concern of ownership? Do I need lobster? Are you going to stop me from owning lobster because I don't need it?
Asher Ortiz
because firearm ownership has a non-zero benefit in regard to reducing malevolent government propensities.
it's worth investing in efforts like mandatory de-escalation classes post-purchase of a firearm. access wouldn't be reduced, and safety would increase.
But right, that isn't as sensational, so libs won't virtue signal it, and the media can't print clicks off it.
Brody Nguyen
Go to Serbia. Everyone has a AK which they use for shooting animals
Charles Rogers
You wish.
We have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, but it's politically incorrect to say it, so they use fake data to pretend that we have low gun ownership.
Some years ago, a Swiss group found out that at the lowest estimate we would have around 3.5 million guns and the highest estimate was around 11 million guns.
>wildlife will kill you. Bear spray or shouting will scare them away.
>make sure that i dont get robbed. So you'd rather kill someone over a material item than just let them have it? Wow dude.
Dominic Scott
>Old picture from 1990s after Port Aurther Stick with the times, we have lots of guns here
Leo Baker
Belton Flintlock was a rifle in development during the development of the Bill of Rights, and was designed to fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger The founding fathers were aware of the idea of automatic rifles and still created the 2nd Amendment because they respected the rights of Americans You don't like it, move to Canada
We have more guns per capita is what i'm trying to say. 2nd worldwide, 1st obviously america
Asher Reyes
The Aurora shooting was done with a semi-auto, no citizen can own any assault weapon dipshit. Also, virtually all gun crime is committed by niggers and spics using illegally owned pistols.
Ryder Russell
>government has tanks and bombs and drones >doesn't realize that the military has the tanks and bombs and that the people who serve in the military are citizens themselves and uphold the constitution The military would be the militia
Julian Lewis
>Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009
“Why don’t you just let people walk all over you, asshole!”
“Just yell ‘shoo, shoo!’ to scare away the deadly wildlife. Trust me I know more about the place you live than you do.
Aiden Walker
>And don't give me any of that tyrannical government bullshit.
But that is why we have them, they are used to fight heavily armed/armored forces. Also they're fun.
If you are referring to school shootings and that shit, the highest score in the U.S. was set by Cho with .22 caliber handguns which is about as far from an Assault rifle as you can get.
Heavy assault weapons aren't that good for killing mass amounts of unarmed people.
You're a fucken loser wtf you doing on this board at 41 on a Friday.
Matthew Jones
shooting people. sage
Grayson Kelly
In the event of CW2, at least a quarter of the Military and Leo would defect, along with that, armed citizens outnumber them by a shit ton. They might be able to get some good licks in, but a prolonged war would deplete the Government of manpower and resources long before the citizenry would capitulate. Not to mention all the foreign support American insurgents would recieve. The Gov would have to use their nukes or import millions of third worlders to even have a chance at success.
Semantics is literally the meaning of words. If you say apple, but mean orange, you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re lying. You can’t just yell “semantics” to avoid people telling you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Henry Morales
the impending race war
Nathan Allen
to shoot a faggot in the face 15 times if they ever try to break into my house
Ryder Howard
>So you'd rather kill someone over a material item than just let them have it? Wow dude.
I see you are retarded
Julian Martinez
Material items can be replaced, a human life cannot. It is much better to let a material item go than to kill someone over it. That person could go on to turn their life around but people like you just want to deprive them of that chance. Sad.
For one, we're talking about guns here, not fruit. And also, a fully atuomatic AR-47 is not much different from a semi fully automatic AR-47.
Nathan Turner
You can't tell the future, if there is a societal collapse or a foreign power tries to invade then rifles would help to afford your family some safety. Guarding yourself and your own is a human right which guns are needed for. Also, for every drone and aircraft there is a drone operator and pilot who wants to sleep at home peacefully. It is possible to strike them at home.
Brandon Cook
Copypasta incoming.
Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I’m going to try to explain this so that you can understand it.
You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.
A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce “no assembly” edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.
None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.
Noah Mitchell
someone post the screencap of japanon destroying gun control shills
Jose Ortiz
Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.
BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
Dumb. Fuck.
Camden Campbell
in cases of civil war, assassinating specific individuals on the enemy side is a very high-risk high-reward activity that may change the course of the conflict entirely. Many people want that option.
Andrew Edwards
thanks bro
Adam Russell
>And also, a fully atuomatic AR-47 is not much different from a semi fully automatic AR-47
YOU MONG THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A AR-47. ITS A FUCKING KALASHNIKOV WHICH IS A RUSSIAN GUN, DONT SPEAK OF GUN POLICES EVER AGAIN.
Of course, mate. How's Austria these days? Putting out anymore Hitlers?
Jaxson Bailey
>explain to me >no, not that explanation kys
Andrew Sanders
Even that wont cut it. the minorities in America are almost entirely concentrated in the urban areas. Once the power goes out, theyll be practically subdued in a month.
Im talking about the governmemt importing third world mercenaries to compensate for defections and casualties.
Look, it really does not matter. It's still a gun that kills people, and that's problematic to a civilized society.
Robert Lee
>Material items can be replaced, a human life cannot. So why can't I own guns to protect my family, race, community, and society from the dark hordes that hate whites?
Some Americans are dumb as dirt. Do you understand the idea Behind a police state? Obviously if the government came in with tanks and bombs and blew up cities to control the population they would destroy the very thing they’re trying to control making it worthless and pointless. However if the governments has a Military that is equipped with the latest guns they will be able to go in and forcibly take over each city without damaging any of the resources or the goods or property the things they want to have control of. So you do understand by allowing some of the respectable and trustworthy citizens to carry guns the government will never be able to take over beyond what the people decide they are allowed to have power over
Isaiah Evans
>That person could go on to turn their life around but people like you just want to deprive them of that chance. Sad.
burglar niggers have a million chances to rethink their decisions before intruding on property, a lot of them pay for it with their life. I love these constant contradictions in liberal narratives though. >how dare you murder someone who is breaking the law, they are human beings too! >you gun nuts wouldn't do anything if the police came knocking on the door for your precious guns! The government would drone strike you by the thousands!
>I am 41 years old oh fuck off, I'm a decade older than you and think you're a whiny pussy who deserves to get ass-raped by a gang of niggers.
Hudson Clark
You are a fucking retard. We need guns for defence otherwise you are likely to be annexed. Who cares about a single to multiple human life, thousands or millions is a problem
Aiden Butler
Hey dumbfucks. If you stop responding to this shit, it will cease to be posted.
Michael Jenkins
"It is much better to let a material item go than to kill someone over it"
>let someone rob you robber doesn't want to risk being identified >get killed anyways
Your bleeding heart vs my beating heart
Samuel Jackson
>same bait as allways, debunked a thousand times
Then just give in your guns, look how well it turned out for us europeans
Owen Lewis
I would say give this user a metal but he has already been blessed with trips
Because with a thing you can merely point, pull your finger back and end the life of a corrupt politician in half a second it ensures they always have a residual fear of backlash for their actions. It isn't about owning a gun to take on an entire military its about the principle of having the fear that you could be the one that gets the bullet if you take a step towards tyranny.
Look at Britain, apart from the whole staged bullshit of Dunblaine (he was a freemason of course) there were no 'mass shootings' in Britain. Now we are disarmed we are seen as a doormat by all the migrants and politicians just keep rolling out ever more stringent Orwellian style nanny state shit. The only time they have backed up and pandered to think about their actions have been after actions of the IRA and Islamic terrorists who got too close to THEM (the politicians, they don't care if its us), thus terrorism works because with the concept of consequences it knocks the ego out of politicians knowing someone can and will disrupt their day or pose a threat to them (the politician).
Why do you think all the paedos are in high positions, they all have dirt on each other, thus consequences to keep them in line.
An armed public means consequences. The right to bear arms protects the right to freedom of speech, travel, right to a fair trial, right to life, right to .... etc
Needs or wants are irrelevant. Risks and dangers are irrelevant. This is an issue of inalienable and natural(not law-given) RIGHTS. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of a US citizen, and can only be removed under extreme and extenuating circumstances. It is NO DIFFERENT than the right to life. Government banning or restricting gun ownership is the same as mass murdering citizens.
Anthony Lewis
because its letting off steam, therapeutic, where else can I shout FUCK THE PAEDOPHILE ELITES IN POWER with the knowledge that it would be seen by quite a lot of people of many different political stances, yes mainly right wing hive minds come here but also these boards are scoured by lefties who think they are some sort of undercover agent and media companies thinking they're getting a scoop or dirt on us like they breached some 'secret club'. Let alone the fact these boards will be scoured by foreign agents who could look into things to use against their detractors and people doing the bidding of the Orwellian state who may stop and think just for one second "why am I aiding the paedophile rings?". You never ever know who it may reach because you never know who is lurking, we know 99% of the time its just pissing into the wind and fake posters LARPing. Sometimes its just to remind people of things and give them a red pill booster pack.
Democracy is the tyrannical government, if you bothered to do 5 minutes of research. We live in a Republic based on the constitution and laws, and not a Democracy which is mob rule, which results in anarchy, which results in tyranny.
Our Republic has a democratic system in place, voting for congress and such. 60 years of communist infiltration ALMOST turned our nation into a corrupt republic, which is no republic at all.
And we need an assault rifle so that if the Democrat Communists were to take over, and use our military against us, we would be able to use guerilla tactics to destroy supply lines (water, food, fuel) and to obliterate the morale of soldiers by killing them since there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Not a single soldier will be able to feel safe.
But, every soldier would defect and join the Republicans since they swore to protect the constitution, so your argument is shit. You need to stop. Every day? Really?
Adrian Gonzalez
Why the fuck does David Hogg post here every day? It's him, I'm telling you. I can tell since he's more faggoty than the rest.
Kevin Cox
We need guns because it is our natural right to own them. If government has the right to take your second amendment away, it can by that logic also take your first amendment. And your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Gungrabbers are already Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin. There is no slippery slope. They are already eager murderers and tyrants.
Juan Gomez
It's our natural right to defend ourselves, by any means achievable. It's not a natural right to own guns, faggot.
Julian Collins
Firstly, assault is merely a label used by the left and has no actual description.
in some cases assault even just means its black and tactical looking, other times it means semi automatic, sometimes it means fully automatic.
Anyway to answer your question, Tyranical government. You say bombs tanks and drones would easily overpower any armed resistance, but heres 2 points:
Wasnt England a powerhouse of forces with an armada/blockade and superior weapons and equipment too back in 1776?
And hows that technology against all those jihad jefferies we cant find up in the mountains?
Where there's the ability to fight, you may still fight. Just because there's an army doesnt even mean the army would side with the country, you'll have plenty of turncoats should something like that arise.
Better question, why SHOULDNT we have guns? because occasionally a crazy guy gets one and shoots a few kids? Where I come from that's no excuse to just burn the constitution.
Brandon Nelson
You lost the cold war. Your system sucks.
Kevin Nelson
>Because from where I'm standing I see a government that has tanks and bombs and drones Populations can't be controlled with "tanks and bombs." That requires boots on the ground. What's the government going to do? Completely level it's own country's infrastructure? Don't be thick. Assault rifles are the only weapons with enough of a mixture of range, reliability, and stopping power capable of combating armed government forces. That's why you don't see the Taliban running around starting fights with handguns.
Besides, if the army is so all-powerful, why have they been fighting goat herders for 30 years? Why not use their tech to mop the floor and be done with them?
Next time you're thinking about saying something as retarded as your op, just jam your thumb up your ass and take a whiff. That's the smell of your opinions.
>giving up a tool that can save your, and your families lifes, because "not muh right"
A gun is the best way to defend yourself as of today, giving up on that power because someone told you so, is just idiotic
Anthony Clark
Rocks also kill people. Fists can kill people too. I could probably find a way to kill someone with a twig. Does that mean these things should be banned as well? Are hands also a problem to civilized society?
Ethan Diaz
Because we can. Why do you want to restrict my freedom?
Matthew Walker
Ex future marine here, I think common sense gun control is a good thing. Only those trained and on board with the communist revolution should have access to these dangerous weapons of war.
