Pro Gun Arguments Debunked

Can someone honestly tell me why if most adult American civilians were armed, this wouldn't deter facism? Even if an AR15 won't protect you from predator drones... If the government kills even 5% of its own population, there would be international intervention and also not to mention the economic collapse from killing your workforce

The second amendment doesn't preclude common sense gun control.

Case in point: National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994, and so on.

As every day passes, I wish I could acquire a gun, so I could shoot on sight every leaf I meet

1. Yes they will, t. Vietnamese rice farmer

>doesnt rememeber Vietnam
You can't fight a war just from the air. Those planes have to land somewhere right? Muh predator drones wont stop an actual armed rebellion

if we start banning gun, i want the government, police, military to go first. no security guard should have one etc.

All infringe on my rights.
It's absolutely ridiculous that I have to pay 8k for a fully automatic weapon.

Oh, is that why you leafs post anti-2nd Amendment memes?

Because this has happened before in history, and it didn't work.

Little known fun fact: Weimar Germany had a communist, anti-fascist militia, well armed and over 100,000 men strong, made up in large parts of WWI combat veterans. Didn't stop the tyranny.

For scale, Weimar Germany had a population of about 63,000,000. Compared with today's 300,000,000 Americans you'd need more than 500,000 members to reach a similar size.

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roter_Frontkämpferbund

Attached: m8v17n39fs511.jpg (1440x2031, 193K)

Where in the second amendment does it say you're entitled to a fully automatic weapon under $8k?

>Its just a bad argument. Stop it
That's what you retards think debunked means? No wonder you loose every time.

Where does it say that you cannot?

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyranical government. Its just a bad argument. Stop it.

I actually agree. I would be very interested in hearing some form of debate/discussion between people who know what they're talking about (military experts and shit, I dunno) where one argues in favor of the "defense against tyranny" argument or w/e and the other argues that it would never work.

Either way, only a fucking retard or a horribly lazy person would use a gun to commit a "mass" killing and in doing so spend their only life and only chance at doing what is apparently so important to them.
Hell, if he'd just waited outside with a car he probably would have got more people. I guess there is genuinely a psychological aspect at work here: some people are deranged to the point where they legit either aren't bother to, or capable of coming up with a mass killing plan that makes any sense.
Basically, look at Timothy McVeigh for when someone who is not retarded actually puts an effort in.

The Czechs seem to have a lid on this. Their laws seem stern but fair from what I've seen. Seems they stop lazy/impulsive/moronic people from obtaining guns legally and I think that's all you can ever really do.

As for the synagogue shooting... the more time goes by, the more Brass Eye becomes reality.

Would anyone really laugh now at defensive measure, which is bulletproof, where a hole has been cut so you can return fire? :DDDDD

youtube.com/watch?v=NAQy8v0d_qo

The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.

>8. Semi-automatic assault weapons are not functionally identical to non-assault semi-automatic weapons. If they were the same, then why do you get so worked up over an assault weapons ban?

Also, inexplicable meaningless questions like this imply this is probably a meme post of some kind.

Nobody knows what a "semi-automatic assault weapon" is, probably because they don't exist and being semi-automatic precludes it being useful for the purpose of "assault" in the original military context for which the "assault rifle" category of arms was created.

As defined by the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, Assault weapons are:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
>Folding or telescoping stock
>Pistol grip
>Bayonet mount
>Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
>Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
>Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
>Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
>Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
>Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
>A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
>Folding or telescoping stock
>Pistol grip
>Detachable magazine

>The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act
Not the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment doesn't say you have a right to own automatic weapons.

Attached: civil war 2.0 .jpg (854x590, 123K)

Take away guns from the upstanding civilians and leave them in the hands of criminals only! Smart move.

Commie fucks just want the civilians to give up their arms just to make the upcoming civil war easier.

Shall Not

Having an armed population doesn't guarantee anything except for having an armed population, but it sure does raise the odds of preventing the formation of an extremist government. No matter how slightly increased the odds may be, an increase is still an increase.

Both conservatives and liberals fail to understand probability. A previous instance in history showing the contrary doesn't mean the odds weren't better. If a success rate is 5% instead of 1%, it's still an increase but you shouldn't expect to see success stories 100% of the time.

Nazi Party was a popular party, anyway. Whether it's fascist or not is irrelevant.

youtube.com/watch?v=ehikC4iEnBI

Yes it does.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

That's an abomination

Pro Gun Argument #1: Fuck you.

/end of argument

Proof?

SCOTUS says it does. And I think they know more about it than you, foreigner.

>a communist, anti-fascist militia, well armed and over 100,000 men strong, made up in large parts of WWI combat veterans. Didn't stop the tyranny.

That's because commies fight like five year old girls.

Only morons with no understanding of warfare think 1 is true.

>As defined by the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, Assault weapons are:
Yes, but the 1994 Assault Weapons ban is not a meaningful document written by firearms experts. It is extremely arbitrary and contradicts previously long-established weapons terminology, which it doesn't even appear to be aware of.

Not to mention that it's no longer an active piece of legislation anyway.

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyranical government. Its just a bad argument. Stop it.
tell that to Vietnamese rice farmers or Afghanistanian goat fuckers lel

Kek what the fuck is this shit. You arent hitting shit with that

It's not a need; it's a right

The burden of proof is on you to say where it bans them since they are naturally legal to own ignoring government intervention into the natural rights of humans.

>Not a sport
Leave it to a leaf to make a post this abhorrent

Lol fuck you cuck.

But it does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I honestly think it is very clear and the only reason people interpret it how they do is personal bias towards the subject matter.

Whether one agrees with it or not, there's no way it would be interpreted as restrictively as it is if it dealt with... voting rights or... abortions or what have you. Perhaps it should change or perhaps X/Y/Z but it does seem very clear in its intention TBQH.

You do that in your country, Leaffag. No one here cares, and your thoughts on the 2A are totally irrelevant.

>ignoring government intervention
So you think you're above the law?

Not gonna happen. Ever. Fuck off.

This.

They're not for protection from tyrants. They're for hunting tyrants. Fucking leaf wouldn't even begin to grasp the kind of responsibility one should bear to live this out. Good people should be armed to the teeth so they can remove bad people.

>Little known fun fact: Weimar Germany had a communist, (((anti-fascist))) militia, well armed and over 100,000 (((men))) strong, made up in large parts of WWI (((combat veterans))).

>Leaf doesn't understand natural rights
Show me on the doll, where did Monarchy touch you

Having reasonable, common sense gun control is not a gun ban. Therefore it isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms.

>leafposting
oh what to do?

>Semi-automatic assault weapons are not functionally identical to non-assault semi-automatic weapons.
They are, the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non "assault weapon" is cosmetic. The M1 carbine is a semi automatic, magazine fed rifle that has been around since WWII but is not an "assault weapon" because of cosmetics. It lacks a pistol grip, it has a wooden stock and the "shoulder thing" doesn't "go up"
Semi-automatic is the function so saying "a semi-auto function is not identical to a semi-auto function" is literally retarded.

I'm getting sick of you vile anti-gun rats. You deserve the same treatment as the corrupt politicians, corporate crooks, and Zionist jews.

Attached: 1st2ndammendment.jpg (1433x715, 160K)

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyrannical government.
failed at the first hurdle. Jesus christ leaf.

this

I remain... uncertain.

He mentions police there a lot... but in this scenario where apparently the state is actively engaging in violent conflict with its citizens, I'm imagining more along the lines of SWAT teams and military vehicles.

It would all be a clusterfuck but I can't imagine even America has anywhere near enough people with guns, especially willing to fight the state with guns, to make up for the lack of organization and heavier equipment etc. etc.

But bleh, I dunno, we'll never find out anyway. You could say the disruption that would be caused would be so costly that it's a good deterrent, but then people's rights are taken away all the time and nobody does anything. I mean, whether you like the 2A or not it sure as shit seems to suggest that walking through NYC carrying a gun should be protected by the constitution at least for non-criminals and the sane etc. etc.

nice strawman, faggot

ROOF KOREANS

The 1st Amendment doesn't say you can exercise your free speech with a computer, either.

SHALL

This, it is the modern day sword of damocles. Politicians aren't scared of a raving pack of niggers, they aren't scared of a public lynch mob. They are scared of one guy, hidden on a hill, trained in the use of his rifle with unwavering faith in what he must do with it.

Jow Forums here, that's an assignment setup with shitty eye relief and a foregrip way too close to the magwell to do any good. That being said, everything else you said is retarded and I'm sure someone has posted the jpeg of a Nip debunking your argument, good day filthy nofuns

Attached: word.gif (480x265, 2.96M)

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyranical government. Its just a bad argument. Stop it.

lol good argument, stopped reading here
report shill slide thread
p.s. sage

Attached: 052.png (265x258, 174K)

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyranical government. Its just a bad argument. Stop it.
>pic related

Attached: 6tc4e4skuxbz.jpg (640x650, 95K)

>implying people here want that shit
Gun control is an NPC exclusive obsession, every argument for it has been debunked, every law and regulation passed here has been a failure, it's a purely ideologically driven position.
The overwhelming majority of crimes or violent crimes using guns involved the use of stolen or smuggled guns from the USA, and it's almost always gang or drug related. Also, blacks. Toronto is starting to look like Chicago.

>the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non "assault weapon" is cosmetic
Then why are gun nuts so afraid of an assault weapons ban if the difference is only cosmetic? Just buy the non-assault weapons?

>1. Guns will not protect you against a 21st century tyranical government. Its just a bad argument. Stop it.
A bunch of insurgents in Afghanistan are winning against the strongest military in the world, the same military that lost in Vietnam. If you think a restrained US govt is guaranteed to win in America, you're delusional.
>Even if "the majority" of gun crime is with illegal guns, banning legal guns still allows for the prevention of the minority remaining gun crimes.
You just admitted your policy isn't optimal. If you're going to an "end justifies the means" argument, you should make sure the end is optimal, to justify the means. A small betterment isn't enough to justify cracking down on freedoms.
>A bunch of unorganized average joes cannot effectively defend against an active shooter without killing more people (and likely each other) through friendly fire. Run a mental simulation with 10 "heroes" in a crowd firing at the other guy with a gun.
Not an argument. Mass shootings have been prevented in America by armed bystanders. Common cases include that cartoon exhibition in Texas and in restaurants.
Source: cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html
cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/index.html
>4. The second amendment can be repealed (thank god).
Anything in the constitution can be repealed with enough support, including 1st, 4th and 5th.
>5. If you can't protect your animals with a lever action .30-30, you're probably better off without any guns at all
You don't make the same claim for state rangers.
>6. Not a sport.
It's a sport.
> Lets not imagine that the state of mind of the purchaser is not subject to change over the lifespan of the gun.
This claim makes no sense.
>8. Semi-automatic assault weapons are not functionally identical to non-assault semi-automatic weapons.
They are.

You've been absolutely defeated.

Gun doesnt protect your from a tyranical government. The mentioning of a gun in a shopping mall can shut the whole thing down and draw out an entire police force in panic.. Pick one.

Fuck off.

Appeal to common sense is a fallacy, as it falls under the appeal to popularity. The world doesn't revolve around common sense which isn't even a universal tangible thing.
>Therefore it isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Non sequitur fallacy.

The term "assault weapon" was coined by a psychologist in the 80's to sound scary. Anything used to assault someone is an "assault" weapon.

>4. The second amendment can be repealed (thank god).
2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/5ths of the states have to approve it to get it repealed.
Good luck with that, fascist.

doesnt matter. constitution is very clear on this
come and take them

All these nogunners ITT who don't know what a scout rifle is

Attached: 1448312456885.jpg (653x590, 75K)

Because banning cosmetic features is literally retarded.

>wanting to deter fascism

>assault weapons
What's an assault weapon?

Calling a law retarded doesn't mean you don't have to follow it, Cletus.

Hey guys the government has a big budget and radical advance weaponry. Might as well turn in your guns because you know a tyrannical dictator is bullet proof.

In Australia, when we had the gun ambesty, whilst there was a reasonable drop in gun related murders, the number of knife related murders went up equally.

In America, if there was a civil war, i think you underestimate the difficulty the government would have in finding who would and who wouldn't just continue on as normal, then casually bring their pistol to work one day, then killing a target leader during their sceduled visit.

Look at Palestine. Every year, Israel literally just takes what it wants by force of gun so that they can add more real estate and expand their wall and all the Pakis can do is throw rocks at them in response.

Ok, so people die from domestics via guns occasionally, it'll just change to a knife. Mass shootings have gone up, but not in proportion to the increase in the American population. If you're a liberal, i'm assuming you have a dislike for police too right? Well even if you did de-gun the Anerican people, I gurantee you will never EVER de-gun the police, so you know, what's the point? You either want to make things worse for you with the police or you're actually a paid government worker tasked with trying to de-fang the American people.

>Having reasonable, common sense gun control is not a gun ban.
Sounds a lot like you're suggesting a ban on certain guns.

You could argue that protecting the right to own and carry exactly 1 type of knife and nothing else would technically not be an infringement on the right to bear arms. Or at least an arm... let them carry 2 then.

I mean, the 2A is very open-ended... but it does appear to have been that way intentionally, and seemingly for the specific purpose of allowing citizens to own similar weaponry to the state.

I don't understand the military obsession that seems to come with a lot of gun control arguments. As though automatic weapons are desired for massacring unarmed randomers as efficiently as possible, rather than to be used for tactical reasons against armed opponents.
Somehow the average mass shooter is assumed to be an expert marksman with military training and a near-infinite supply of boolets.

Move to a different country.

I stopped reading after 1 because that's wrong. See vietnam: a bunch of gooks with rifles defeated the US, which used helicopters, flamethrowers, chemical warfare, rockets etc.

Try harder leaflet

Because it's pointless and does nothing to protect people?
>omg ban frills and body mods. Dangerous high speed racecars have no place on our streets!
This is what you morons sound like when you talk about "assault weapons".

None of those things can survive raiding a single infrastructure building loaded with booby traps and explosives.

Also, there are more guns than people in the US.
If shit went down, there would be enough guns for everyone.

Also, do you think a US civil war happens in a vacuum? The first time the US glasses a civilian population center, Russia will rush in to provide aide to the insurgents.

Is it a law now? No? then I don't have to follow it, retard. You asked why we were against the law being passed. I told you why.

Is anyone else disturbed by how wrongly the AR-15 is drawn?

ie iron sights on back, no front iron sight, and a scope mounted on the hand guard making it impossible to use, + hard to hold... also no room for magazine no ejection port, upside down gas system, 3 finger hand grip.

Why cant lefties into reality?

Attached: #stoptheNRA#SAVETHECHILDREN#CHANGE.jpg (468x640, 131K)

Wrong. The People's Army of Vietnam literally had fighter jets, tanks, and missiles.

Attached: 4d5.jpg (720x662, 41K)

Shut up npc filth pic related its you

Attached: 1540225878908.png (416x435, 123K)

One must be able to defend themselves from a common criminal. Guns are the best way to do this. you cannot always rely upon the government to do everything for you.

That fear is what keeps them in check. It must be refreshed from time to time or else they grow decadent and lose themselves in the illusion of power.

wtf why does it have THREE holding handles
gun user explain to me, i dont understand why three handles needed

Attached: 1512831517195.png (790x837, 242K)

Yeah, that's what won them the war, traditional military war machines.
How long before you have to punch out, shill? Who do you work for?