Do you guntards really have a reason to open carry a fully automatic assault rifle? There are school shootings EVERY DAY, you say you are conservatives who care about family but you never think of the children.
I challenge anyone to give a real reason to have automatic weapons (you cant)
first post best post
Kill yourself, this bait sucks.
Unable to provide an argument. Classical response of a failure.
>Do you guntards really have a reason to open carry
>I challenge anyone to give a real reason to have automatic weapons
So are you saying nobody should have automatic weapons, or are you saying people should just not open carry them?
Make up your mind please so we can have a rational discussion.
Underrated
Nobody should have them OR open carry them except trained and trusted government employees / police / military
EPIC DUPS AND COOL IMAGE
>Nobody should have them OR open carry them
If that's your argument then it's a redundant point, because of course nobody should open carry them if they shouldn't even have them.
Theres no reason to open carry a rifle, open carry should be limited to semi auto however full auto guns should be legal to own
wtf i love middle eastern interventionism when it has nothing to do with me, my family, community or state, now
wtf i hate arming myself when there are more guns than people in this cunt now
wtf i love the government having a monopoly on guns now
These people are just virtue signaling and going "muh rights" with open carrying rifles like that in public.
However, if someone was open carrying a pistol I wouldn't mind because that is at least practical.
I live in Los Angeles County and the CCW laws here are cucked and I can't get one.
Ok, redundant or not, do you have a refutation other than the "fallacy fallacy?"
What if the government employees / police / military are killing unarmed civilians with guns?
What should the average Joe do? Use sticks and stones?
sage
If the government kills its own citizens, it no longer has citizens making tax, meaning they can't buy guns or pay the employees / police / military, therefore they wouldn't do that because it would destroy their own livelihoods.
>Ok, redundant or not, do you have a refutation other than the "fallacy fallacy?"
I'm pretty sure you need no further refutation than the point that your premise makes no logical sense.
It's true their fucking LARPing retards, but I would never say it to their faces, given that they have so many guns.
It does make logical sense. It would NOT make logical sense if I said "Open carry should be legal, but not gun ownership."
I was redundant solely to make it easier for you to understood, and obviously it still wasn't easy enough.
Ignoring the redundancy, do you have an argument?
these people are very real
Typically fat, stupid, weak men. The type of person that beats their wife to feel masculine. They have a near religious admiration for people in the armed forces and practically suck their cocks whenever they meet a veteran
still... he got doubles you fucking american queer
Wtf!?! I love Middle East wars nao!
Fuck off, convict.
because if they get detained they can sue the state and make big money
>It does make logical sense. It would NOT make logical sense if I said "Open carry should be legal, but not gun ownership."
Exactly my point.
So why are you arguing against open carry when you really want to argue against all gun ownership?
Like, I'm used to people shifting the goalposts, but not in their own opening statement.
Automatic weapons were made illegal in 1994
Full auto ass rifle. Or is this an airsoft. You wouldn't know.sad kys
Low quality image, there, bro.
Because I don't care, and you can't disarm me. That's about all there is to say about it.
Consider yourself refuted.
Because someone powerful wants to take them?
1985
I only referenced open carry because of the context of the meme that was attached to the thread. Sorry if your eyes don't work to see the image.
Do you have an argument for civilian gun ownership or are you gonna act like the standard boomer and get hung up over the details because you know you'd completely fail if you had to dip your toes into the water of the real argument?
>Do you guntards really have a reason to open carry a fully automatic assault rifle?
Yes.
i guarantee you they arnt full auto. your bait sucks. sage
>meme flag
i'm not surprised you're this retarded. That's the joke
This. Men with no girlfriends.
>Ignoring the redundancy, do you have an argument?
Ignoring the cocks in your mouth, are you still a faggot?
Making a weak meme because you're not brave enough to kill muslims.
Who do you think will defend you when la raza cosmica takes over?
If someone powerful actually showed up to take them, these pussies would wet their pants and faint.
This is just a way for them to mask their insecurities and give themselves the illusion of power.
"i dont care, im the king, you guys cant leave my country"
imagine forgetting history that only was like 200 years ago
nice bait, shill.
You have not yet made an argument.
Please make a single definitive statement and I'll agree or disagree.
I love when a would-be draft dodging liberal tries to talk about military service, it’s pretty funny. OP, you are the biggest faggot I have seen on pol. Kys you worthless cum dumpster
I'm very for base black men open carrying.
Sure:
Civilian ownership of firearms should be outlawed.
illegal to manufacture but not illegal to own guns created before that date
Vets approve of open carry overwhelmingly. Im a vet. People that arent military should have guns so they can fight the military.
I once pilled a gun in self defense. I was seven months pregnant, unable to fight this guy and my husband was at work. I have no doubt this guy would have killed me if I was unarmed. You will not take my guns from me.
Self defense and self preservation are about as close to a natural right as anyone has. If you can't effectively defend yourself or your family, you arent really worth a damn.
The government is made up of people. To say they are the only ones deserving to be armed is reckless faggotry of the highest level.
I don't care about dirty brown monkeys killing each other. In America, I can carry guns so I'm going to do it. You whining like a female isn't going to stop me. Cry about it some more.
It's honestly sad and pathetic watching you lefty/pol/ newest of newfag retards try to coopt board culture without understanding it one iota.
Nogunz refute this if you can:
Your stance comes from a place of emotion and unclear thinking because you fail to understand the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun is intent.
Fucking dumbasses.
Give the left an inch, they take a mile. Rinse and repeat until they ban guns. We'll be maintaining our Second Amendment rights, thanks.
Nice projection there, LARPer leaf. No one is falling for your "based" flag.
OP you are not even good at trolling.
Disagree.
Civilian ownership of firearms should be allowed for reasons of self defense
The government has nukes. In order to sufficiently defend yourself from a nuke, you'd need at least a weapon of this caliber or higher. Do you also support private ownership by civilians of nukes?
If you're going to say "you dont need nukes to fight back against nukes" then explain why you need guns to fight back against guns.
>forgetting it was guns that got us here in the first place
We didn't just politely ask the British you know.
I see, you obviously understood that he understood the joke and are making an obvious comment in the same manner as the AnCap flag
most people who own weapons in the US are Vets my friend
also shit bait
no u, ur gay haHAHASHAHhaha HAHAHA
> Do you have an argument for civilian gun ownership
Preventing the government from obtaining a monopoly over violent force
Self-defense
Because cops are a clean-up crew who aren't legally obligated to keep you safe
Because power corrupts and an armed citizenry helps to keep that in check
Because fuck you, you nanny state-needing shell of a human
I disagree because a gun is too destructive. Why should guns be legal for civilians, but not bombs, or nukes, etc?
Unless you think that civilians should be able to own nukes or something, in which case there's no further room to develop this argument that I can see
>maybe they already served, maybe they cant serve , maybe they had a good reason not to serve
> or maybe they fucking support the 2nd ammendment which you dont need to be a servicemen to support
YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER KILL YOURSELF GOD FUCKING DAMMIT I FUCKING HATE YOU
Enjoy being mugged & shot by a nigger & dying for Israel Shlomo.
The government can't nuke its revenue stream and still be the government. Besides, your blatant goalpost movement, this is a thread about guns and open carry. Not nukes. Instead of whatabouting you could admit that you lost an argument.
I homeschool. They have IB coursework for the home, and my wife stays at home. I lead my kids by example. I don’t see why one can’t open carry if nobody is harmed by it, and if there is harm, you have to weigh the benefits of liberty with the negative attributes, and opt for more liberty than to opt for limitation.
>magpul
Thats one fucking giveaway
>white man bad
>most police and military is white
>only whites will have guns
>white male patriarchy reigns forever
Hahahahahahaha. Imagine thinking that's "moving the goalposts." Imagine being the same person who whines and cries when "SJWs" play the victim, yet falling over and crying like a pro soccer player and saying "WAAAH YOU MOVED THE GOALPOSTS!!!!!"
literally imagine if this was a thread saying 'should porn be legal?' and you said 'well, yes, but not child porn' and I said "Faggot you moved the goal posts, we're talking about porn, not child porn."
It's not moving the goal posts. Nukes are weapons just as much as guns.
I fucking wish we can easily get fully automatic rifles, but I don’t have $10,000+ to blow
white man not bad
try again
>a gun is too destructive
you're gonna have to elaborate what you mean, because you're conflating guns with nuclear bombs in a way that makes no sense.
Do you want to ban butter knives too like they did in england?
so you think white law abiding citizens shouldnt have guns?
Here's an elaboration: Can you see anyone using a butter knife to deal the same amount of damage as Stephen Paddock did in Vegas?
>what is argumentum ad absurdum
I'll still bite. Your very existence as a civilian body defends you from your government's nukes. The moment they cross that line, they lose. Nobody rules over anything if all that's left is nuclear glass .
Nukes are a weapon of mass destruction. Guns are not
no citizens should have guns, only trained government members
>Do you also support private ownership by civilians of nukes
Yes.
I just told several trained government members that you have guns
youre trolling right? either that or you a socialist boot licking faggot
Kys dumbass libtard
>Can you see anyone using a butter knife to deal the same amount of damage as Stephen Paddock did in Vegas?
But you just said a few minutes ago that you are arguing against ALL forms of gun ownership
So you think people shouldnt be allowed to defend themselves from an assault using a pistol?
American revolution was started after militiamen met the redcoats on the field when they refused to give up their weapons for confiscation to be destroyed. We were all intended to own and carry firearms as we please. Go start a no guns nation in Antarctica when the snow melts.
In England, maybe
OK. How about deadly poisons? Do you think it should be legal for a civilian to posess a poison so potent that merely touching it in a powdered form would lead to instant death? You couldn't destroy an entire city with it, but do you think a civilian should be able to possess that and just buy it freely at a store?
>bravery is indexed upon degrees of willingness to fight brown Golems in the middle east
Oh sweaty...
You are a fucking hero, NOW!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes.
Good answer
Real talk, if you don't support the right to bear arms by the citizenry, you are naive at best and malignant at worst. An armed society is both polite, and unable to be subjugated lightly. You can't properly explain any position where the government should be the only ones armed. Not without sounding like some kind of statist retard.
Lol ok.
Open carry is retarded. Concealed carry is more practical on every level. Bonus question-- did the IRA or PIRA open carry frequently?
I bet you're a 'proud stepdad'... and nofunz neverserved
Maybe you don’t know your life is in danger, until it is already being taken from you. Maybe you’ll only use it once, or maybe you’ll never use it.
If your house never catches on fire, then I guess you didn’t need those smoke alarms. However, you’d be a fool to have a house without smoke alarms.
>are not brave enough to fight ISIS
Why should I have to fight something that Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the CIA created?
>u
I have all kinds of refutations.
One, what's your burden of proof doing on my shoulders that I SHOULDN'T have an automatic weapon? That's your burden, and that should be on a case by case basis, for instance violent felons "shouldn't" have such weapons, because common sense and laws and sheeeeeiiit.
Another is argument from authoritaaaayy. Knock yourself out with a gun stock if you don't understand how that applies.
it's because there are school shooting that being armed is a good idea faggot
how can I guaranteed defend myself from criminal action without the great equalizer?
The government is made up of PEOPLE. They arent special.
I was in the Army for 6 years. As a "trained government member," I shot far more on my own time and dime than l did on Uncle Sam's. Furthermore, a startling number of those "trained government members" were utterly incompetent with their weapons and shot them worse than the citizen that actually goes to the range.
>fully automatic assault rifle
retard
emigrate from the US, NOW