2A

>never met a criminal.
What a blessing to have men around who will meet the criminals for you, and drive them off.

Well if you look for literally nobody killing each other you'll be looking for a while because that would just be a denial that human nature is what it is. The first step is to ask the question you just asked. The second question is, why does gun violence happen? The answer is unlikely to ever be found in America. So here we are just screaming at each other. You've excluded me from doing science and you've got the Russians funneling money to the NRA to keep republican candidates well funded, so what can I do? Between the Russians and the religious extremists alone I'm out manned and outgunned. That's why I don't reply to literally every single person in a thread like this.

Attached: Screenshot_20181210-125934.jpg (1063x1983, 596K)

So who protects the community? And why should only that group of people be armed? You say you don't have faith in better defenses always keeping you safe and yet you argue that a world "where an environment where nobody wants to kill me" can be made by making friends. Not only do you attribute the capacity to kill with guns alone but you then go on to make the claim that you, of all the countless people throughout history, have figured out the path to universal world peace. The pic in OP of people handing over their protection to people that want to or can hurt them directly applies to ignorant idealists like you.

Well said. If only one group is trusted with weapons, they can misuse that power, and the Left doesn't realize or care about that.

Functional police that protect everyone. And you can strawman all you like, there are countries out there with restricted gun ownership and functional police and they don't have these kinds of problems with violence, user. And I don't know what kind of nonsense you're trying to communicate with your world peace comment, certainly arming more people with more guns is not the path to world peace. So whether I'm right or not, you're demonstrably wrong.

Sure, I'll admit not every country with police has turned tyrannical. But Germans, Russians, Cubans, N. koreans, and Chinese citizens were disarmed by their government, then killed by them.

And that's a chance I'm not willing to take.

youtu.be/ZPUpPUhSSiQ

Attached: jfk.jpg (831x517, 65K)

>No examples given.
Also: Would you be alright with restricting other areas of life based on certain criteria? Say: the right to vote to only those who are able to pass some kind of test?

All five of those countries have lower rates of gun violence than the US.

?

Off-topic? Nah

Are you saying you'd rather be in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? None of the 3 countries I mentioned are a paradise.

5*

Soviet Russia? As opposed to what, Hoover's America?

Attached: Screenshot_20181210-133542.jpg (1152x3462, 1.26M)

America's far from perfect, but the Russians killed more of their own people than Hitler.

>Using Cuba, N. Korea, and China as examples of a society which benefited from turning weapons over to the government.
>Hell, even Germany and Russia are pretty fucked up
Try again, bucko.
If you're ENTIRE basis for "gib up guns" is "muh gun violence statistics" you need to take a good, LONG hard think about what else happens.
No, very on topic. But why not?
I mean, if you aren't going to trust a person's own personal protection to themselves, why trust every individual (individualism being something you previously cited as bad, at least on some level) to make a decision on who will control policy that determines the fate of nations?

>what are crossbows

>By creating an environment where nobody wants to kill me.
That'll never happen you fucking queer, get used to reality

Yawn, you always go off the topics where you don't do well and onto the topics that you are more comfortable with.
Yes, the only way you can win is by having a completely different argument on your end. I know this, I won't participate.

>Despite London's "ban knives" campaign, doesn't think that arms grab will continue as people find alternate methods of self-defense.

Seems like you're the only one who wants me dead, so I can just kill you and then get rid of my gun, right NPC faggot?

Different, yes: but similar enough.
You argue for stripping the right to bare arms away from all but trained law professionals, I'm arguing for stripping the right to vote away from all but those who can prove themselves intelligent enough to use it properly. Very equivocal.

That said: I think it's time to stop replying to this guy. The moment someone uses "Yawn" online you know they're trolling.

Ahhh to be a child again as you are would be grand! to be ignorant of what planet I live on again.

one can only dreammmm

Where did I ever imply that? I mean, I wish faggots like you would die painfully and slowly, but I wouldn't bother killing some brainlet nobody like you.
Also; you're the NPC in this thread

There's always enemies to fight. Even if you achieved world peace, you're still in danger of hostile aliens. You need to a achieve universal peace.

Great point! Even if there's currently no evil people, there's no guarantee there won'te be any later.

the aliens are already here and they want your guns

>He belives owning a gun will protect him when the goverment army comes knocking at his door.

Attached: Girls.png (449x401, 490K)

youtu.be/9oUD3ZFE4T4

Attached: s654a6g46a7687.jpg (793x724, 217K)

>Comparing the SUPERIOR viet cong Socialist rice farmer at the peak of human evolution with GLORIOUS soviet state of art weaponry to the fatass american mutt consumer wielding outdated western "guns"

When the time comes for government to kill everyone, they'll just release a plague into the water supply, and it will be accomplished within a few weeks.

People should not give up on their guns, but I'm not sure they'll be of much use.

Hello, Michigan!

>rusted to shit WW2 hand-me-downs
>state of the art anything in the 70s
I think the only glorious thing here is your ravaged asshole

you just made me want to kill you

I know, you can't control yourself. That's why you think nobody else can, that's why you want all these guns.

>that's why you think nobody else has the self control necessary to murder someone the moment they touch a bunch of oddly-shaped pieces of metal
I'll take projection for 500, Alex

I only support keeping weapons out of the hands of retards and psychos. So, yes, I support taking your guns away, memeflaggot shill. Not everyone's weapons should be controlled, though. Most people I know are responsible gun owners, 99% of them. If you think that the following people have the absolute right to own weapons, you ARE the problem:
>people on watch lists for terrorism
>people wanted/warrants for violent acts
>people on no-fly lists for violent reasons (not financial etc.)
>people who have made overt threats of violence
>people with violent mental disorders
>violent felons
>immigrants who haven't proven loyalty to the US
>drug addicts
Just the same as driving. If you have proven that you can't be responsible with a car, you shouldn't be on the roads. Same with weapons. I'm all for letting such people use guns in a controlled environment (e.g., rent guns at the range), but not to keep and carry them. It's not that such people shouldn't be able to touch or use guns, just not own them or carry them. Of course, you can say "but deep state can put anyone on a watch list." OK, well go to court then. If the legislature, an agency (LEA or whatever), and a judge say you shouldn't have guns, then I support that.

Attached: dodge_challenger_appears.gif (500x315, 106K)

I can't wait for the first female mass shooter to be an anti-men libtard so the men of pol can suddenly debate on gun ownership

Truth is, none of you fags care about gun rights, because if you did, it'd be the right for all americans to have a gun for self defense. But you dont want woman owning guns, liberals owning guns, you don't want niggers and muslims and chinks owning guns. You only want it to be a white male exclusive because it means power, but the second others start to practice this right, you will ban it

If its not guns, its knives, if its not knives, its tanks, white men are just violent monsters who want sole ownership of some sort of weaponry over others so you can kill as you please

I cannot wait for woman to start stockpiling guns so one on their period can use it as an excuse to act out and shoot white men who look at them funny and scream rape before spraying 8 bullets on their head

Attached: 1543718923648.jpg (804x960, 75K)

If the gov't kills everyone who is there to govern?

Strawman. I don't think EVERYBODY, like violent felons or the mentally ill, should own weapons. I can own a vun since I won't murder anyone, it's for legal purposes only.

nice strawman, faggot
have a (You) for the effort

Gun*

I want whites, non-whites, males and femaless to own guns. Strawman.

Then you support gun control, dumbass. The logical fallacy is not within my argument; it's contained in yours. You think that "gun control" = "banning guns". That's the logical fallacy here. Most real Americans support common sense gun control. It's the Jow Forumstards who probably should have no gun rights that REEEEEE this bullshit argument.

Attached: khan-320x240.jpg (320x240, 21K)

I hesitate to say "gun" control since I don't advocate the banning of the guns themselves, only who should be able to own one, and even then, only extreme cases like mentally ill or violent felons.

With robots, and hydrogen plants, the (((government))) will need less than half of the people alive today. At most, they'll select people with the best genes for beauty purposes, and keep those around for selective breeding programs.

Like, if gou're cleared to own a gun, it could be a wooden .22 with 3 bullets or a 30-round AR-15.

Could you explain what that has to do with gun control?

Haha what the fuck you're so dishonest.

I don't think anyone other than some ancap nutjob maybe thinks mentally ill peolle should own guns, but as long as you haven't given a reason why you shouldn't be able to own a gun, you should be able to own a gun.

By getting new weapons.
If I am in a situation where I will be killed/arrested, killing tho who wish to do that to me, basically extends my life.
My direct personal responsibility is to survive.
Gun makes that possible.

You are concerned the government is going to take away your guns, and limit your freedom. The government in the US does not have to take away your guns to limit your freedom. They have many more ways of efficiently limiting your freedom, beyond taking away your guns.

In fact, I'm pretty sure governments only take away guns because because public perception has shifted to believing that gun control is needed to insure safety, and not because they want to limit people's power. A government will always have more power as long as they have the military and the police working for them.

The top cause of gun violence in America is criminals doing criminal shit, usually involving drugs, usually involving other criminals. The second is personal disputes getting out of control. When people talk about gun control, that's the part where you see the crime reduction first. Even in Canada, their primary restriction was just on the movements of the guns themselves, literally gun CONTROL and not gun restriction. But you people won't see it as a positive because you have to ask permission to do something and you HATE following DUMB RULES like little kids.

I don't hate gun control because it's a rule, I agree we should have rules, but we can't agree on what those rules are. Also, you mentioned personal disputes. Did you know in America defensive gun usages outnumber gun murders?

I think it's good if violent fons or mentally ill people don't get guns, but honest, law-abiding citizens have a God-given right to those guns.

Most American police and military wouldn't support government tyranny. Are you saying we shouldn't even try to fight tyranny if the tyrants are stronger than us? In the American Revolution, you'd probably be a loyalist to the British, if you use the same logic.

The only way to create an environment like that is to have a homogeneous society of high-functional, high-IQ individuals free of corruption. So not only is that counter-intuitive to the liberal ideal of multiculturalism and open immigration, it also goes against the fact that power is always going to cause corruption. The ONLY route to a utopian non-violent society where guns are unnecessary is to reject leftist/marxist viewpoints. All supporters of gun control should condemn all other politics of the left.

Attached: 1507160996081.jpg (1531x841, 520K)

Leftist ideology is full of contradictions. They don't notice or don't care how hypocritical they are. "Let in all the illegals!" they say, then are surprised when most of them are criminals.

>The second question is, why does gun violence happen? The answer is unlikely to ever be found in America
it's black people, also some Latino people

You will only have a tyrannical government in the US, if the military and the police side with the government. The people of the US cannot decide a government who's in office is tyrannical, because somebody voted them into office, which means they are legit, which means orders they give to the military or police are legit, unless the military or police say otherwise, at which point, who really has the power to decide what is tyrannical and what's not.

You are no longer living in the same times as when you had your revolution.

Hitler's rise to power was legal. Being democratically voted in doesn't mean that you're automatically right. Truth doesn't derive from popularity. If most people liked rape, and elected a rapist into office, would it be OK with you?

Hitler was voted into power, and his government reforms were supported by the majority of the German people, so Hitler's government was always legit. They did not seize power by force, and imposed their will upon a people that did not want it. Your second analogy is just stupid.

Furthermore, I did not say being elected makes you right, it simply makes you legit, and Americans having guns to protect themselves from their government, and to make their government fear them, is an illusion. You shouldn't give up your guns, but your guns will not save your from a government that has the support of the military and the police.

>Hitler's rise to power was legal.
Hitler did nothing wrong.

You would have less insane circumstances if there were political disunity, since you don't have power to fight over if you stop with the absurd political centralization.
The reason people are indignant is that there's taxes and regulatory goonery that's foisted on them and they feel the need to fight over "the other side" not being the ones to do the foisting.

My second analogy was meant to show that if the majority supports you, you can be wrong. I'll admit it was a little over the top, but if you're voted in, you can still become a dicator after being elected, like you could trick people into voting for you and be a dictator after you already get the votes.

I disagree, but that's off-topic. This thread is supposed to be about gun control.

>I disagree, but that's off-topic. This thread is supposed to be about gun control.
Well Hitler only banned guns for Jews. There's nothing wrong with that.

Regardless, anyone who seriously believes in gun control doesn't post here. Only shills that want to shill post pro-gun control threads.

You think only some religions should be entitled to their 2A rights? Doesn't that go against the 1A?

>You think only some religions should be entitled to their 2A rights? Doesn't that go against the 1A?
Jews are a race. The bill of rights only applies (or more accurately should only apply) to Whites.

And quite frankly, non-Whites, Jews included, don't belong in White nations. Jews are the singular group behind gun control, after all.

>Russians funneling money to the NRA to keep republican candidates well funded

The NRA spent around $4mil lobbying in 2016, they were ranked 83rd in lobbying spending. So the Russians must be very busy funding the other 82 organizations. pic very related

Attached: 6519516516516219874.png (804x963, 85K)

Banning guns based on race violates the 13A. All you did was change which part of the Constitution you violated.

And MKUltra'd jewish kids.

Of course, but like I said, if anyone is going to become a dictator in the US, it will be with the full support of the military and the police, and probably of most of the people of the US. In essence, someone like Hitler, lol. I bet this is what the Jews fear the most. A legitimate nationalist US government, with a puritan, Christian outlook on society, and hell bent on persecuting corrupting and degeneracy.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, the only variable is the number of tyrants. All tyranny should be met with armed resistance.

>Banning guns based on race violates the 13A.
I don't care. I care more about my people than the constitution (which is increasingly made irrelevant by both political parties). If I have to choose one or the other, I'm choosing my people.

> All you did was change which part of the Constitution you violated.
And you care more about the constitution than (assuming you're White) your people.

Caring more about my race than the Constitution is identity politics, the same shit I hate SJWs for doing. I care more about ideology than race, since all members of a race aren't always the same and are individuals. I'll take a black conservative over a white liberal and I'll take a white conservative over a black liberal.

>I care more about ideology than race

Only white people think this way. Once Texas goes blue, which it will very soon, whites will not have a real voice in the US

And yes I'm white, with none of that white guilt shit either.

>Caring more about my race than the Constitution is identity politics, the same shit I hate SJWs for doing.
The difference being, you don't ever go after the SJW non-White groups for advocating and promoting non-White racial policies but you go after pro-White groups for attempting to do the same thing.

To you, it's just a coincidence that western civilization and the USA was created by White people.
You believe that all White countries should be for all the races of the world (just as long as they immigrate legally and are vetted).

>'ll take a black conservative over a white liberal and I'll take a white conservative over a black liberal.
Interesting enough, you're just as anti-White as the SJW's.
The difference being they actively support white genocide while you passively support White genocide.

All to avoid being called a racist, nazi, supremacist, kkk member etc.

>Only white people think this way
No.

Yes

Attached: 1544239363356.jpg (1440x1616, 150K)

Jesus Christ are there hobbits in this fantasy world you live in?

Strawman. I DO go after SJWs for their anti-white bullshit.

I've been called racist by Democraps, and I use their tears to oil my guns. I don't give two fucks if they call me racist.

>no faith in self protection
>faith in the thought you can make everyone not want to do bad

Could you imagine being unironically this retarded?

Attached: 1516074661755.png (600x461, 618K)

hwhite*

And I think ALL countries, if they're majority white, majority asian, majority hispanic, or majority black should be open to legal immigration, or no countries should.

Liberals don't usually think that far ahead. They live in the now and think completely based on emotion rather than logic.

Asking this question is likely to result in them name-calling rather than giving a logical response.

Attached: 1540585713855.jpg (640x640, 74K)

Almost everything you said is a strawman.

>I DO go after SJWs for their anti-white bullshit.
You as in Conservatives and Republicans. Even if you personally go after them, the Conservative movement and Republican party do not.

On top of the fact that the anti-White organizations and organizations that promote non-Whites never, ever have their status and existence threatened by Conservatives and Republicans. Meanwhile anytime a pro-White group gains traction, Conservatives and Republicans will side with Liberals and Democrats to oppose it.

>I've been called racist by Democraps, and I use their tears to oil my guns. I don't give two fucks if they call me racist.
And yet meanwhile you do nothing that will protect the White race or ensure its survival.

>And I think ALL countries, if they're majority white, majority asian, majority hispanic, or majority black should be open to legal immigration, or no countries should.
In practice though, only White countries are the ones who have had the floodgates opened. Conservatives and Republicans don't oppose that, either. You just want the flood regulated and checked.