The argument for guns is that they are essential tools for protection and aggression when representatives of the...

Every revolution that has ever happened

Just off the top of my head; Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres. Now eat shit and die you dumb motherfucker.

>Are there many, if any examples where this has actually happened?
ruby ridge, waco
Many random police stops.

Mhm, how about the tens of millions starved and butchered by communists in a single century?

Governments and their professional militaries have lots of power and power corrupts.

Never surrender your firearms or weapons. Do not be a feudal slave, be a freeman and embrace the responsibilities it brings.

There is literally no need for a civilian to have a weapon of any kind. By allowing civilians to have them you are basically inviting violent behaviour to your society as humans fundamentally cannot be trusted.

If you want them, you're going to take them from their cold dead hands

His name was Dennis Tuttle.

I hate to break it to you, but violence needs no invitation, it's already there.

Also this is pretty funny coming from a country with a gorillion stabbings where you have to be 18 to even buy a whisk.

And this exact slave mindset is why you, a subject of the british government, are losing your freedom day by day.

Your rethorical nonsense is so clearly a crap attempt at trolling that I won't even bother disproving it. Begone, Satan.

Lower-end estimates include that byDavid Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, which estimated approximately 55,000–80,000 such uses each year.[8][9]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Compared to

In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the United States, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[9]In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.[10]In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[11]In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving ariflewhile 6,009 were reported involving ahandgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[12]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Remind me again why these retards want to ban guns. Defensive gun use far outpaces gun homicides, even on the LOW END of estimates made by leftist college professors. These stats are gun grabber kryptonite.

There are 4 kinds of anti-gunner.
>The person who just doesn't know about the subject, so they just repeat whatever talking points they heard growing up
>The stupid person who has actually been educated on the subject, but it went in one ear and out the other
>The crazy person with an increasingly tenuous grip on reality that projects their insanity onto other people as a defense mechanism
>The evil person who wants disarmed victims
You talk to the first, ridicule the second, lock up the third and fucking shoot the fourth.

Anybody STILL genuinely believe that banning guns is going to help anything?

There need not be arguments for guns, because all arguments against guns are already flawed and invalid.

Buddy ranch standof

the hammonds during the illegal obongo admin
the militia in oregon, again during the illegal obongo admin
funny how you all started becoming constitutional scholars when a fraud took over.
birds of a feather are frauds together
fuck off hippie faggot

It is trivial to kill government officials. All but the highest ranking officials in nearly every government in the world has nearly zero protection on a daily basis and their families have no protection except at events. Murdering any government official or their family members can happen at anytime and there is no way to stop it.

>INB4 the military escorts every government official and their families everywhere they go 24/7 with drones, tanks, and nukes

Attached: 1550416056872.gif (320x240, 2.7M)

Can't tell if ironically LARPing or criminally stupid

You’re clearly a retard. Begone Troll.

Then I fundamentally dont trust you to tell me what I can or cannot own.

Missouri Executive Order 44 ordering the extermination of mormon heretics. Should never have been renounced or apologized for.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

I know this is a troll, but for the slow kids in class, the policy, military and government are also humans. That means by your own logic they can't be trusted with guns either. But they won't give up theirs, so you shouldn't give up yours.
So you actually agree with Jow Forums

Yeah in the 1700's the Redcoats (representatives of our government at the time) were like "OI! Do you have a loisance for that tea?" so we shot them.

Not to mention what's going on in Venezuela RIGHT FUCKING NOW. If they had an armed populace Maduro's head would be on a stick being paraded down the streets already by now while his body was dragged along the roads tethered to vehicles.

We need some Daewoos up in here!

Dumb, or bait, or dumbbait

Attached: E51C38F9-EE21-42E2-8210-D6B94356A211.jpg (600x600, 122K)

>he actually went there
Most faggots just say "muh gun violence, ban the guns and muh violence will go away" which is obviously flawed because the violence is the problem, the guns do not cause the violence, thus getting rid of guns is not about actually solving the problem of violence.

>humans cannot be trusted
True, therefore we must take actions to make humans more trust worthy. First you get rid of all the races that exhibit extraordinary violent behavior, basically all non whites. Second, you institute wide spread death penalty for all violent crime. This has the effect of eliminating violent genes from the gene pool, as when a criminal is execute, he cannot pass his genes on through reproduction.

>this seems worse than just banning guns
Implying banning guns would decrease the amount of violence. It will still exist with or without guns. So you still have to solve the violence problem using the above method anyway. Why bother supporting banning guns?

Banning guns is about controlling the population by disarming them.

>why?
In Canada, you can have guns, but laws are designed specifically to prevent you from using them to defend yourself. Laws where if you were to keep a firearm in an easily accessible location and use it for self defense, you get charged with improper storage, and your guns get taken away. If you keep them locked up, then retrieve them for self defense, you get charged with murder because the action of retrieving them proves intent to cause fatal injury. Why do I bring this up? Because the state seems intent on protecting criminals over the safety of law abiding citizens. They don't seem to care about you. They would rather have you fear both the state and your neighbor, so you remain a sheep who can't do anything to threaten the status quo.

>humans cannot be trusted
>except the cops, politicians, and lawyers
Put yourself in a box of tea and chuck yourself off a pier, faggot.

Boomer detected

Attached: 1484996847871.jpg (500x444, 49K)

>t. bootybothered teanigger

Attached: 1533989153430.jpg (450x370, 29K)

The argument for guns is actually that We the People created the government as our servant, NOT our master. We the People decide what the government may do. As soon as the government attempt to become the master, it has attempted to overthrow the People, is guilty of treason, and the politicians who were involved must pay the penalty. Which is death.

EXACTLY. The person who wants to disarm you is a person who plans to attack you.

No, non-whites cannot be trusted with guns. Britain was a high-trust society before you imported millions of low-IQ savages.

It's like how when bucks or rams or even cats spar with each other. They have natural weaponry to fuck each other up but they usually don't because any encounter can mean mutually assured destruction.

> The argument for guns

Nice snuck premise. No one is arguing. You're talking to yourself.

If you do not trust your own countrymen there are more important problems ahead of your nation and you than having guns or not.

KeK, are you serious?

Attached: A2D0A63E-DD09-4E58-9752-7A75A618C220.jpg (463x600, 56K)

eastidahonews.com/2019/02/idaho-falls-police-officer-shot-and-killed-in-utah/

>There is literally no need for a civilian to have a weapon of any kind
So we should cut off our arms and legs?

Pretty much THE ENTIRE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, plus the preceding French Revolution. To name just ONE.
Political rights are FRAGILE and they have to be carefully worked at and nurtured or they will be gone.
The people shouldn't be saying goodbye to ANY source of power, because the power the people have is quite limited anyway.
"Gun control" is a sham concept that obscures the historical and political facts.

Leftists are not against guns. Leftists love guns. They just want to be the only side that has them.

Chechnya
Afghanistan

>There is literally no need for a civilian to have a weapon of any kind
factually incorrect
>By allowing civilians to have them you are basically inviting violent behaviour to your society as humans fundamentally cannot be trusted.
it seems as though you are claiming that by merely owning an object, a person's behavior will be altered. and if we reduce your argument into absurdism, you are basically saying all humans should live their lives like cattle in a cage
GG England

boomer gtfo

The Bielski Partisans

Attached: download (2).jpg (1500x788, 526K)

I'm not doing your homework Timmy

based whores

Every day in Venezuela.

>it hasnt happened yet while youve all owned the deterrent so i guess it never will. Welp shows over boys time to turn em all in were safe forever and our government is perfectly just

We are transgressed against on a monthly basis but it is accelerating and will continue to under the justification of spreading global conflict and ecological/sociological crises weaponized by the left to exert state control.

You being ok with this, OP, does not require me to be ok with it. Its not about whos in power now, its about who will be or could be.