When will you rural retards learn that your actions have consequences?
Owning guns will just lead to more violence.
Look at all the mass shootings and terrorist attacks both on the right and left and tell me with a straight face this doesn't lead to civil conflict and MORE GUN DEATHS!
BAN GUNS NOW!!!
just wait a few decades. most of them will just disappear without a fight.
Our firearm rights are not subject to firearm deaths.
Take the guns away from the civilians sure retard. We ban drugs and drugs aren't disappearing. There's something called the underground gun market ghost guns etc. Wipe yourself off libtard
Bad shitposting aside, as a yankee, I'm generally OK with letting trumpfag states decide their own gun laws. An arbitrary child in a gun-friendly red state is substantially more likely to end up with a bullet in them (that's just straight up data), and more dead trumpcuck kids = less live adult trumpcucks later.
There is nothing wrong with civil conflict
B-b-b-but think of the children you heartless biggot.
The founding fathers never could have predicted advancement in technology like this and never would have want to see this country tearing it self apart like this.
Its just common sense to disarm everyone given the current climate.
We've doubled the number of guns in circulation and halved the murder rate in the last twenty years.
How long do you think society is going to allow you to keep being this retarded before they get sick of it?
.....when was there last a mass shooting in a rural area, that wasnt immediately handled by one of those "rural retards" with his own gun ?
The right is having kids. Your side fucks men, cuts their dicks off, and lives in cities filled with diseases that western civilization eradicated a century or more ago.
HHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH cause it's true!
I,live in a city and own a gun. Kys
>rural retards
Most of the violence is in cities.
Pol Pot was right. Move all the urban intellectuals out to do agricultural work and problem solved.
>The founding fathers never could have predicted advancement in technology like this and never would have want to see this country tearing it self apart like this.
>Its just common sense to disarm everyone given the current climate.
The people's rights are not subject to someone else abusing those rights.
Everything about this is incorrect. The states with the most gun control have the highest number of shootings. Fag.
Turn them into fertilizer?
No gun ever called me nigger.
Nice try Glow Kike
The (((gun grabbers))) usually have one thing in common. Don't tell me, I'll figure it out.
Sage
Lol user really cares about saving lives. You're a real hero. Thank you for your shitpost.
Nigger
Wait, you niggers said that the world would end in 10 years.
Also, hard for you faggots to stick around for decades when you're busy harboring AIDS.
>Owning guns will just lead to more violence.
you're thinking of niggers
>the founding fathers were so stupid they didn't know weapon technology would advance past the guns they had even though it was constantly evolving in their own lifetime
Shut the fuck up you shill retard. If you want my guns come and fucking take them. Stupid bitch.
we have a nigger problem.
get it right, retard.
lefties just want to disarm the populous so they have a monopoly on violence if they regain power.
Wtf are you talking about kike? Assault rifles made less than 2% of the gun crime in America in 2016 according to FBI stats
ucr.fbi.gov
I know it's troll post but it gives me a reason to post this
An autist in Japan burned down an anime studio over some made up word, you don’t need guns to kill a bunch of people, so maybe we should ban gasoline and lighters too. Or maybe we just need all these stupid human cattle to keep killing each other because they are a waste of biomass anyway.
It's worth it if you can shoot people.
i don't see assault rifles anywhere on that list. assault rifles are banned in the US
We tried banning dangerous things in the past and it didn't actually make them go away.
The problem is that most white people from the southwest and most all of the midwest are white niggers.
You prefer clubs, knives and brass knuckles?
>The founding fathers never could have predicted advancement in technology like this
0/10 shit-tier bait. In all fields, etc.
I want you to come to my door and try to take them. When will the cowards stop sending jackboots and do the job themselves?
Since it's Texas, I request you come at night and take them from my room that's in the back alllll the way upstairs. Don't worry about the dark I'll shine a flashlight for you.
/thread
This image is essentially the only necessary response to any anti-gun post. The moment it's posted is the moment all discussion ceases to be required. Sage, OP kill yourself.
Have sex.
I can't believe people are dumb enough to keep responding to this copy/pasta.
No they aren't. They fall under rifles, you fucking brain dead chimp.
>Look Mom, I posted it again!
Agreed, although this one is a good tl;dr companion to it.
The Ar 15 which is a rifle makes less than 2% of gun crimes in America. Most of the gun crime comes from gang members and drug dealers using hand guns. Even when you account for mass public shootings only 14% were commited by assault weapons aka rifles
>hurr durr
Nobody gives enough of a shit about you to take your gun you stupid low iq podunk.
Why don't you assholes just stop being fragile faggots that use firearms to compensate for your deficiencies as humans.
he's probably talking about actual full giggle stuff
he's still wrong, but after 1986 it might as well have been a ban when it comes to availability for the average joe
I can read. Unlike a large portion of people in the bible belt.
The last terrorist attack that happened here was some anarchist/ANTIFA faggot fot btfo for firebombing a federal detention center. This is the same kind of retard who thinks math is racist and jails should be abolished. Glad that retard is dead.
It's the retarded motherfuckers, like yourself, who don't sage that's the problem.
Gr8 b8 m8
There are plenty of average Joe's who own machine guns. Most people don't really care one way or the other.
en.wikipedia.org
alabama is #1, you cock-loving pantywearer. conservashits are niggers.
>There are plenty of average Joe's who own machine guns
it still doesn't change the fact that their supply is extremely limited and that a beat to shit M16 costs as much as a new car because of that
>ayo esse, where do we turn these in at?
I can bring my guns to you instead? Or maybe just one of them. I'll have it in a holster, just grab it.
In other words. I would like to put between 8 and 17 holes in you, you fucking faggot.
Alabama is full of niggers.
99% of domestic violence against women happens in a home
BAN PRIVATE HOME OWNERSHIP NOW
Die of AIDS Yankee faggot.
Same fag, same thread, every single day
>assault weapons aka rifles
kill yourself, kike
Sad faggot is afraid of conflict and death lol.
/thread
>Owning guns will just lead to more violence.
>most of them will just disappear
not in the USA they wont. Only the LGBTQP community will disappear
Just kill Jews
Ban the internet! The Founding Fathers only had quills and paper!
>An arbitrary child in a gun-friendly red state is substantially more likely to end up with a bullet in them
you left out that its a black child, so yea, i agree and LOVE it.
>The founding fathers never could have predicted advancement in technology like this
durrr herrrr
A child shot by someone who is not me, has nothing to do with me, my gun, or my rights. Punish the murderer--bring back the death penalty if you want, since we already punish murderers.
But you are not ever going to pre-punish citizens who are innocent of any crime. Come and get them
>The founding fathers never could have predicted advancement in technology like this
is nobody going to point out the fact that the founding fathers explicitly mentioned the 2nd amendment applying to privately owned warships?
pretty sure an AR is small change conpared to that
Trips of truth
Look at gun crime maps. ......Niggers
STOP REPLYING TO BAIT THREADS FAGGOTS, JUST HIDE AND REPORT THEM
Those who post such threads don't read your replies, they aren't interested in your arguments, their purpose is to disrupt the board and make you feel agitated over nothing. They'll only stop if they see it isn't working and everyone ignores them.
As long as there are employers with little social understanding
or a deficient sense of justice and propriety, it is not only the
right but the duty of their employees, who certainly constitute a
part of our nationality, to protect the interests of the general
public against the greed and unreason of the individual; for the
preservation of loyalty and faith in a social group is just as much
to the interest of a nation as the preservation of the people's
health.
Both of these are seriously menaced by unworthy employers
who do not feel themselves to be members of the national com-
munity as a whole. From the disastrous effects of their greed or
ruthlessness grow profound evils for the future.
To eliminate the causes of such a development is to do a service
to the nation and in no sense the opposite.
Let no one say that every individual is free to draw the conse-
quences from an actual or supposed injustice; in other words, to
leave his job. No! This is shadow-boxing and must be regarded as
an attempt to divert attention. Either the elimination of bad,
unsocial conditions serves the interest of the nation or it does not.
If it does, the struggle against them must be carried on with
weapons which offer the hope of success. The individual worker,
however, is never in a position to defend himself against the
power of the great industrialist, for in such matters it cannot be
superior justice that conquers (if that were recognized, the whole
struggle would stop from lack of cause) — no, what matters here is
superior power. Otherwise the sense of justice alone would bring
the struggle to a fair conclusion, or, more accurately speaking,
the struggle could never arise.
No, if the unsocial or unworthy treatment of men calls for resist-
ance, this struggle, as long as no legal judicial authorities have been
created for the elimination of these evils, can only be decided by
superior power. And this makes it obvious that
the social idea in its practical effects on daily life, and thereby to
an elimination of irritants which are constantly giving cause for
dissatisfaction and complaints.
If this is not the case, it is to a great extent the fault of those
who have been able to place obstacles in the path of any legal
regulation of social evils or thwart them by means of their politi-
cal influence.
Proportionately as the political bourgeoisie did not understand,
or rather did not want to understand, the importance of trade-
union organization, and resisted it, the Social Democrats took
possession of the contested movement. Thus, far-sightedly it
created a firm foundation which on several critical occasions has
stood up when all other supports failed. In this way the intrinsic
purpose was gradually submerged, making place for new aims.
It never occurred to the Social Democrats to limit the move-
ment they had thus captured to its original task.
No, that was far from their intention.
In a few decades the weapon for defending the social rights of
man had, in their experienced hands, become an instrument for
the destruction of the national economy. And they did not let
themselves be hindered in the least by the interests of the workers.
For in politics, as in other fields, the use of economic pressure
always permits blackmail, as long as the necessary unscrupulous-
ness is present on the one side, and sufficient sheeplike patience
on the other.
Something which in this case was true of both sides.
the more easily, after removing its economic foundations, to pre-
pare the same lot for the edifice of state. Less and less attention
was paid to defending the real needs of the working class, and
finally political expediency made it seem undesirable to relieve
the social or cultural miseries of the broad masses at all, for other-
wise there was a risk that these masses, satisfied in their desires,
could no longer be used forever as docile shock troops.
The leaders of the class struggle looked on this development
with such dark foreboding and dread that in the end they re-
jected any really beneficial social betterment out of hand, and
actually attacked it with the greatest determination.
And they were never at a loss for an explanation of a line of
behavior which, seemed so inexplicable.
By screwing the demands higher and higher, they made their
possible fulfillment seem so trivial and unimportant that they
were able at all times to tell the masses, that they were dealing
with nothing but a diabolical attempt to weaken, if possible in
fact to paralyze, the offensive power of the working class in the
cheapest way, by such a ridiculous satisfaction of the most ele-
mentary rights. In view of the great masses' small capacity for
thought, we need not be surprised at the success of these
methods.
The bourgeois camp was indignant at this obvious insincerity
of Social Democratic tactics, but did not draw from it the slight-
est inference with regard to their own conduct. The Social
Democrats' fear of really raising the working class out of the
depths of their cultural and social misery should have inspired
the greatest exertions in this very direction, thus gradually
wresting the weapon from the hands of the advocates of the
class struggle.
This, however, was not done.
Instead of attacking and seizing the enemy's position, the
bourgeoisie preferred to let themselves be pressed to the wall and
in reality, everything remained as before, except that the dis-
content was greater.
Like a menacing storm-cloud, the 'free trade union' hung, even
then, over the political horizon and the existence of the individual.
It was one of the most frightful instruments of terror against
the security and independence of the national economy, the
solidity of the state, and personal freedom.
And chiefly this was what made the concept of democracy a
sordid and ridiculous phrase, and held up brotherhood to ever-
lasting scorn in the words: 'And if our comrade you won't be,
we'll bash your head in — one, two, three!'
And that was how I became acquainted with this friend of
humanity. In the course of the years my view was broadened
and deepened, but I have had no need to change it.
The greater insight I gathered into the external character of
Social Democracy, the greater became my longing to comprehend
the inner core of this doctrine.
The official party literature was not much use for this purpose.
In so far as it deals with economic questions, its assertions and
proofs are false; in so far as it treats of political aims, it lies.
Moreover, I was inwardly repelled by the new-fangled petti-
fogging phraseology and the style in which it was written. With
an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content or incom-
prehensible as to meaning, they stammer an endless hodgepodge
of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are meaningless.
Only our decadent metropolitan bohemians can feel at home in
this maze of reasoning and cull an 'inner experience' from this
dung-heap of literary dadaism, supported by the proverbial
modesty of a section of our people who always detect profound
wisdom in what is most incomprehensible to them personally.
However, by balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of
this doctrine with the reality of the phenomenon, I gradually
obtained a clear picture of its intrinsic will.
At such times I was overcome by gloomy foreboding and
malignant fear. Then I saw before me a doctrine, comprised of
egotism and hate, which can lead to victory pursuant to mathe-
matical laws, but in so doing must put an end to humanity.
Meanwhile, I had learned to understand the connection be-
tween this doctrine of destruction and the nature of a people of
which, up to that time, I had known next to nothing.
Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to com-
prehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy.
The erroneous conceptions of the aim and meaning of this party
fall from our eyes like veils, once we come to know this people,
and from the fog and mist of social phrases rises the leering
grimace of Marxism.
Today it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to say when the
word 'Jew' first gave me ground for special thoughts. At home I
do not remember having heard the word during my father's life-
time. I believe that the old gentleman would have regarded any
special emphasis on this term as cultural backwardness. In the
course of his life he had arrived at more or less cosmopolitan
views which, despite his pronounced national sentiments, not
only remained intact, but also affected me to some extent.
Likewise at school I found no occasion which could have led
me to change this inherited picture.
At the Realschule, to be sure, I did meet one Jewish boy who
was treated by all of us with caution, but only because various
experiences had led us to doubt his discretion and We did not
particularly trust him; but neither I nor the others had any
thoughts on the matter.
Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come
across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection
with political discussions. This filled me with a mild distaste, and
I could not rid myself of an unpleasant feeling that always came
over me whenever religious quarrels occurred in my presence.
At that time I did not think anything else of the question.
There were few Jews in Linz. In the course of the centuries
their outward appearance had become Europeanized and had
taken on a human look; in fact, I even took them for Germans.
The absurdity of this idea did not dawn on me because I saw no
distinguishing feature but the strange religion. The fact that
they had, as I believed, been persecuted on this account some-
times almost turned my distaste at unfavorable remarks about
them into horror.
Thus far I did not so much as suspect the existence of an or-
ganized opposition to the Jews.
Then I came to Vienna.
Preoccupied by the abundance of my impressions in the archi-
tectural field, oppressed by the hardship of my own lot, I gained
at first no insight into the inner stratification of the people in this
gigantic city. Notwithstanding that Vienna in those days
counted nearly two hundred thousand Jews among its two million
inhabitants, I did not see them. In the first few weeks my eyes
and my senses were not equal to the flood of values and ideas.
Not until calm gradually returned and the agitated picture began
to clear did I look around me more carefully in my new world,
and then among other things I encountered the Jewish question.
I cannot maintain that the way in which I became acquainted
with them struck me as particularly pleasant For the Jew was
still characterized for me by nothing but bis religion, and there-
fore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection
of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the
tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed
to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was
oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle
Ages, which I should not have liked to see repeated. Since the
newspapers in question did not enjoy an reputation
I was reinforced in this opinion by what seemed to me the far
more dignified form in which the really big papers answered all
these attacks, or, what seemed to me even more praiseworthy,
failed to mention them; in other words, simply killed them with
silence.
I zealously read the so-called world press (Neue Freie Presse,
Wiener Tageblait, etc.) and was amazed at the scope of what they
offered their readers and the objectivity of individual articles. 1
respected the exalted tone, though the flamboyance of the style
sometimes caused me inner dissatisfaction, or even struck me
unpleasantly. Yet this may have been due to the rhythm of life
in the whole metropolis.
Since in those days I saw Vienna in that light, I thought my-
self justified in accepting this explanation of mine as a valid ex-
cuse.
But what sometimes repelled me was the undignified fashion in
which this press curried favor with the Court. There was scarcely
an event in the Hofburg which was not imparted to the readers
either with raptures of enthusiasm or plaintive emotion, and all
this to-do, particularly when it dealt with the 'wisest monarch'
of all time, almost reminded me of the mating cry of a mountain
cock.
To me the whole thing seemed artificial.
In my eyes it was a blemish upon liberal democracy.
To curry favor with this Court and in such indecent forms was
to sacrifice the dignity of the nation.
This was the first shadow to darken my intellectual relationship
with the 'big' Viennese press.
As I had always done before, I continued in Vienna to follow
events in Germany with ardent zeal, quite regardless whether
they were political or cultural. With pride and admiration, I
compared the rise of the Reich with the wasting away of the
Austrian state. If events in the field of foreign politics filled me,
by and large, with undivided joy, the less gratifying aspects of
internal life often aroused anxiety and gloom.
not meet with my approval. I regarded him not only as the
German Emperor, but first and foremost as the creator of a
German fleet. The restrictions of speech imposed on the Kaiser
by the Reichstag angered me greatly because they emanated
from a source which in my opinion really hadn't a leg to stand on,
since in a single session these parliamentarian imbeciles gabbled
more nonsense than a whole dynasty of emperors, including its
very weakest numbers, could ever have done in centuries.
I was outraged that in a state where every idiot not only
claimed the right to criticize, but was given a seat in the Reichstag
and let loose upon the nation as a 'lawgiver,' the man who bore
the imperial crown had to take 'reprimands' from the greatest
babblers' club of all time.
But I was even more indignant that the same Viennese press
which made the most obsequious bows to every rickety horse in
the Court, and flew into convulsions of joy if he accidentally
swished his tail, should, with supposed concern, yet, as it seemed
to me, ill-concealed malice, express its criticisms of the German
Kaiser. Of course it had no intention of interfering with condi-
tions within the German Reich — oh, no, God forbid — but by
placing its finger on these wounds in the friendliest way, it was
fulfilling the duty imposed by the spirit of the mutual alliance,
and, conversely, fulfilling the requirements of journalistic truth,
etc. And now it was poking this finger around in the wound to
its heart's content.
In such cases the blood rose to my head.
It was this which caused me little by little to view the big
papers with greater caution.
And on one such occasion I was forced to recognize that one of
the anti-Semitic papers, the Deutsches Volksblatt, behaved more
decently.
Another thing that got on my nerves was the loathsome cult
for France which the big press, even then, carried on. A man
couldn't help feeling ashamed to be a German when he saw
From what I've seen leftoids are dying out that's why they have to import them. And once the left is just "poc" and the right is white then 3 outcomes will happen
Nig population density?