Reminder

"#WhiteSupremacistTerrorism is terrorism and should be treated as such. It is an evil scourge that must be rooted out and destroyed."

Attached: 9899866576234.png (1345x972, 616K)

How much does 40L of gasoline cost in Japan?
Probably less than even a fucking Jennings.

But that was by coincidence not planning.

You do know they already had early gatling guns around when the Bill of Rights was written, right?

Is Black Supremacism or more importantly, Jewish Supremacism?

>deranged media has rallied every lunatic fuckstick into a death march to kill all Trump supporters with hate and prejudice
Nice paranoid delusion.
“Death march to kill all trump supporters” god you’re so persecuted aren’t you? Whiny baby.

Let's be honest when the 1st amendment was written we only had newspapers so nothing else should be protected by free speech.

Let's be real folks. When the first amendment was written, "free speech" meant in person conversations and print material that was very difficult to produce. We need modern laws for modern means of communication. I believe Hate Speech Legislation for the internet is a reasonable middle ground which protects our rights as well as our lives.

Attached: mp,840x830,matte,f8f8f8,t-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg (750x1000, 87K)

If you ban guns people will just mix bleach and ammonia in a locked room full of people, start fires, or rent a van and play frogger on a busy street. Opportunity to lash out at society does not go away by banning guns.

You have to fix society if you want society to change. Anything else is just a bandaid. You are just blaming the lowest common denominator.

We have to figure out what is making our culture toxic and fix that. Banning guns and websites is not going to work.

Making sure everyone has a rewarding and stable existence does. Fighting over the scraps of a crumbling empire does not.

>We have to figure out what is making our culture toxic and fix that
Capitalism and white supremacy. Next question.

WRONG - pic related - the Puckle Machine Gun. invented 73 fucking years before the second amendment was written.

you have no clue and are a gigantic faggot, OP.

neck yourself.

Attached: puckle machine gun.jpg (500x500, 109K)

Attached: main-qimg-d001f38b48b941a6d0707b108860225c.jpg (339x389, 55K)

repeating flintlocks, too

Attached: Repeating-Flintlocks-380.jpg (380x234, 23K)

Attached: images.jpg (263x191, 6K)

Attached: 1519337764614.jpg (480x540, 54K)

SUPER BUMB

Attached: 5A3B349F-8747-4C4C-89B9-CDA5741E02F1.jpg (750x1095, 708K)

>being this unaware of popper’s paradox of tolerance

Attached: A572FB6A-27B4-4387-9CD6-6986CAEA9333.png (800x1000, 470K)

So what? Rhen if healthcare is a human right leeches, blood letting, and amputations are the only things your allowed to receive.

Hundreds of unprovoked assaults on Trump supporters and even non political people don't lie. Leftists love violence.

>lol some faggot said this which means it’s true
Nah. Popper is wrong. Who gets to decide what intolerance is? Oh yeah, anyone in power.

>You think I'm gonna lay down my AR after a deranged media has rallied every lunatic fuckstick into a death march to kill all Trump supporters with hate and prejudice? YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND ASSHOLE!!

Absolutely 100% this.

I don’t want to kill anyone, I don’t want to hurt anyone, I just want to be left alone to enjoy my constitutional rights and my property. A warning to the leftist mob, I will defend my family to the end.

this was never used in combat, it’s production was severely limited, and it doesn’t operate anything like the modern concept of a machine gun. that was a google search away

this is retared as fuck and so are you.

>Be Real.
>Arms meant the most powerful weapons capable of being weilded by the common man, at the time.

no

I agree. Therefore we shouldn't tolerate those who are intolerant of the intolerant.

And that is the problem, you will only defend, on a hill 20-1 with the same ending as the Alamo, but yeah yeah, glownigger glow harder post, fear the fed, muh defense of home and family :c

not an argument. tolerance is defined as the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. intolerance being the opposite, we cannot tolerate the intolerance, as it leads to intolerance.

>”dAs RetAred duuuuh”
wow, big think. fuck off dude lol

okay so instead let's all have cannons (even small ones) and blunderbusses then.
someone breaks into my home and I'll ignite the cannon at the top of my stairs and send a volley of grapeshot their way, literally cutting them in half, blowing a gaping hole in my door and obliterating the front side of my neighbours house across the street.

you're an idiot, this much is clear.

I can see it now.

Wives who leave their husbands are going to be red flagging them.

Neighbors you have disputed with, will be red flagging you.

Coworkers that you don’t get along with or who you battling for a promotion.... red flagged

The law will be abused by everyone and I think it will cause people to commit more shootings once they realize that their guns are being taken away with force.

I believe you are a fucking retarded doodle twanger.. what part of shall not be infringed do you dip shitted knob-lingers not understand?

Let's face it, when the second amendment was written the specific nature of the "arms" was not the point. "Arms" were taken to be anything that can be used by a populous to resist tyranny.

Let's face it, you're an autistic faggot with no sense of perspective or even the ability to parse a simple sentence without hand holding.

>"Let's be real folks. When the second amendment was written, "arms" meant single shot muskets which took 2 minutes to reload. We need modern laws for modern weapons. I believe Red Flag Legislation is a reasonable middle ground which protects our rights as well as our lives."
< twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1158391204570157058
actually, the second amendment says, the “right to keep and bear muskets, which is the only weapons we ever imagine existing.”

being tolerant of the intolerant demonstrably leads to higher intolerance. being intolerant of the intolerant demonstrably leads to higher levels of tolerance.

The weapons were such required to fend off a tyrannical army, at the time muskets.

If anything, we need access to more powerful weapons now.

And when it was written, the United States military was using the same.

VOTE YANG
HE WILL COMMON SENSE GUN REFORM WITHOUT GUN GRABBING

Attached: 1564870115314.jpg (618x348, 35K)

To an extent I do, but I have my own take. Let's call it user's paradox of racial tolerance. Multiculturalism is an inherently violent ideology. When fundamentally different groups of people are forced to live among one another, ethnic friction and competition for resources will inevitably lead to violence. Allowing distinct groups of people self-determination prevents violence or the erosion of ethnic and cultural identity. It may seem like a paradox, but the only way to prevent ethnic conflict is to give distinct races of man exclusive areas to determine their own destinies.

Attached: tumblr_ouwfx4v06Z1ufwbaoo1_1280-1.jpg (800x955, 297K)

Modern ams in common use is what the second protects. If the second isn't safe then neither are the nigger and women amendments.

This.

A lot of idiots who use OP's flawed logic dont seem to understand that the 2nd amendment aloowed you to own a cannon.

This post is a good example of how to declare yourself the enemy of America.

vote for a commie faggot to secure your anti-authoritarian agenda? bruh, the fuck are you smoking?

i hate the musket argument actually, and i’m pro-gun (but i recognize the need for regulation). you’re just really stupid and the room-temperature level IQ arguments you make, make all of us look like more and more stupid.

Why are people ok with the government blatantly limiting a right meant to protect us from the government

Ah, yes lad. Totally reasonable.

Attached: 20190725_095528.png (500x645, 392K)

First, you have not presented empirical evidence to support the hypothesis, though you suggest it exists by using the word, "demonstrably". Present the empirical evidence.

You do realize the point of a paradox is it's contradictory nature, right? Assuming the empirical evidence you claim to have exists, it is still leading to increased intolerance albeit in a different form.

You also have not presented a metaethical framework in favor of decreased intolerance. Why is it good?

Pointing out that banning guns and websites will not completely end the problem of lashing out at society does not mean there there is no room for improving how we regulate the sale and use of guns.

After all, the Second Amendment even has the phrase "well-regulated" in it.

That's some pretty faggotty bait, OP.

Attached: bait.jpg (305x165, 5K)

>Defeat tyrannical government
>Give right to bear arms
>Give government right to regulate those arms

You're a faggot.

Guns are not just for self-defense, they're for tearing down a government that oppresses its citizens, and its starting to look like our government is headed down that path.

As if the founders had a total ignorance of history and it progress an thus had no ability to project into the future.

get killed faggot

Arms meant explosives and cannons as well
Red Flag laws violate due process
Your are innocnet until proven guilty by a court, as per the 4th and 5th amendments.
Your property rights to firearms secured also by the 2nd and 14th amendments
Red Flag laws are orwell meets Philip Dick style thought crime, and all americans should be terrified by its prospect

The standing army at the time was made up of militias. The people were the army

the graphic you posted is a misrepresentation. muslim americans are more progressive than their WASP counterparts. not only that, but immigrants statistically are more peaceful and less violent than natives, which changes within a generation due to cultural assimilation. culture has no ties to genetics or ethnicity. albeit, mass immigration comes with its struggles but it’s far far less than you will make it out to be. what is the competition between resources that we are facing between ethnicities, at LEAST within our own country (the U.S)? what does that even mean? what if those of arbitrary group of people self-determine that they should be allowed to exist with another group of people because this is arbitrary bullshit and people should be able to move and live wherever they want?

Leftists unironically believe this though

Red Flag bullshit is an obvious gun grabbing move. Once you are red flagged you are like a felon, forever unable to own guns. Know how I know?

Technically if you're a felon and rehabilitated or it was just a minor crime, you SHOULD be able to PETITION the BATFE who is supposed to review it. But of course they don't review ANYONE because they use the bureaucratic loop hole of "oh we don't have funds for that". Guess what the process is to un-redflag yourself will be?

>well regulated
It also says individual rights to keeping and bearing arms shall not be infrinfed

So who do you propose gets attacked when on the me offensive? Unarmed civilians? Because doing that shit, is literally leading to the confiscation of weapons from good people. Attacking people unprovoked, is doing far more harm than any good.

>posts about the dangers of multiculturalism
>picture shows acceptance of radical Islam, an inherently non-multicultural ideology
Why are you so transparently hypocritical? You’re illogical.

If tolerance is the highest virtue of a society, then that society's foundation is inherently self contradicting and therefore unstable

Attached: 11014667_779141298821478_1153621606207503712_n.jpg (352x239, 17K)

When Moses got the 10 Commandments, they didn't know about niggers so the "do not kill" part doesn't protect them.
I'm not responsible for what you might do with this knowledge.

You could not actually be more wrong. You are at the maximum amount of wrongness. You are completely incorrect

How embarassing

decreased intolerance leads to better outcomes for people. generally, better living standards, less antisocial behavior, and a higher level of wel-being when people, no matter who they are, have the right to exist no matter where they come from. when historically, intolerance has lead to one group of people socially, economically, and culturally dominating over another and forcefully repressing them in order to reap those benefits, i would’ve thought maybe the slightest analysis would’ve shown that.

MOSSAD Truck Bombs on 9/11

youtube.com/watch?v=3yVTTGYEc9s

I’ll go buy another ar15 for you faggot

A trained soldier could actually fire a shot every 15 seconds.

Implying americans can do anything against their tyranical governnent. Its over. Its over.

>decreased intolerance leads to better outcomes for people
False abd unverifiable
Decreased intolerance makes you easier to be abused, manipulated, and generally taken advantage of

not unverifiable. apart from the listed reasons why, historically, intolerance (specifically culturally or ethnically) has led to bad outcomes for people, there are also studies showing that it has a generally negligible effect on subjective well being, and really only upsets rich white people (study: izajodm.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9039-3-13) but it actually has observably positive effects on workplace attitude and cooperation (study: dsd.me/business/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/08/Diversity-and-inclusiveness-white-paper-1.pdf)

People don't need guns to kill other people...

>The results suggest that white British people living in diverse areas have on average lower levels of life satisfaction than those living in areas where diversity is low, while there is no correlation on average between diversity and life satisfaction for non-white British people and foreign born
How does this not disprove your claim entirely?
I'm not concerned with workplace cooperation. I'm concerned with social well being. This shows social well being is harmed by tolerance

Just like my door was going to be beaten down to take my bump stocks, right?

go back to 8ch you schizo retards, you sound like that mentally handicapped highschooler who thinks he's rambo living in a war zone.
fucking yikes

"Let's be real folks. When the first amendment was written, "speech" meant face-to-face conversations and letters which took 2 weeks to arrive. We need modern laws for modern communication channels. I believe Against Internet Hate Speech Act is a reasonable middle ground which protects our rights as well as our lives."

People owned cannons privately when the 2A was written... the largest possible weapon at the time

How many fucking threads are we gonna have?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions

And speech didn't mean the internet and privacy didn't mean telecommunications and blah blah fuck off. Time advances, rights remain

>When the second amendment was written, "arms" meant single shot muskets which took 2 minutes to reload.

You could literally own a warship with 50 cannons on it capable of bombarding a city from a mile away or launching a blast of grape shot like a giant shotgun blast. Indeed merchant vessels commonly had cannons for the purpose of fending off pirate attacks.

The people have a right to self defense and a right to keep their capacity for armed rebellion.

Attached: jefferson - Governments must fear the people.png (403x221, 105K)

Individuals should not be able to own the capacity for armed rebellion.

That no longer looks like ships with cannons. It looks like nukes and missiles.

Chill with the double (reddit) spacing, newfag.

Actually, "arms" meant cannons, warships, and artillery.

>Individuals should not be able to own the capacity for armed rebellion.
That's literally how your country formed and the reason the 2nd exists.

This could "work" in your favor though. All those moron atifa and redneck rebellion that want to have an armed rebellion?
Call the cops on them. Do it enough times and you get rid of the red flag laws and some lefties.

Attached: dfbdfb.png (640x360, 137K)

Attached: 1556225772642.jpg (417x1024, 92K)

wrecked OP have a well deserved you, fellow freedom loving burger

Attached: 1562811966660.jpg (647x960, 52K)

Reminder to buy router jigs and mill out lowers.

Not true. More than one repeating rifle existed. 1 of which was owned by Thomas Jefferson. Your a brainlet and a Jew shill. He also owned a fucking cannon so your concept of limiting arms is incorrect. The intention was that we possess all arms available to the military. I know you will straw man this with the nuke argument but this is was arms intended to be maintained and operated by the populace, they had a concept of repeating arms, not of nuclear or chemical.