Explain why you believe any regular citizen should be allowed to own a weapon meant for war that could be used in the...

i dunno man, a sledgehammer is very useful for other things besides killing people.

>Explain why you believe any government should be allowed to own a weapon meant for war that could be used in the next mass shooting / terrorist attack/war.

Civil rights are rights that belong to everyone, but just those you feel should have rights or what rights you believe people should have.

>trusting doctors
Lel

A sledgehammer is not a weapon, it is a tool that can be used as a weapon.

The government is neither good nor friendly, just a commonly accepted tyranny. When it goes too far, it needs to be stopped.

To go to war with and kill anyone who would try to take said weapon.

Come at me and find out Jew fag.

>222079878
People like you exist, this is why I need guns

We are at war right now dummy, we always have been

>Explain why you believe any regular citizen should be allowed to own a weapon meant for war
Venezuela. Because if the only ones with guns are the authorities they have free range to dictate and subdue. America is the last bastion of hope against this. They are desperate to take our guns - if we fall, you all fall.

Attached: 1564278548695.jpg (494x696, 249K)

Weapons are tools.

Isn't the bill of rights the first 10 amendments to your constitution?

Not intended as a weapon, same for pickaxes

The average citizen must have access to firearms used for war for that time when their government tries to oppress and persecute them.

That time has already come.
In White countries their governments are oppressing and marginalising White people with multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration.

This is also why the Elites pulled off a psy-ops at Port Arthur in '96 so the Australian government could take away peoples guns. They knew Aussies would start shooting up the place when they started to realise they would be forced to become a minority in their own country.

Tasmanians all know about the morgue bus, contracted a few months before the incident and decommissioned immediately after. What a fucking scam. Before this, there wasn't a problem with guns there was a problem was how to kick people off their own land (eminent domain)

Because why should the state have all the fun? Or has the government never used it's taxpayer funded free weapons to kill innocents?

Nobody is against weapons they are just against weapons not being used to kill brown people thousands of miles away so they can keep driving their SUV's and eating their gluten free sorghum bread. And when you get right down to it anything can be a weapon with the proper ingenuity and motivation.

The 9/11 hijackers. 19 men armed only with box cutters killed ~3,000 people. That's about 150 people per hijacker. Because of box cutters. If someone wants you dead, they are gonna make you dead. Life is intrinsically dangerous, if a weapon isn't in your hand it's going to be in someone else's.

Attached: c2a27f3bfeda76a5d64dd84c765bb794--some-good-quotes-suicid-squad.jpg (474x375, 30K)

Its a legal thing. Bill of rights on its own is a different animal and not so good

Attached: 1529621782655.png (872x886, 220K)

he looks like mclovin nerd guy from that movie

Because Niece, London, et al all happened with box trucks

Based. OP BTFO

To deter and counter government tyranny and foreign invasion.

Attached: dd43fab4f3536fb45f414b4195ac1bdff6851c2a7bece8c1b237732ff8697a1f.jpg (720x714, 69K)

Tell me again how banning guns prevents mass murders sempai

Attached: Grab (1).jpg (640x606, 115K)

Because I can.

> he thinks any tears were wasted on those spics
T H E R E
A R E
N O
I N N O C E N T S
I N
A N
I N V A S I O N

Attached: 675640b49d157e392627a864792096fb1c516706.png (695x900, 803K)

>1 post by this ID

SAGE

FPBP
>weapon meant for war
Like, bows and swords and knives? What about psychological war? Should we burn books and shut down universities because they could be housing or teaching evil and end up costing millions of lives?

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Who wages war? citizens.

Did you know you can kill someone with a fire extinguisher? Many are meant to suffocate fires by eating the oxygen before the fire does. Imagine what happens if you spray someone with this.
Does this mean that people shouldn't be allowed to own fire extinguishers? No because people need a first line of defense against a fire so it can be controlled quickly and without much incident. I for one am not gonna let a fire eat my house while waiting on the fire department.

Attached: 22737_2000x2000.jpg (2000x2000, 214K)

A regular citizen owning a "weapon of war" (snigger) is how we overthrew the British.
Are you really this dumb??

Banning the internet would do more to stop mass shootings than banning guns. Technology outpaced our morals and values. We were not mentally ready for the digital age

>Explain why you believe any regular citizen should be allowed to own a weapon meant for war that could be used in the next mass shooting / terrorist attack
when you believe in the state, the police and the regular armed forces you end up like Venezuela
America doesn't need less guns, it needs less crazy

so i can shoot people who ask questions like this.

>Implies there are weapons not meant for war

Attached: 1565109067553.jpg (1110x1366, 269K)

This; and even if its not for "war," the firearm, a tool, can be used to kill. It's all on the user.

[Pic related]

Attached: 1555704014162m.jpg (417x1024, 92K)

Explain why any human should be allowed to own a weapon in the 21st century?

Niggers.

>meant for war

Life is war.

This is war

Yes, the first 10 are called the Bill of
Rights. You know more than 99% of the Dems.

explain why you think you or anyone else is in the position to not allow anyone to do anything

Attached: nasim aghdam confirmed faggot.gif (356x260, 1.6M)

>Explain why you believe any police officer should be allowed to own a weapon meant for war that could be used in the next mass shooting / terrorist attack

Attached: click_on_this.png (280x280, 268)

>never fired a gun
>knows everything about guns

I'm done with gun debate. If you want them come and take it. That's my only argument.

Attached: 1556956574391.jpg (1400x2190, 271K)

Attached: violence.png (1543x719, 377K)

because if automatic rifles are good enough for Barry Obongo to hand out to Beaner gangs (at taxpayer expense, mind you), they're good enough for ALL PEOPLE YOU RACIST