"alt right" and guns

Stfu Jew lover. Sit in the corner and watch your wnigger polack cunts fuck Somalis and give birth to nog spawn

Attached: 1E80DCBA-BE9A-4100-829E-F7B77A01288B.jpg (828x1022, 500K)

>self proclaimed...

Who the fuck are you talking about retard?

Attached: 1533994862473.png (579x523, 128K)

Guns YES !

same way they work in south america
guns are illegal, so people just make them completely unregulated, fully automatic machine pistols out the ass down there, those people aren't even white and they can machine these white creations
now imagine what happens when every noncucked nonpozzed white male starts making their own means of self defense
personally i can't wait, gun design would take a huge leap in a short amount of time

Most of Jow Forums basically

>it's pretty clear that an armed citizenry wouldn't be allowed under a totalitarian regime.
why not?

you seem misinformed, you should watch more anime

Weapons weren't verboten in national socialist germany. In reality hitler made it easier to get them

Maybe those people aren’t actually fascists

Alt right means white identitarian, which can range from simple white advocacy to white nationalism to white supremacy.

Attached: 294F665B-EE97-417A-81C5-63979880876F.png (1008x760, 1.59M)

Do i have to? I don't like it.
I always see this argument but never with any evidence

I advocate for the right to bear ALL arms and for the existence of a civilian militia, completely removed from the federal government, that serves as a power check against corrupt politicians and constitutional traitors.

All actions taken by the militia and the government will be investigated by the opposite organization, to ensure everything is done for the betterment of the nation and its people.

Nice setting up that strawman. Nat Soc is not a totalitarian regime, Moshe. Only your jewish communism is.

>Alt right means white identitarian
According to whom?

>totalitarian
>fascist
>national socialist
Isn't it under "democratic" governments that we have seen the most restrictive firearms laws?
There is significantly more evidence for the current European structurs being anti-gun than there is for your quoted structures being anti-gun. The only reason that America still persists is the 2nd Amendment, if it wasn't for that we would have lost them decades ago.
So why is it that you think things will get worse for firearms owners? Can it even get any worse?

Maybe you are operating under bad preconceived notions?

The last part of your post is an interesting point.

It's true... Gun technology would advance by an entire age within the first year. "Next gen" would become "oldschool" within 12 months...

The National Socialists made it easier to acquire firearms you dumb shill faggot.

Reminder: Jewish behavior and subversion is a result of their language Hebrew and the study of their texts through that lens.

Jews are largely created.

Pierce wrote something about it, but I haven't read it yet.
goodreads.com/book/show/7585862-gun-control-in-germany-1928-1945
amazon.com/Control-Germany-1928-1945-William-Pierce/dp/0937944076

Well, I might give up my gun rights if democrats give up their voting rights. Seems fair.

Since we are talking about willy nilly taking away peoples constitutional rights, if your going to take something you have to give something up as well. Your votes seem fair.

How does that work for you?

Let's see. Most pro gun countries on earth: america (republic) switzerland (direct democracy) czechia (republic)
Most anti gun countries: china, north korea, eastern europe (all effectively authoritarian)

But Jow Forumselack, I’m fighting for States’ Rights and pregnant Anne Frank

Attached: 2F07BA36-7AF8-4B38-A9AB-97BDA51483B7.jpg (635x665, 42K)

We're not for a totalitarian regime in the usual sense, I think. Obviously trying to paint Jow Forums with a broad brush is damn near impossible, but I think what most of us here want is a government that does not usually interfere with the lives of its citizens, but when it needs to act, it does so decisively. An armed populace is necessary to maintain this balance of power. The government must have sufficient power to deal with subversive elements, and the people at large must have sufficient power to disincentive government overreach. This, I think, is the crux of what Hoppe argued for. Helicopter memes aside, even the most liberal of societies cannot handle having elements within it who seek to subvert the very nature of the society in which they reside. Such is the same for our ideal society, which is why we would give them the impressive power needed to accomplish that task. However, the nature of government is to always grow, unless somehow kept in check by some sort of "bill of rights" or similar. Such a law would have no teeth unless backed by the threat of violence and this comes from the armed populace.

Attached: a-brush-with-the-redskins_frederic-remington.jpg (1155x695, 168K)

The difference between alt right and alt light has always been the position on white identity politics

>So it's pretty clear that an armed citizenry wouldn't be allowed under a totalitarian regime
It's really not. Read the last 3 paragraphs of pic related.

Attached: 1430888958629.jpg (1899x1168, 764K)

Only the fascists/Nazis end up with guns. Eventually even personal ownership would be difficult. Guns will be concentrated in paramilitary/police organizations. Many of the “true” fascists or Nazis would be members of these organizations and use guns to exert violence on their enemies. It works exactly like it always has.

>Apostrophes
Yikes

tl;dr - our "totalitarian" regime has the power to RWDS commies, but to make sure it sticks to just commies, we give everyone else guns n' shit

Attached: animecapitalism.png (750x1020, 460K)

Based

Honestly user, I approach things from a racial perspective out the gate, and I don't see any relevance in non-white countries like China or NK.
It might seem like a cop-out but I just ignore them by default since they act differently because of different evolutionary pressures.
It's true that, in the context of Europe, it is under the wide "democratic" umbrella that the most extreme anti-gun measures were taken.

National Socialism is whatever it needs to be. The only dogma of National Socialism is for the race's perpetuation and/or survival, it doesn't matter the policies, only that it serves this purpose. De-arming all the white people in the face of a liberal jew-controlled (or hijacked) Government does not serve white people's best interest at the moment, sorry.

Don't worry, he won't read it either.

Alright, you got me. Quotation marks.

It's pretty simple, "guns for me, not for thee". and this: . Anyone proclaiming to be openly NatSoc, WhiteNat, fascist, etc. is probably a member of the JIDF.

A fascist state is impossible without a fully armed people. Because Fascism is the only ideology that is of the people, by the people and for the people.

National socialist Germany greatly loosened gun laws enacted by the previous government. A government of the people does not need to disarm the people.

Can you explain those magnificent mental gymnastics in a way that's understandable to other people too?
How delusional do you have to be to think that you won't be next?

Give examples

Nigger, if you weren't calling yourself alt-right in 2013 after Ron Paul shit the bed, I dont know what the fuck to tell you.

Oh shit

Also let me give you an example. The us was originally created with a racially supremacist government. Aren't you, the white gun owner next to have his freedoms taken away now?

he banned guns for communists jews and anyone else who might be disloyal, he advocated for gun ownership both for self defense and as a defence from foreign powers

>How does this really work?
Lead with love and all those guns will be pointed in the same direction as the dictator's.

Bruh, every dictator goes paranoid at some point and thinks everyone is disloyal.

oh but didnt you know, whites get to have ALL the weapons, but only whites lel

>us created as country for whites
>has laws to keep it this way
>"Obviously the laws will be expanded to disenfranchise whites!"
Your example is dumb, but I think I understand the point you're trying to make. That said, I already addressed this. We give the government power to do what we need it to do. If it gets out of control - the guns we have are our way of bringing it back under control.

Did you expect me to take this as a reliable source?

The first one that comes to mind is Australia's 1996 NFA.

>Australian NFA (1996)
- IIRC it lowered homicide rates from something like 100 firearms homicides per year to 45 firearms homicides per year. What did it take to prevent 55 deaths/yr?
>A national firearm registry
>one-month waiting period for all sales
>Must have "secure storage"
>Must provide a "genuine reason" for owning a firearm
>banned all sorts of shit
>"bought back" firearms with the tax money that you paid them
>DESTROYED 1/3 OF THE NATION'S FIREARMS (over a million)

Has this been surpassed by a fascist/natsoc government? I doubt it but it's certainly possible, I guess I could dig up some more examples once I finish my commute home but the 1996 NFA is a very interesting example, because it shows a (white European) population that was hoodwinked into completely castrating its own defenses against the state in return for 55 less homicides per year. Is that crazy? I think it's crazy.

Did you forget that australia is a monarchy?

Take Ghaddafi's Libya as a more recent example then. You can't support your assertion for shit either way.

Explain why a "tOtaLITariAn ReGiMe" wouldn't want its loyal subjects armed and ready to fight and die for their race?

A powerful, but not ALL powerful leader, selected by the last leader on merit, and examined, would likely not have this problem

and also, gun homicides were already DECREASING before the bill at about the same rate, so its effect on crime is questionable

>>has laws to keep it this way
What are these laws you are talking about?
>>"Obviously the laws will be expanded to disenfranchise whites!"
They already are. No one tries to disarm niggas in the hoods that make up 90% of gun murders, but everybody tries to disarm the whites.

So basically in your opinion, a facist just wants to oppress people? Are you really that 2 dimensional in your understanding of shit?

>implying
So what you're saying is that we can't possibly arrest pedophiles without arresting normal couples of consenting age?

You can't have an "almost all powerfull" leader. He will use his existing power to secure all of the power. That's how it's always been.

Sure thing moshie.

Support your assertion, shitlord.

Same principle as Free Speech really.
It's ok as long as it's in the hands of the loyal members of society. We wouldn't really have this problem in an ethnostate though but that's pretty utopian.

Still no argument made.

Explain why a facist state with an all encompassing Nationalist message pushed from all angles of media and education would want or need to disarm its citizens.

Is this a bot that tries to mimic the responses to it? I already did twice. Your turn bydlo.

Because they threaten his power, and a fascist state doesn't tolerate citizens threatening it's power.

Ba'athists are NatSoc and I believe guns are legal. Regardless, the citizens have easy access to them

I haven't read the thread, I'm guessing this character is one of "those" people that responds emotionally to political positions based on its programming.

Read the thread.

You're not making any arguments. You are baselessly asserting that a totalitarian government would want and or need to disarm a loyal fanatical citizenry. Why would a facist state with control over media and education have any need to disarm its population? If the state is successful embedding fanatical National/Racial Socialism in the minds of its people then for what reason would the presences of arms be negative to the power of the state?

Because the people might want to be free?

>the queen did the NFA
In this case, I say that 45 gun homicides/yr is extremely impressive and we need U.S. Monarchy to solve the crime problem, as our pseudo-democratic system has clearly failed.

How does it threaten his power? You're just asserting that without any cause or rationale. If the population is propagandized to be nationalistic and fanatically supports the regime, which in turn benefits the population, why would it threaten the power of the leader to have an armed population?

nazi germany didnt take guns from germans
next

Free?? Hahahaha
Free to do what? To be a traitor? To be a faggot? To exploit their families and the future of their children? Hahaha
Fuck freedom. Freedom is a cancer. I want only to serve my race. I want to be "free" to pursue my duties to my people.

Alt right or far left, it dosn't matter because first they take your country and then the take your guns.

Attached: 1306883824905.jpg (799x531, 184K)

Ian?

Attached: read a book.jpg (566x480, 54K)

National socialists aren't mad that an elite is oppressing the masses and eroding civil liberties, they're mad that the elite isn't them.

Fascists and Antifascists both want oppression, you dumdum.

>government takes all the money
>the people are poor
>the people are displeased
>people don't like the government
Have you considered that not everyone is as big of a cuck as you?
Take a Look at your own government:

>read a book
Oh ok. Should I read Emmanuelle Goldstein first?

The confusion is the consequence of decades of leftist monopoly on information exchange, and the subsequent abuse of this to strawman and redefine without consequence. Fascism doesn't mean anything. I self identify as a fascist to assert agency in the redefinition game the left has established. Everything is already being redefined to attack us, why shouldn't we take responsibility for our own defence by playing too? The self proclaimed fascists fighting for liberty is no more nonsensical than the self proclaimed antifascists fighting against it.

>eats paste
>calls other people dumdum

This works as written :
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The government will form militias that will have the right to bear arms in order to cleanse their country.

Gun ownership became easier under the NDSP you retard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

Get to your point.

Fuck you, nigger. Paste is delicious.

Not just that. They are mad that the elites wants to erase them.

Read it all!

Attached: read or die.jpg (500x375, 61K)

Nah, that only applies to a regime that is hostile to the people.

>implying citizen rebellions have ever been successful without outside support