Teach me about me about the

What is the context of this photo?

>David Duke
I always have a chuckle at his smirk

That poor woman

So the idea being that it's a matter of responsibility VS authority wherein your average American is expected to be responsible for themselves and the country instead of being controlled and potentialy extorted? I like the idea of that although I can see issues arising from negligent/unlawful people.

>that hover hand

It shall not be infringed. You have your guns, I'll have mine. If shit goes off, I'd much rather have it, than not.

Well, any liberty creates the danger of irresponsibility.

A free society is built on the presumption that people are better at making choices for themselves than they are at making choices for other people.

This is why Americans oppose gun control today. Under the logic that it's safer to give citizens the right to own firearms and make their own choices than it is to give the government a monopoly on firearms.

So far, it seems to be working. Homicide in this country has been falling for twenty years, even as more and more states allow citizens to carry concealed handguns for self defense and gun sales are through the roof.

SHALL

Attached: k anime.png (800x468, 719K)

America didnt have universal suffrage. The armed masses kept the land owning voter class from getting too uppity. Fast forward to 2018. The mobs have been given right to vote and socialist policies are more popular than ever. Ironically you now see the more well off or middling individuals arming up to keep the peasantry in check.
This all ignores the various sporting or survival/hunting/pioneering elements

Unless you are black in a black neighborhood.

Attached: Learning faster than thought.png (628x446, 229K)

So essentially it's safety through both mutual destruction/collective liberty? So what do you think is the most important factor in ensuring that firearms are not used negligently? General compotence? I totally agree with the idea behind it but I'm just trying to get my head around how you can try to get those who are irresponsible or who might be open to being so to not be.

Let's be real, black people don't seem to have any problem killing each other in Brazil, where there's actual gun control.

If you're willing to kill people, you are probably

A: A young male, and therefore capable of killing people with knives, blunt objects, or bare hands relatively easily

B: A member of a gang, and therefore a person with easy access to contraband materials such as firearms

C: Indifferent to the risk of future harm, as the penalty for killing people is already a much, much larger deterrent than the penalty for having an illegal gun.

The main reason is the right for self defense. From who or whatever, it took a long time for me to realize how amazing it is that the right to defend yourself is a right. An how those founding principles say so much about America and its founding politics.

Its ultimate freedom to hand your people the tools tools needed to dismantle the state. No other country was given this as a clear right. As a result there was a civil war where more Americans died then any other war in our history. Thomas jefferson said “the tree of liberty is lacquered in blood” meaning that a people cant be truly free without constantly fighting of it, and freedom has its setbacks. Ie school shootings and civil war. But the right to be free to have those fights or tragedies far outweighs the loss of liberty that you give up when you have to rely wholy on the government for your protection.

Frankly as ive gotten older and traveled more the second adamant one of many things that makes me proud to be American. Its a testament to the positive kind and self-sufficient attitude that exists in America; and is a direct result of the grit the Europeans who founded this country had.

Attached: C3860956-CE56-45E9-8EDA-4411D1EDF0F1.png (640x1136, 1000K)

>So essentially it's safety through both mutual destruction/collective liberty?

The logic being that the average person is a relatively reasonable, intelligent person, and will probably use their right to bear arms to defend themselves and their loved ones rather than to inflict harm on society. Sure, there will be evildoers, but if you don't have to be a criminal to own a gun, the bad people with guns will be outnumbered and outgunned by the regular people with guns.

>So what do you think is the most important factor in ensuring that firearms are not used negligently?

There are two approaches that seem to work for reducing violent crime. One, making sure that people have good childhoods, and don't grow up to be broken, angry people who are desperate enough to commit violent crime.

I don't think it's a coincidence that violent crime fell in the United States a generation after the Great Society introduced massive antipoverty programs and abortion was legalized, because both of these changes reduced the number of children who were raised in broken homes.

The second way is finding violent criminals, particularly gang members, and putting them in prison. In an average US city, more than 50% of murders are committed by the roughly 1% of the population that are members of violent gangs. Programs like Operation Ceasefire that specifically target gang members are much more effective than tactics like gun control that target the entire population. This is also probably why homicide fell in New York City and not Chicago, because the CPD is too corrupt to crack down on gangs effectively.

Also bong, and it's pretty clear. That the individual remains righteous above the nebulous state.
Why don't you look up our own laws?
>Bill of Rights 1689
>Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome
>By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
>And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
>That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
We set out the right to keep and bear arms in English law nearly a hundred years before the yanks. They however were smart enough to remove our "as allowed by Law" shit and phrase it just about PERFECTLY to protect the citizenry's rights.
This law remains on the books in English common law incidentally.

To be fair to CPD their hands are tied by politics. They even setup a "secret" holding area to keep politicians from pushing too much influence on them. Think a City police black site like the CIA. This can be also considered corrupt but in Chicago it is was all they had and while was abused most likely did more good than harm.

Because it's our natural right to own weapons and no other reason is necessary.

The problem with the CPD is that Chicago has a ward system where the guy who runs the ward is essentially king of his own little part of the city and has a large amount of control over law enforcement in their area.

Combine this with the fact that felons can vote, and you have arrangements where gangs get all of their members to vote for a specific politician, in exchange for that politician keeping the cops off of their back and warning them when a police raid is about to happen.

Also, basically nobody prosecutes corrupt government officials in Cook County except for the DOJ, and the DOJ is fucking swamped with corrupt Chicago politicians. So generally, Guiliani style crackdowns are almost impossible.

Everyone wants to see Summer

Attached: 1326901804831.jpg (3000x1954, 713K)

Yup, they tried to do the same in the suburbs but that got cracked down hard by 1 city (city of Elgin IL won lawsuits) and a few others cities followed knowing they were in the clear. It is why you have HUGE amount of killings but only in Cook County/Chicago in specific areas.

So in conclusion, if you're a British person, looking to crack down on crime, do everything that Chicago doesn't do

>have the police service be as independent from political interference as possible
>encourage citizens to keep firearms on their persons and in their homes in case of assault, have self defense laws that protect them if they have to use them
>aggressively crack down on gang members that you know to be involved in violent crime, focus the majority of the resources of police, prosecutors, and prisons on the worst offenders
>do not allow monoracial ghettos to form, discourage economic and demographic segregation
>discourage poor people from living in cities in general, stop subsidizing housing in the cities and let high rent drive them out into the suburbs

Pretty close, from a US prospective remove section 8 type housing for over 45+ age communities
I am all for affordable housing but not without proper controls being put into place.
100% for firearms. Every non-violent offender should have access to at least a single shot shot gun. Abuse that right then it gets taken.
Gang members need to be flagged and expelled from the city. If found returned should be kill on sight or death sentence in 3 months. Honestly you cant say "not guilty" when picked up in Chicago.