Shall be infringed

Shall be infringed

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    kys

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Civilians shouldn't have guns. 2A will be abolished.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You won't do shit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          A disturbed half-Amerind, half-Spanish mongrel shouldn't be able to shoot up an elementary school.

          The balance of bad uses of guns to good uses of guns (ignoring sport shooting and hunting) is like 99.9999% to .0001%. The bad uses are things like young black males killing other young black males and disturbed Hispanics shooting up an elementary school. The good uses would be someone defending their family in a hostile situation, which accounts for about .0001% of gun incidents. Guns overwhelmingly make our population less safe (ignoring sport shooting and hunting). The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens. Or if it has ever happened, it's at that .0001% incident rate. It's not worth all the risk.

          As for sport shooting and hunting, those can still happen, you could check them out from the government and they would be used in a supervised environment.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Guns prevent more than 2 million crimes per year. Also, the 2A isn't meant for hunting or even defending oneself from crime. The right to do that should go without saying.

            The 2A is solely the government's acknowledgment of your right to keep them in check by means of violent force. That is its purpose.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Guns prevent more than 2 million crimes per year.

              A made-up statistic. The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens.

              >Also, the 2A isn't meant for hunting or even defending oneself from crime. The right to do that should go without saying.

              So you're leaving that to a common law interpretation, and you are right, that is what the common law says about self-defense. But a Constitution or statute can override the common law. So after appealing 2A, a gun-banning law would override the common law right to self-defense, at least concerning guns. You could still defend yourself, with a longbow, for example.

              >The 2A is solely the government's acknowledgment of your right to keep them in check by means of violent force. That is its purpose.

              lol, that isn't what the text says. That's just a wishful assertion. Here is the text:

              "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."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A made-up statistic. The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens.

                A real statistic. This includes things like home burglaries, car-jackings, rapes, etc. If you want to talk about the lack of heroes, that has more to do with the cowardly culture we've adopted, diversity, feminism, and so on.

                >So you're leaving that to a common law interpretation, and you are right, that is what the common law says about self-defense.

                I could still defend myself with my fists as well. Free speech over the phone is just as valid as speaking at a rally or timesquare. The right to bear arms is sufficient force to go against government agents.

                >lol, that isn't what the text says.

                That is its purpose.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A real statistic. This includes things like home burglaries, car-jackings, rapes, etc. If you want to talk about the lack of heroes, that has more to do with the cowardly culture we've adopted, diversity, feminism, and so on.

                Even if you provided sauce, which you haven't, I still wouldn't believe it. I would still think it's a made-up statistic.

                >I could still defend myself with my fists as well. Free speech over the phone is just as valid as speaking at a rally or timesquare. The right to bear arms is sufficient force to go against government agents.

                After appealing 2A, a gun-banning law would override the common law right to self-defense, at least concerning guns. You could still defend yourself, with your fists, for example.

                >That is its purpose.

                lol, that isn't what the text says. That's just a wishful assertion. Here is the text:

                "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."

                We have to assume that the drafters meant what they wrote, and not a remote interpretation of what they wrote.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >. I would still think it's a made-up statistic.
                what you meant to say was
                >"I would still FEEL it's a made-up statistic."
                because you're a dumbass woman with pathetic female opinions

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Even if you provided sauce, which you haven't, I still wouldn't believe it.

                Search engine. I'm not your mailman.

                >After appealing 2A, a gun-banning law would override the common law right to self-defense, at least concerning guns.

                Why would I care about "common law" or anything that is written on a piece of paper or typed up on a computer. I have a gun. Will this appeal magically make it disappear? Explain the science behind how that works. The fact of the matter now is that we have them, so good luck taking them.

                >We have to assume that the drafters meant what they wrote, and not a remote interpretation of what they wrote.

                Again, I'll be the first to wipe my ass with the constitution. I don't care about documents and what is written. What are the facts? People have guns. People want to take away guns. Let's see what occurs when moves are made.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>Even if you provided sauce, which you haven't, I still wouldn't believe it.
                >Search engine. I'm not your mailman.

                Then it doesn't exist.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah. You're just lazy. If you have time to watch all the porn that you do then you can educate yourself independently without needing to be spoon fed like a retarded, quadruple amputee.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.hoplofobia.info › ...PDF
                Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense ...

                The CDC also tracks it and the numbers are very consistent. Good people with guns prevent or stop thousands of crimes daily.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holly fuck both just appeared out of nowhere. Did they time travel or was it teleportation. dimension hopping? Spooky. Then they fought, is this evidence of aliens at war over the earth?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cctv security video.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What a dogshit country where you have to live that way.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Good people with guns prevent or stop thousands of crimes daily.

                I don't believe that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't believe that
                Yeah, you don't believe anything unless Kimmel or Colbert tells you to believe it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's because you aren't force fed it in the media you consume

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                do you get paid by the post?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                looks like his step-Dad trying to save her from herself
                >gets shot
                shoulda stayed out of it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then you're a coward. Just come out and say that. You're not only a coward, but an ironically hypocritical one who complains about the lack of "heroes."

                No, I don't want any more random kids shot at school. Also, if I were concealing a piece, I am not sure that I would draw and hit the target fast enough to save my own life. I would give that about 25%. I would rather the disturbed person just not have a gun in the first place.

                You are a coward, and wrong. Have a meme with a few sources. Since you are wrong, maybe you can cram your opinion back up your ass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nazi Germany didn't commit genocide.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Arguable. Rounding up israelites would have been more difficult had they not had all their guns taken.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've yet to see a source of Hitler actually disarming israelites. It seems to be a myth conservatives made up to argue for gun ownership and kiss the ass of their israeli masters at the same time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >source of Hitler actually disarming israelites
                they did not have any guns to begin with, which is strange considering israelites declared war on Germany in 1933. There was no holocuast as described by the israelites, the Germans rounded up the israelites because of the actions by the israelite against Germany. The simple point is that if a government tries to round up a large enough group and that group is armed sufficiently the government will fail. If the soviet citizens had arms and even bothered to fight back millions of people would have been executed. The reason the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to the constitution is they were mostly from Europe or were recent descendants from Europe who had extensive experience dealing with oppressive governments and wanted to ensure the people had the ability to fight back and stop the government when needed. The reality is the people do not need to defeat the whole army, or the whole government, just the few who are committing treason and using the government assets illegally for their own political gain.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nazi Germany didn't confiscate civilian guns. And the Holocaust didn't happen.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's right. The camps were vacation homes and it got out of hand. I dont think Germans gassed israelites, but they were not exactly kind to them either.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >wearing flip-flops to an armed kidnapping
                this video has to be brazil

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never noticed the footwear before.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol? they did use a registry to take guns from israelite and minorities while expanding civilian (white) gun rights. and it was based.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I agree.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You won't rewrite history.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Already happened everyone remembers the 6 million but no one remembers the 2 million pols, 18 million slavs or the 1 million gays, gypses, naggers, insane and other trash Hitler killed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

                >The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

                A study put out by the CDC. Trust the science bigot

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >estimates
                >500,000 to more than 3 million per year
                A gigantic variance.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even if it is just 1 then that's a bonus. Because the point of the 2A isn't about defending oneself or livelihood against common criminals. It isn't about hunting. It isn't about leisure or sports shooting. It is solely about keeping a tyrannical government in check and being a threat should they overstep their power.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens.
                lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The first three shots are okay, but I think the extra ten taps when he is on the ground count as murder.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                he was still holding the gun so still a threat

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Was declared self defense. Fuck naggers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Got a link?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the fuck up nagger, you deserve to be flayed alive.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                he was still holding the gun so still a threat

                So long as he was still holding the gun, he was a threat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                murder means killing humans retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You mean homicide. All murders are criminal offenses.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no, i mean killing naggers isnt murder retard.

                He's talking in a legal sense. Not a "your feelings" sense.

                that guy literally wasnt charged with murder so fuck off with "your feelings" you leddit homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm literally quoting US law regarding self defense and definition of murder. Double tapping someone once they are on the ground is murder not self defense. In this case since suspect was still holding gun he was still a threat , maybe, but pausing, moving closer, taking aim and unloading entire clip when someone stops moving and is on the ground is not something you want to do if you don't want a murder charge.

                I'm guessing prosecutor didn't bother to file charges since the nagger was obviously in the middle of a crime and the start certainly was self-defense so most juries wouldn't convict. But by the strict reading of the law it is in a very grey area.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's talking in a legal sense. Not a "your feelings" sense.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The attacker was still moving with his hand on the gun. In a life or death situation you shoot until the threat stops. Furthermore in such a stressful situation motor skills degrade as adrenaline kicks leading to mag dumping amd pressing the trigger even after the gun is empty. Cops do this all the time and are cleared. Furthermore science and medicine clearly demonstrates handguns are notoriously unreliable in stopping threats since over 80% of handgun shot victims survive. It is not uncommon for criminals to survivie multiple handgun wounds and continue their attack on victims while they bleed out which can take 5 minutes or more. Based on the video evidence, if this occured in the USA the victim acted reasonably and within his rights and any non pozzed jury or judge would clear him based on legal precedent and the testimony of several subject matter experts in many many cases.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >non pozzed jury or judge

                Most are pozzed now. Enjoy the electric chair.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Will all those volts finally turn you into a woman??

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Meanwhile I don't get in trouble really despite deploying directed energy weapons

                >Ok, go argue your special issue should be able to violate basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution in your state.... I'll wait

                A bunch of Unionist and Federalist cucks around here.

                >Laughs in laser weapons
                Technology has increased homosexual. I don't even have to hit my targets to blind them, and I have used laser weapons against the state before.

                What makes you think I won't do it again?!?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how no one responds to try hards like you? Carry that forward...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >spends hours on /misc/ bumping b8 thread
                You're either a fed, a bot or a retard who lacks any sort of self awareness.
                I didn't read any of your insincere nonsense.

                https://i.imgur.com/BLVfL6z.jpg

                Shall be infringed

                48+ posts and hours in the thread.
                Whew lad.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What the fuck even is your post? My posts are sincere, and the point of /misc/ is to debate, which you have chosen not to do, because you are retard. Case fuckin' closed.

                >48+ posts and hours in the thread.

                Obviously I struck a nerve with /misc/.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >My posts are sincere

                just retarded trolling we basically use you threads to educate newfags on gun control

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's telling that you haven't been able to respond to a single one of my points or any of the info i've dropped.

                All those replies and you don't address a single lick of substance.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This was satisfying to watch.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Poor printer. Hope he'd got the money back.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Leftists don't really fact check much. I think we scared him off.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it happens every day. the nagger wants only cops, naggers and government gangsters armed lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but muh DeFuNd ThE PoLiCe niggas din du nuffin!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm still here retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It only happens .0001% of the time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The conservative estimates of defensive gun uses is close to 1 million per year.

                If you werent a retarded shill you would have had an education and read all the historical documents from the founders, from private letters to their comments on the earlier constitutions of the colonies, which make exceedingly clear their reasoning for writing the 2nd Amendment was to have armed citizenry be able to defend themselves against the State and any standing army.

                So which is it moshe, are you a shill or just an uneducated retard?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the 2nd Amendment was to have armed citizenry be able to defend themselves against the State and any standing army

                That's retarded, because that isn't what the words say, it will never happen, and it isn't worth the constant deaths by disturbed people.

                Your pic is exactly what I had in mind for the .0001% of "good" uses. Sure, it worked. But I am doing a cost-benefit analysis. The tiny rate of "good" isn't worth the threat of a disturbed person shooting up people all the time, forever.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >more reddit spacing
                seethe and cope homosexual lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only schizophrenics care about reddit spacing. Meds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong. It proves you are not a typical /misc/ user. You are a reddit homosexual. Go back.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also if gun liberals say this is a lie I screen shotted it from their page before it was taken down

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >doubles down on the schizophrenic rambles of someone so out of their depth it's humorous
                Gtfo dude. Before you hurt yourself.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not the actual incidents! But it's the ~~*threat*~~ of them!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, I mean the actual rates. The incredibly tiny rate of "good" uses is unbelievably small compared to the huge rate of "bad" uses.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The incredibly tiny rate of "good" uses is unbelievably small compared to the huge rate of "bad" uses.

                wrong again look here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fake data, didn't read.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Proof that its fake? Source?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ok then you are a retard all the resources are at the bottom of the page ....no one can make you listen to reason you're just being a retard at this point.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Chaim my son, you are doing a piss poor job. I just explained to you how you can read the words the founding fathers said which clearly demonstrates their intention behind the 2nd Amendment. Instead of educating yourself and reading these documents you double down on your stupidity. You are probably the worst shill Ive ever seen on LULZ which makes me think youre actually just a real, 100% certified retard that would have flunked out of a highschool AP History class. I must thank you because the absolute stupidity you have demonstrated in this thread does your side of the argument more harm than good.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the words the founding fathers said which clearly demonstrates their intention behind the 2nd Amendment

                Their personal writings are completely irrelevant to the application of Constitutions and statutes to a particular legal case.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Their personal writings are completely irrelevant to the application of Constitutions and statutes to a particular legal case.
                t. knows nothing about constitutional law

                Understanding the purpose and meaning of the amendment as the founders understood it is the basis for judging whether the law has been violated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Made up statistic
                It's the Feds' own statistic you fucking mongrel
                >Muh well regulated
                Law is interpreted in the language of the time of writing. On 1776, "well regulated" meant "in working order". This means armed. The right being of the people, implies that the militia is the people. nagger.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Submit to the government as much as you want. Just know your little "sacrifice" will never be acknowledged and your cause will be lost.
            You.
            Won't.
            Do.
            Shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            lmao even the FBI’s statistics disagree with you, you disingenuous slimeball.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >is like 99.9999% to .0001%.
            r u bill nye?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A disturbed half-Amerind, half-Spanish mongrel shouldn't be able to shoot up an elementary school.

            Then spend billions having officers in the schools instead of spending it on Ukraine

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Then spend billions having officers in the schools instead of spending it on Ukraine

              It's cheaper to just take the guns.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's cheaper to just take the guns.

                You don't get to infringe on my rights for something i didn't do ...no fuck off

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not no but hell no

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are 99.99999% for sure making up stats. It does not matter if the bad uses for guns outweigh the good uses. Guns exist and can only be defended against by other guns. Banning guns is not an option because guns would still exist. Criminals and the government would still have guns. The bad uses would still outweigh the good uses, but now the majority of people have no means of self defense and are subject to crime and tyranny. You are not arguing for the eradication of guns, you are arguing for the eradication of liberty. Pragmatically, guns are impossible to eradicate, therefore any argument against the natural right of individuals and societies to have them as a protection against others that have them must necessarily be an argument for a world that has a slave class and a ruling class. You support slavery.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have to be 18 to post here.

            Either you're naive or retarded. My money is on the latter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're a liar. I want you to know, the lake of fire awaits you. Repent. Find Jesus Christ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The balance of bad uses of guns to good uses of guns (ignoring sport shooting and hunting) is like 99.9999% to .0001%.
            If you are trying to convince anyone why would you pull statistics out of your ass? This is just elaborate bait at this point. Get lost.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What is the purpose of the 2A?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was meant to prevent the U.S. government from prohibiting the citizens of the States from bearing arms, the reason being that that would interfere with the States right to distribute arms to their citizens to serve in the State militia. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed by a law of the Federal Congress".

          Each State could still fully ban civilian ownership of any arms if it chose, and that would not violate the Federal 2A.

          But I don't give a shit about the State militias. If the States want militias, let them advocate that themselves. I'm saying just ban the ownership of guns by civilians nationwide. Then there can be an exception so that each State can appoint people to its militia, and those people can keep their militia weapons at home, or they could be stored in an armory. But it's not my job to figure out the State militia policy, which as I said I don't give a shit about. We have a national standing army now, whether you or I like it or not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Armies contain soldiers. Soldiers are individuals. A gun in the hands of a trained civilian is as good as one in the hands of a soldier. It is an equalizer to tyranny and a deterrence to government encroachment.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Armies contain soldiers. Soldiers are individuals. A gun in the hands of a trained civilian is as good as one in the hands of a soldier. It is an equalizer to tyranny and a deterrence to government encroachment.

              It's not worth all the risk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you're a coward. Just come out and say that. You're not only a coward, but an ironically hypocritical one who complains about the lack of "heroes."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then you're a coward. Just come out and say that. You're not only a coward, but an ironically hypocritical one who complains about the lack of "heroes."

                No, I don't want any more random kids shot at school. Also, if I were concealing a piece, I am not sure that I would draw and hit the target fast enough to save my own life. I would give that about 25%. I would rather the disturbed person just not have a gun in the first place.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >how
                How about no one cares what you want? I dont want a lot of shit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>how
                >How about no one cares what you want? I dont want a lot of shit.

                I didn't use the word "how" in that post even once.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I had a stroke. Anyways suck my balls.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >random kids shot at school.

                I wonder why this is occurring? Maybe because kids aren't taught to learn how to fight and be a man instead of a social outcast weird fuck who can't associate with their peers or attract positive female attention.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just kinda done with arguing with homosexuals about this. There is such a thing as "natural law". Let's pretend the 2A doesn't exist at all. So. Get to confiscating. And when you're bleeding out in whatever nagger neighborhood you live next to, your last thoughts can be thinking about the children. Make a move or shut the fuck up and get back to kissing nagger feet like you homosexuals embarrassingly already did.

                Can't believe you idiots argue with weaklings like this. As Pompey Magnus said. Don't talk about laws to men with swords.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you are uncivilized.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Define civilized

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Probably something like the rule of law, which means you follow the laws whether you like it or not.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would criminals follow the rule of law?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There can only be rule of law if you have people who actually follow the law

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                As civilized as you not a bootlicker.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They love guns. More than "conservatives". They just want them pointed at conservatives. You owning them prevents that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. It was never intended that the states arm the citizens. Everything you have said is wrong. I'm almost impressed at how much you pretend to be correct while being this wrong.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Here's the text:

              "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."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                did you conveniently forget how "'," works? There are two statements in that sentence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Really it's only one with a qualifier... due to this, the right of they people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You must not understand how English works. See those commas? They mean something.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You must not understand how English works. See those commas? They mean something.

                No, it's just that most other people in this thread, including you, are retarded.

                "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means the U.S. Congress can't take your guns. What the actual fuck are you confused about? The States could still take your guns. The U.S. Constitution doesn't and shouldn't automatically apply to the States. That's a Unionist and Federalist argument. The Confederate and Democratic-Republican argument is that the U.S. Constitution only applies to the U.S. government, and anything not prohibited to the States in the U.S. Constitution is within the power of the States to do as they wish. In fact, that is Amendment X:

                "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The U.S. Constitution doesn't and shouldn't automatically apply to the States.
                this nagger didn't pass civics class

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That is a Unionist and Federalist argument.

                >>The U.S. Constitution doesn't and shouldn't automatically apply to the States.
                >this nagger didn't pass civics class

                No my dude, it's that most of the people in this thread, including you, don't know anything.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

                "In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                " After the Civil War, Congress and the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which included the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. While the Fifth Amendment had included a due process clause, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment crucially differed from the Fifth Amendment in that it explicitly applied to the states. The Privileges or Immunities Clause also explicitly applied to the states, unlike the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not designed to protect individuals from the actions of state governments. In Twining v. New Jersey (1908), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Due Process Clause might incorporate some of the Bill of Rights, but continued to reject any incorporation under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[2]
                Incorporation
                The doctrine of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.[3] Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits."

                The Democratic-Republican and Confederate argument (the real conservative one), is that the U.S. government is limited to only what is granted to it explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And everything else is prohibited to the U.S. government, including the rights granted by the States. Then Unionist and Federalist politicians passed the 14th Amendment, and the Unionist and Federalist U.S. Supreme Court has slowly expanded "incorporation" over many decades (legislating from the bench).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So a Maryland court ruling 30 years before naggers were freed is your idea of modern legal precedent?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you think a state can ban any constitutional right they want. You are retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                have another

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What a shithole country.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hurrr it never happens
                >it happens but i-its a s-s-shithole
                lmao you fucking reddit homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If the psycho couldn't get a gun, it wouldn't be necessary for the parishioners to have guns or to shoot anyone. It IS a shithole country if you have to take a gun with you to fucking CHURCH and shoot someone at CHURCH.

                But the most important thing that the retards in this thread, including you, cannot answer, is that the bad guy shot (at appears) TWO parishioners with the assault rifle at point fucking blank range BEFORE the good guy took him out. Those point fucking blank rifle shots were probably fatal, so your gay "hero" argument still got two people killed, even with a concealed carry guy right there. Retards. Just take all the guns away and that situation could not even exist.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Now anyone in this thread can make a laser gun that can blind people for life at 1000' instantly for 200$

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >guy enters church with knife
                >boomers take out their knives and get their throats slashed
                sounds a lot better

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It IS a shithole country if you have to take a gun with you to fucking CHURCH and shoot someone at CHURCH.

                guns don't determine the crime .....rot of values do and the liberals are the biggest culprits

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you will never strip criminals of their illegally obtained weapons, so you may as well be on the same playing field.
                death to tyrants, homosexual.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >more reddit spacing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                id love the backstory on this, holy shit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So you think a state can ban any constitutional right they want.

                In the Democratic-Republican and Confederate argument (the right one), yes, they can.

                "In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you side with defunct law and want it to be rule. Gotcha

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, my state is going to outlaw naggers tomorrow... by your logic this is legal. Retard. The union is united by the constitution. The states can do their own thing within that. But they cannot violate the constitution or override federal regulation.

                Shill more nagger

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This was 30 years before naggers were considered human right?

                Can't imagine why they wouldn't want logic to apply to the states that that didn't think so....

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Kek.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A state could try to ban gun ownership, sure. But that is a violation of God given rights guaranteed by the constitution and would be stricken down. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              This being precisely why this board is flooded with this shit. They can do nothing and will do nothing. The amendment in question is here to stay forever. Worry not one bit. This is mere concern trolling.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >guaranteed by the constitution

              2A only guarantees that the U.S. Congress won't ban your guns.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Using your idiot logic, individual states can institute slavery again if they want.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Amendment XIII:

                "Section 1

                Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

                Section 2

                Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

                "shall exist within the United States" is interpreted to mean the geography of the U.S., including the interior of all of the States.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're making his point for him retard

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "shall exist within the United States" is interpreted to mean the geography of the U.S., including the interior of all of the States.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Give us some oink oink lil piggy!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                K.... what's your point?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That you need to give up your guns now!!! Because only his tribe should have them and bad goys shouldn't!!!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, injuns are around!? Let's kill EVERY thing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not sure if you're actually this new...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How dare you even respond to me with top israeliteery

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are too retarded to understand it. The 13th Amendment is valid because it describes the States' territories as covered by the prohibition of slavery, and because it's a Constitutional Amendment (or Article), it's valid to affect the States, even under the Democratic-Republican and Confederate interpretation of "incorporation".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Source?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                this literally defines who the second amendment covers

                https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

                Here is the actual law that defines the second amendment and who are the militia. They defined it clearly

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "all able bodied males ages 17 to 45"
                14th amendment extends this right to everyone

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "shall exist within the United States" is interpreted to mean the geography of the U.S., including the interior of all of the States.

                Amendment XIII:

                "Section 1

                Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

                Section 2

                Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

                "shall exist within the United States" is interpreted to mean the geography of the U.S., including the interior of all of the States.

                >guaranteed by the constitution

                2A only guarantees that the U.S. Congress won't ban your guns.

                It's the Right of the people to keep and bear arms.
                Not the right of states to decide what gun regulations they want.

                People != state.

                Just as the states can't ban political speech, and can't search without a warrant and have to give a trial by jury, all the rights named in the bill of rights are protected and guaranteed by both the states and the federal government.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >or any place subject to their jurisdiction

                This refers to the jurisdiction of the States, so that also bans it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, and the constitution itself is a check against the government violating god given rights in the first place. The 2nd is the guarantee you have the right to shoot them for trying any of the other ones.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah, and the constitution itself is a check against the government violating god given rights in the first place.

                God doesn't exist.

                >The 2nd is the guarantee you have the right to shoot them for trying any of the other ones.

                That's not what it says.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >being necessary to the security of a free State
                >free state
                >free
                kill yourself or go back to le ddit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                By your guesstimate. But even so, rights are innate. They are inherited by nature of being alive. They are human. Call it what you want, but God given us easy

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh and I should address the second part as what they actually have written themselves to say it was meant for. You probably don't know that because your professor didn't dive into that but... yeah they actually expressed on several occaisions... if the government is getting out of line... fix it the good ole fashioned way

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                My favorite part about this is how you whine incessantly about some kids being shot, but never dare to bring up how many black kids shoot each other every year with just regular handguns.

                Is that because you don't care about the poor negro boys between 15-25? Do you just care about a handful of hispanic children more? Are they ranking higher on your racial totem pole so you like them better? Are you invading the Board of Peace to show us how racist you are?

                Also, have you noticed that, unlike Europe, we are next to a country that habitual smuggles drugs, human beings and God knows what else into the States? Do you really think they won't see how good of a market there is for guns even if you got your way, and start running guns in? Combine that with the fact that police have no obligation to intervene and could literally stand next to their car and watch you and your family getting raped and then knifed to death and do absolutely nothing to prevent it, like they did while kids were being murdered, and so what? You think that's optimal? It was like 30 kids that got killed. There are 330 million people in the country. Be a man. That's statistically irrelevant. Sad yes. But irrelevant overall. Maybe you should try other laws before just going nuclear and banning things altogether, a move which you cannot take back once it's done.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I normally just ask the question.: 'So you want to take away guns from poor black fathers just defending their children from gang violence?'

                Then start quoting the statistic of race of most self-defense shootings. Fun fact 60% of self defense shootings are blacks

                I don't mention that of those 90% are found to be murders and not self defense and that blacks don't have fathers in their family but that's another matter.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >My favorite part about this is how you whine incessantly about some kids being shot, but never dare to bring up how many black kids shoot each other every year with just regular handguns.

                A disturbed half-Amerind, half-Spanish mongrel shouldn't be able to shoot up an elementary school.

                The balance of bad uses of guns to good uses of guns (ignoring sport shooting and hunting) is like 99.9999% to .0001%. The bad uses are things like young black males killing other young black males and disturbed Hispanics shooting up an elementary school. The good uses would be someone defending their family in a hostile situation, which accounts for about .0001% of gun incidents. Guns overwhelmingly make our population less safe (ignoring sport shooting and hunting). The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens. Or if it has ever happened, it's at that .0001% incident rate. It's not worth all the risk.

                As for sport shooting and hunting, those can still happen, you could check them out from the government and they would be used in a supervised environment.

                >The bad uses are things like young black males killing other young black males and disturbed Hispanics shooting up an elementary school.

                Just fuck off retard. Fuck right off if you aren't going to read the thread. You are a fucking retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is a kw class laser cannon.
                Anyone even seeing the impact location or emmiter without special protection will be blinded for life instantly, just from seeing it, you don't even have to hit the person

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It also guarantees that a state that is part of the union cannot create a law that trumps your God given rights by the constitution. A states power to govern must adhere to the rights guaranteed by the constitution, otherwise, it cannot be a united state.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It also guarantees that a state that is part of the union cannot create a law that trumps your God given rights by the constitution.

                That is not correct. That is a Unionist and Federalist argument. That's not how federalism works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, go argue your special issue should be able to violate basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution in your state.... I'll wait

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ok, go argue your special issue should be able to violate basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution in your state.... I'll wait

                A bunch of Unionist and Federalist cucks around here.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I used the word!! They must think I'm one of them now!
                >Why won't these goyim disarm themselves?!! How many of their children do we have to kill????

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shut up retard.

                Literally the easy availability of guns is what is killing tons of children, and adults. Fuck guns.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Source?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally the easy availability of guns is what is killing tons of children

                Not really, its over exaggerated so the democrats can get rich by running guns to the gang members that will keep you in line. Literally look at New York. Did banning guns really hurt the mafia?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's nonwhite genetics mutting up white society and destroying cultural bonds and social trust.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sure. And they'll fail all the same

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was meant to prevent the U.S. government from prohibiting the citizens of the States from bearing arms, the reason being that that would interfere with the States right to distribute arms to their citizens to serve in the State militia. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed by a law of the Federal Congress".

                Each State could still fully ban civilian ownership of any arms if it chose, and that would not violate the Federal 2A.

                But I don't give a shit about the State militias. If the States want militias, let them advocate that themselves. I'm saying just ban the ownership of guns by civilians nationwide. Then there can be an exception so that each State can appoint people to its militia, and those people can keep their militia weapons at home, or they could be stored in an armory. But it's not my job to figure out the State militia policy, which as I said I don't give a shit about. We have a national standing army now, whether you or I like it or not.

                >2A only guarantees that the U.S. Congress won't ban your guns.
                No, it lists out our God given rights. They most certainly cannot outlaw guns, yes, but this is simply declaring inalienable rights all human beings have. Any state that ratifies it is legally bound to such a declaration as well.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No, it lists out our God given rights.

                God doesn't exist.

                >Any state that ratifies it is legally bound to such a declaration as well.

                "In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmfao. Stop coping.

                https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2019/12/12/now-cherished-bill-rights-spent-century-obscurity

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't give a shit about the State militias
            Its about citizens having the right to form a militia when needed, such as the roof top koreans when the police abandoned the korean community during the LA Riots. If the power goes out in any major city there are riots as soon as the sun goes down and the cops retreat to their armored police stations. After Hurricane Katrina the cops were out and about stealing and murdering the residents in the area.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >serve in a militia
            >being wrong as fuck
            >"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
            Cope, seethe, dilate. You choose the order

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The deaths won't stop then. You are one of those who doesn't feel bad for the victims.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >loses the argument
                >appeals to emotion
                Approximately 300 people a year are killed by rifles, meanwhile 90 people a day are killed in cars. If you really cared about saving "one life" you'd be campaigning to ban cars

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Standard leftycuck protocol muh dude. Never wins on merit so must deceive or appeal to emotion. It'd very funny if it weren't so sad.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you really cared about saving "one life" you'd be campaigning to ban cars

                I never said, not even once, that I care about saving all "one lives". Find it in the thread, retard. I never said it. I just want to reduce the gun death risk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I just want to reduce the gun death risk
                If you did you would support gun ownership.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >TL;DR I'm a bootlicking cuck

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >le reddit space
            >It was meant to prevent the U.S. government from prohibiting the citizens of the States from bearing arms, the reason being that that would interfere with the States right to distribute arms to their citizens to serve in the State militia. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed by a law of the Federal Congress".
            >le reddit space
            >Each State could still fully ban civilian ownership of any arms if it chose, and that would not violate the Federal 2A.
            >le reddit space
            >But I don't give a shit about the State militias. If the States want militias, let them advocate that themselves. I'm saying just ban the ownership of guns by civilians nationwide. Then there can be an exception so that each State can appoint people to its militia, and those people can keep their militia weapons at home, or they could be stored in an armory. But it's not my job to figure out the State militia policy, which as I said I don't give a shit about. We have a national standing army now, whether you or I like it or not.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Troon thinks he can make up law like its his gender. Lmfao

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Only schizophrenics don't like reddit spacing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This one can flay apart skin

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It was meant to prevent the U.S. government from prohibiting the citizens of the States from bearing arms, the reason being that that would interfere with the States right to distribute arms to their citizens to serve in the State militia.

            "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
            - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

            The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
            - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

            If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
            - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Each State could still fully ban civilian ownership of any arms if it chose, and that would not violate the Federal 2A.
            nope

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Kek.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

                Here is the actual law that defines the second amendment and who are the militia. They defined it clearly

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yep.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is the real gun grabber

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            bill of rights not the bill of needs

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cope

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        2A or no 2A, I am keeping them and there ain't shit you can do about it.
        >inb4 we will send armed cops to do get them
        They would have to come inside first and they don't seem to like doing that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm gonna go by another gun just because you posted this. Cope.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I love modern leftycucks.
          >we support the working man!!
          >n n n noooo!!!! Not like that!! You can't protect yourself!! Nor can you as a group have the monopoly on violence!! You must be a bootlicker like us!!!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        naggers and minorities shouldn't have guns as they are responsible for the vast amount of gun violence. The US has a nagger problem exacerbated by a israelite problem.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >naggers and minorities shouldn't have guns as they are responsible for the vast amount of gun violence. The US has a nagger problem exacerbated by a israelite problem.

          An incredibly based post. We could try that as a step to avoid nationwide confiscation. It might work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Or just deploy energy weapons that instantly blind people for life...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Warren v Washington D.C.
        >the court ruled that police DO NOT have an obligation to protect an individual, their duty is owed to the public at large
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

        When seconds count, there's 19 cops in the hallway for 77 minutes letting kids die.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        "shouldnt" - cry about it, homosexual. You will do nothing. Maybe cry a bit. Maybe 41% yourself eventually. But yeah, lol. Bro. Hahahah. My guns are like, now follow this, going nowhere. lmao!

        HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Baste and leadpilled

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        retards detected

        this is now a pro gun meme thread

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >2/3 of both the house and senate
        >3/4 of state legislatures
        Is that what you have? Or do you just have a bunch of homosexuals talking?
        That’s what I thought. Neck yourself.

      • 2 months ago
        Hitler Rick was Right

        >Civilians shouldn't have guns. 2A will be abolished.
        Lol at the dreaming naggers. 2A is about to be upheld by the Supreme Court. States shall not be able to regulate guns anymore.
        Abortion will be given to the States to regulate or Outlaw as they see fit.
        America is Back BABY!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, I will do it for him

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    FUCK OP.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    enjoy Roe v. Wade getting overturned.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >enjoy Roe v. Wade getting overturned.

      I will. antifa tears when they are destroyed trying to block the Supreme Court building. I don't give a shit about abortion, but I enjoyed seeing that psycho bitch get bodyslammed in LA when she tried to suicide bomb Biden's motorcade.

      BTW, this takes guns away from antifa psychos as well, a positive.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        sweet. enjoy watching nobody give up the Second Amendment and you're incapable of doing anything about it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >enjoy watching nobody give up the Second Amendment and you're incapable of doing anything about it.

          Then it's 100% certain that more people will be murdered-by-gun by disturbed people in the future.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh noez! So bring back asylums for the disturbed? Or are you worried trannies might start getting admitted?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Oh noez!

              I appreciate this post, actually. I'm done for the thread now. At least one of admitted you don't feel bad for people murdered by disturbed gun violence. That's the real policy choice here. People who want to end the excessive risk of gun-death for no reason by a disturbed person, versus people who versus people who don't feel bad for people murdered by disturbed gun violence. That's the actual layout of the policy divide on this issue. This is the end.

              >So bring back asylums for the disturbed?

              The Uvalde Hispanic was arrested at least once, but I don't think he was flagged for mental health specifically, so that wouldn't have done shit to prevent it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                reddit spacing nagger lipped homosexual lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only schizophrenics don't like reddit spacing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah maybe they should have had a local shrink from the state asylum talk to him....oh wait.

                And you're right. I don't care. But because it's not tragic. Not because it is not sad. But because grifters like you try to play on people's emotions to try to pass political shit that would otherwise be unacceptable. You try to steal rights from people because something is sad and they aren't thinking clearly.

                You're the worst type of person. You care about the people the least. You don't care that kids got killed. You don't care that mental defects need help... you just want what you want. Your agenda. And you're willing to weaponize dead children to get it.

                But we see through you. We know what you are. And that's why you hate us so much.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not because it's not tragic*

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The psych evaluation route won't, and didn't, stop Uvalde or similar ones. So the only route available is to take the guns. If you cared, you would admit that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Come get them lil cucky. 🙂

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Emotional blackmail...."if you cared you would do what I want..."

                I care genuinely. You care because it is trending. Get fucked.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't care, because you don't provide a realistic solution. You just use fake solutions like "more psych evals" as cover.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't provide a realistic solution

                making people pay for a crime they didn't commit isn't a realistic solution

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the real solution is to ban nonwhites since they do most of the killing per capita.
                If you really wanted to end the guncrime issue you would just ban nonwhites from the USA.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "realistic and solution" are two things that have avoided the democratic party like the plague for years

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                actually swallowing the blue pill lolololol

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This stupid ass thinks a few crazies are a huge threat. If some crazy person is going to do something crazy, they will. I don't trust government to protect me, or my family.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If some crazy person is going to do something crazy, they will.

                Not if they can't get a gun, because no one has guns.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cocaine, herpin and fantasy are illegal.
                And yet they're in every major city- because the U.S. doesn't control its own ports or borders.
                If all guns magically disappeared overnight, criminals would be armed again by lunchtime.
                And you know that's true.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Alright, heroin typo was my fault but autocorrect programers are to blame for the fentanyl

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not if they can't get a gun
                Source?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You need to go back

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah. you should probably support mental health reforms to mitigate that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I would like to prevent that, and I'm willing to give up my right to own guns (and your right to own guns!) to do that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nagger lover continues to seethe
                >won't do shit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely based.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Things you won't do:
                Shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes but the deaths will be lower than the drugs the liberal party are in favor for so maybe you should target that instead

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Shit those are rookie numbers. Ol' pedo Joe got us over the 100k in ODs!

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Guns is the only one you didn't really consent to, though. Almost everyone in this thread is a retard.

              Falling: you got up there
              Traffic accidents: you got in the car
              Dug overdoses: you took the drugs

              But nobody has in mind the risk of being shot just from going to school or going outside or whatever. That's madness.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nobody has in mind the risk of being shot just from going to school or going outside or whatever

                nobody has the mind to be given an overdose by a doctor or ran over by a drunk driver .....we don't ban doctors or cars that kill more people per year.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Gun: Someone shot you
                Falling: Someone pushed you
                Traffic: Someone rammed you
                Drug: Someone put fentanyl in your weed

                Nice victim blaming though.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit, nice get.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meant to do that. I'm sure.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        George Washington's personal writings aren't laws.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          neither is the declaration of independence, that doesn't stop people from using it to claim "all men are created equal"

          [...]

          >It's the AR-15 prototype.
          God you are one retarded nagger monkey

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1776
      holy freakin' heckin'!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Put me in the screenshot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Holy based

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Boring as fuck. You're not taking shit. Try and you take a bullet, homo

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That gun has already been infringed by whatever the gay state it's from. 10 round magazines are cringe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed. Constitutional carry nationwide. All gun laws immediately removed. All anti-gun organizations disbanded.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Best part? Shit like this. Its gonna be fucking wild
    https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2021R%2FPublic%2FHB1957.pdf

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kenosha will never forget the horrors of that day.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, what's it like to spend 50 years worth of effort on trying to get this one thing banned and failing constantly at every turn? You would think by now they would have some small measure of success, like people of a certain profile can't own one. But they can't even make that happen. Just a whole lot of israelite who can't even win a small victory against a bunch of drunken uneducated hillbillies.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Once there is a huge non-white Democrat majority, they will convene a Constitutional convention and abolish 2A. It really is that simple.

      "Conservatives prepare new push for constitutional convention"
      https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584835-conservatives-prepare-new-push-for-constitutional-convention/

      And it's conservatives who have gotten the ball rolling on it.

      "But there is no guaranteed time frame under which states would have to act on proposed amendments. Anything that might emerge from a convention could potentially lie dormant until one party sweeps to power."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

      "Scope of a possible convention

      There have been calls for a second convention based on a single issue such as the Balanced Budget Amendment. According to one count, 17 of 34 states have petitioned Congress for a "convention to propose a balanced budget amendment."[22] But Congress has been reluctant to "impose limitations on its spending and borrowing and taxing powers", according to anti-tax activist David Biddulph.[22] Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit" and that calls for a convention to focus on only one issue "may not be valid", according to this view.[22] According to Paulsen's count, 33 states have called for a general convention, although some of these calls have been pending "since the 19th century."[22]

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        According to a New York Times report, different groups would be nervous that a convention summoned to address only one issue might propose a wholesale revision of the entire Constitution, possibly limiting "provisions they hold dear."[23] Such groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, the John Birch Society, the National Organization for Women, the Gun Owners Clubs of America and conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly.[23] Accordingly, they are opposed to the idea of a second convention.[23] Lawrence Lessig countered that the requirement of having 38 states ratify any proposed revision—three-quarters of all state legislatures—meant that any extreme proposals would be blocked, since either 13 red or 13 blue states could block such a measure.[22]"

        They only need 34 States to get the convention going, then they can rewrite the entire Constitution however the wokesters want to. Your guns will be gone.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Oh, come on now.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Violent videogames
      Fuck. I nearly died from laughing.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nah

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bang

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I do not recognize any unconstitutional law.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shall not bitch. I'll pull the trigger.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Masonic satanists rape, torture, and brainwash children in order to use as actors later posing as politicians and public figures to manipulate public opinion. Almost everything that happens if fake, WWE style.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks for starting this thread, OP. This can be a perfect copy-paste example for anyone who puts forth anti-gun shit in the future.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You provided me with the answer, which is that there are two camps, one who doesn't feel bad for the victims, and one who does feel bad for the victims. That explains it all.

      If you really feel bad for the victims, nationwide gun confiscation should be on the table, not as a first step, but as a last step if none of the earlier steps work. But "education", psych evals, and that other shit didn't stop Uvalde and other similar ones, and don't stop hood gun violence. So we are at the last step now.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >w w w w what about the victims!!!!
        And those who are saved by firearms???
        >n n nooo!!!! Not those!!!
        Lmfao. The absolute state of leftycucks in current year

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And those who are saved by firearms???

          They are .0001% of the incidents, and as a cost benefit analysis, the cost is too great as risk from the disturbed people. Also, no guns implies that you won't need to be saved from firearms by firearms, because the people you would need to be saved from won't have firearms. So problem solved. You can still defend yourself with other weapons, and the attackers won't have guns.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the cost is too great
            actually the cost of immigration is more....lots more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh cost is too great

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They are .0001% of the incidents
            That's bullshit. You have a source on that? i remember being surprised at how many crimes were stopped with guns. It's a big number. But your argument is all bullshit. It's all for show.

            If you were really interested in ending crime and helping people, you would want to get the nonwhites out of the USA

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They are .0001% of the incidents, and as a cost benefit analysis, the cost is too great as risk from the disturbed people.
            Got a source for that claim?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope. It is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. Not the government's and not mine. That wasn't "written down" in "common law" or any other bullshit when this country started. Here are some words of advice: Don't be a pussy. Be nice and cool with others. Those two things will get you far and should assist you in avoiding any gun wounds. Also, if you were intelligent you would be able to understand that a tyrannical government can do more harm than a few incels that can't get pussy. Maybe we could solve the mental health crisis by having your mom open her legs for them so they can get laid.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves.

          Kids in a school?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anyone who sends their kids to a school full of nonwhites knows what they're getting into and takes on that risk themselves.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yep. Teach your kid not to bully others. Teach your kid to stand up to bullies for themselves and on the behalf of others. Teach your kids to be likeable, sociable, and good kids. Personally, I don't even think public schools should exist but we're way past the point of most people agreeing with that. Make martial arts apart of the curriculum for children and teenagers so they don't get bullied into being a weirdo with a grudge.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I own one of these. Peep sights and carrying handle. Not loaded down with $1000 of homosexual tacticool crap.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP got a point the NFA of M16s should be removed for it goes against 2A

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >those who are unhinged, shall become infringed

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Place your bets and lock in your predictions.

    This is the best time to be alive as a gambling addict since now everything is a gamble.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You'll never stopped the signal

  22. 2 months ago
    Chingchong

    Stack up and try kike

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2 MORE WEEKS

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    .

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      People consent to the risk of accidents when getting in a car, though, but we shouldn't have to consent to the risk of getting shot when going to school, going outside, etc.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >People consent to the risk of accidents when getting in a car

        By that logic they consent to the risks of firearms by living in this country then

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So go live in a nonwhite country

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >blame people that had nothing to do with the shooting instead of taking steps to solving the problem

        typical liberal

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you live in a fantasy land

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ban assault lightning

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >gunmen killing people isn’t an issue because people die from other things too

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's an issue, but not a reason to give up fundamental rights.

        We might try banning nonwhite immigration as a first try to solve it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I should be able to trick you into tyranny because someone died
        also see

        this is the real gun grabber

        not infringed

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of you don't understand the consent/"number of persons in a situation" framework. No, you don't have to ban cigarettes, because

      "number of persons in the situation" = 1 (ignoring second hand smoke, pregnancy, bullshit special cases)

      When
      "number of persons in the situation" = 1
      libertarians would say you don't have to ban anything.

      In mass shootings,

      "number of persons in the situation" > 1

      and the people who are not the shooter didn't give consent to get shot, so it's completely different.

      The consent/"number of persons in a situation" framework must be a fundamental cognitive structure. Some people have it, some people don't. The people who don't just can't understand why everyone is complaining about them all the time (because they are constantly harming other people).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Most of you don't understand the consent/"number of persons in a situation" framework

        nope we understand that you are trying to blame us for something we didn't do. We explained it to you logically why you are wrong and ignored the real data....now you can die in a fire

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gun control is authoritarian. 🙁

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Love watching the left seeeeeeeth

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a moarpheus thread -who is also thuletide- who is also a homosexual and a fed cock suckered. Kill yourself moarpheus.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The 2nd Ammendent only allows guns for - a well regulated militia- a military body. Not any hillbilly spending his girlfriend's welfare check on a shiny new Daniel Defense AR. Eventually this shit will be sorted out and your guns will be in the bonfire.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you spend just 10 minutes per day trying to learn how to read, in a matter of months, maybe a year, you might me able to parse this one single English sentence:
      > 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.
      I’ll give you the cliffs notes in the meantime. The main, independent clause in the sentence is
      >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
      The supporting, dependent clause is:
      >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
      I understand that for someone who can’t read, the order might be confusing. But, what the author is stating is, to paraphrase: “because it may become necessary for the people to form a militia in order to guarantee their security, their individual rights to own and carry weapons SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
      Now go eat the biggest dick you can find.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    then your right to live shall be infringed.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Doubt

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not only should we have constitution carry, remove all gun laws from the books, and disband organizations like the ATF and many others, we should also bring back dueling pistols in common use so that people have to back their shit up with their life if they want to run their mouth.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally murder is illegal. its like the highest punishment crime if you think any law would actually help you're a retard

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Goys just remember; as soon as those guns are taken the period of great famine in the USA will start, that's actually all they're waiting for to take all the food away , it's gonna be through some artificial food shortage they've been conditioning you all to believe there will be.
    I mean its only fair though, just imagine the hell they'd unleash on themselves if the leave you guys armed and dangerous through a period of famine !
    No can do, sorry it just won't work,
    so yeah, give up those ARs now please so we can kick off the famine and get it over with!
    were closer to the end than to the start so there's no fixing this unless through a great reset USA is the last piece.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    People who support gun control only do so because they do things in life worth being shot over. Full stop.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP is spending his Saturday night arguing for gun control on /misc/

Your email address will not be published.