Why can't liberals see past their own entrenched narrative?

I hate Trump he is a racist, only cares abour Israel and Russia, and he wants these shootings to happen.

We should give up all our weapons so we are completely defenseless against our racist, corrupt leaders.

That is the only solution to the mental health crisis and all of you are too racist to see that.

This chart illustrates how dangerous black guns are

No to a progressive white woman it represents how racist the cops and the legal system is. It is their default response to all crime statistics that end socioeconomics.

Not only are the police racist but prisons are a form of modern slavery. White men locking up innocent black men for no reason other than free labor. Being black in america has been a crime for 400 years

>this is what leftists actually believe

Attached: 1543583533846.png (1280x720, 1.49M)

0/10 hillary likely had eppstein suicided

Yes of course it has nothing to do with race.
I'll give you some help keeping your delusion alive. Don't ever look up crime statistics outside of the US especially not the ones where the blacks are in charge it might shake your entire worldview.

Attached: lewackie_scierwo_kurwy.jpg (1768x2500, 476K)

>inb4 rent f-reeeeee or trumpshits

>muh rights
The 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily give you the rights that you believe have been taken away. It doesn't say anything about machine guns or bump stocks or even semi-automatic weapons; it's just ambiguous enough to be left open to interpretation.

That said, even if it did grant citizens the right to own automatic weapons or rocket launchers or whatever, simply saying that it's unconstitutional to take them away is a weak ass argument.

its not going away

>seething

I'm not trying to be a dick but my guess is you're pretty young right? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here but the right to bear "arms" was left vague for the very reason of giving it a wide coverage.

Semantics aside the theme of the Second Amendment is basically the rights to Rebelle if shit hits the fan. When the first amendment fails you go to the second. All of the founding fathers writings about the Second Amendment reinforce this. I mean if you want better gun control good luck but you really shouldn't use the Second Amendment to get there because it's pretty clear.

I agree. I do think there will be amendments in the near future, though.

Not really. Just pointing out a few facts.

One you're making a gigantic assumption that in any scenario of a revolution it would literally be Joe Blow with his AR-15 against the US Army. This notion is retarded and in a realistic scenario it would be fraction and portions of the army using local gorilla support.

You don't think an armed man using what resources he has around him is effective?
see Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Falklands, chechnya I could fucking literally go on until I run out of text.

>I do think there will be amendments in the near future, though.

youre absolutely free to be wrong about anything.

Why don't these same people "demand action" against alcohol and cigarettes too? Those two things kill FAR more Americans per year than guns.

freedom always trumps rights. if you don't like it, move to north korea; the gun-free utopia full of sheeps that larps as free people.

Also funny how that cunt says whites shouldn't own guns, but if you said that about black men Twitter would ban you

>I'm not trying to be a dick but my guess is you're pretty young right?
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're pretty misinformed, right?

>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here but the right to bear "arms" was left vague for the very reason of giving it a wide coverage
Oh really? It explicitly states this? Gonna need a source on that, buddy.

>semantics aside the theme of the Second Amendment is basically the rights to Rebelle if shit hits the fan.
The whole thing about forming militias was mainly because we didn't have a standing army at the time.

Anything else?

ya'll niggas posting in a /pol/ thread

the bourgeoisie doesn't fight back with alcohol and cigarettes.

The 1st amendment doesn't necessarily give you the rights that you believe have been taken away. It doesn't say anything about computers or TVs or even phones; it's just ambiguous enough to be left open to interpretation

You see the problem with this now?

he's a troll so no he won't see the problem

>he's a moron so no he won't see the problem
fixed

>he said as he then when to Yea Forums and posted this criticizing liberals and believing conservatism is only right.

We can. Question is, why can't the Reich Wing do the same thing?

Protip: they can't, they won't, and they never will.

Attached: Facts lib vs con.jpg (800x450, 43K)

There's literally hundreds of quotes. Your regurgitating basic anti-gun rhetoric that tries to attack the Second Amendment on the grounds of semantics. Its underlying meaning was never doubted that is why they never attempt to change it.

Your sociology Professor lied to you kid.

Attached: George_Washington_meme_1.jpg (300x300, 16K)

>one you're making a gigantic assumption that in any scenario of a revolution it would literally be Joe Blow with his AR-15 against the US Army
Not sure how you gathered this from my post.

>you don't think an armed man using what resources he has around him is effective?
I never even suggested that. You should stop strawmanning.

Here's what I do think: the possibility of the Constitution completely being tossed and our system of government being replaced by an authoritarian regime in which the military turns on the citizens is so slim that it's a paranoid idea and not worth worrying about. And if that happens... let it burn, because everything has completely gone to shit.

Thanks. You're free to prove my speculation wrong.

>Reich Wing

thats a new one. good job it only takes you guys 3+ years to come up with a decent meme but good job anyway

This isn’t a liberal thing...it’s an American thing. We Americans respond to tragedy by insisting that it could have been prevented. You only hear from liberals on the gun issue because most of them don’t own and have no interest in owning guns. Which is a shame, because owning and shooting guns is fun, it helps you develop discipline and good safety habits (you will learn how to identify the sound of gunfire and even the caliber associated with it very quickly), and it can give you a feeling of safety and security that is actually lacking in about one half of the world’s liberal population. Banning assault rifle sales will not solve this problem, as there are too many of these rifles already out there, and people who commit crimes like this are very good at meticulously plotting to get their hands on them. The argument here boils down to “we need to do something.” It worksindependent of whether the solution is practical, and, surprisingly, works independent of whether it will actually solve the problem.
t. survivor of a terrorist attckon US soil, one that did not involve guns

there's no point in arguing with you because you aren't being honest about anything. You don't believe in anything you're saying you're just bored and looking to start fires. The problem is you're not arguing with anyone that cares here either.

youtu.be/ZRuSS0iiFyo
>where the blacks are in charge
>shake your world view
oh it has, it absolutely has

"Facts" lol you mean everything I want to hear and nothing I don't.

>it doesn't say anything about computers or TVs or even phones; it's just ambiguous enough to be left open to interpretation
It doesn't need to. Freedom of expression is less ambiguous -- but it's not absolute, and the types of speech that it doesn't cover are outlined fairly well.

>r right, guys?
>amiright?
Pathetic

Ok, kid. Great citation, kid. I never suggested we should abolish the 2nd amendment, kid.

How YOU source your arguments at all. You really don't have to reach to far to find contemporary papers on the topic from the people that conceived the bill of rights.

Whatever makes you feel better about your weak arguments, I guess.

you don't have the potential to change anything and that hurts doesn't it?

but please don't let that impotent rage turn you into the next school shooter user

welcome to Yea Forums comrade

Fucking what?

I wonder whether that pic was made as satire or if the maker is that unironically up their own ass

>A foreigner who knows more about american constitutional rights and the amendments than his own tries to get himself off by talking about it on a cantonese speed drawing powerpoint forum

You're a retard and a troll and every comment you've made here has made anybody who read them at least slightly dumber.

/pol/ is that way ---->

>You really don't have to reach to far to find contemporary papers on the topic from the people that conceived the bill of rights
Well, then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a citation from the people who conceived the bill of rights that pokes holes in my position.

And as I alluded to earlier, even if the constitution allowed people to own any weapon they could get their hands on, that wouldn't be a proper justification in and of itself.

80 year olds with assault weapons sound like an awful idea, why the fuck did you even post this?

>Oh really? It explicitly states this? Gonna need a source on that, buddy.
Not that user, but:

Source - 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"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."

Throughout the early history of our nation, everything from small arms (individually operated firearms, like rifles and pistols) to Privateers (warships in private hands) and cannons and other large artillery pieces. The right to keep and bear ARMS is intrinsic of ALL ARMS, not just firearms. Justice Scalia (iirc) clarified this many years ago, in fact...

>The whole thing about forming militias was mainly because we didn't have a standing army at the time.
Incorrect. The whole thing about the "militia" was to differentiate the Peoples' right to keep firearms and to form militias (a fighting force NOT under the direct command of any State), in order to ensure no standing force, to include our own government, can usurp the liberty of Americans... Fortunately, the only time in our history that we saw the 2nd flexed was the US civil war. Hopefully, we never have to again, but that may be ignorant well-wishing on my part as of late, since the US "news" media and politicians only care about getting more rich and NOT national cohesion...

No. You've been spewing shit this whole thread and yelling at anything provided. Go back and source any one or your points before we out effort in.

>that pokes holes in my position.
Your whole position is already a big hole, chief

>even if the constitution allowed people to own any weapon they could get their hands on, that wouldn't be a proper justification in and of itself.

nobody owes you any justification for what they want

Whoa, an educated poster in this thread. Have a (You)

See: projection

>welcome to Yea Forums comrade
Yes, where the levels of stupidity and ignorance are always off the charts.

Friggun HUH?

Cool

>literally cropping the infographic out after
>'these numbers are misleading'

Attached: 1564583012788.jpg (640x413, 150K)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for 2a, but an M14 does not have a collapsible stock, cannot be separated into upper/lower receiver, barrel + accessories and won't readily accept thousands of after-market parts that enhance or improve its function.

It's not as simple as "hurr durr wood".

>projection

you guys keep using that and its already lost what little impact it had

>But you have to admit the progressive side is much worse in producing these types of people.

Based on what? Those ladies are saying relatively reasonable stuff about trying to prevent further harm. The truth is and always has been that the Right has way more *dangerous* fridge crazies. The Left has fringe crazies too but their causes are relatively harmless, the with possible exception of the anti-vaxxers and even they aren't going out and shooting people over it.

Please gfto off our board with your absolute horseshit. We don't want leftypol refugees OR Mexicans.

M14 is a FA 10,000.00+ piece of american history that is more often purchased as a cash investment or range toy. You probably mean an M1A

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,NIGGER!

WHERES MY NUKE?

O, sir, we should have fine times indeed if, to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the People......
- Sir Patrick Henry

you could theoretically register a tactical nuclear weapon as a destructive device but current international convention prevents new ones from being made and old ones from being sold

>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
Right, so, I guess it's unconstitutional that we can't have machine guns or anti-aircraft guns, right? And yet we can't have those things. It's almost as if the constitution is open to interpretation and more malleable than you think.

>incorrect. The whole thing about the "militia" was to differentiate the Peoples' right to keep firearms and to form militias (a fighting force NOT under the direct command of any State), in order to ensure no standing force, to include our own government, can usurp the liberty of Americans
Again, I'll need a source on this.

>source your points
You've done absolutely nothing to refute a single point I've made, poncho.

Well, I guess since you said that...

>nobody owes you any justification for what they want
Right back at you

Attached: capitalismlol.jpg (782x652, 72K)

How is freedom of expression less ambiguous than the right to bear arms?
I’m assuming you’re trolling but I know leftists are usually bat shit insane.

>its not going away

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1.

The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Done. Man that was super hard to figure out.

Attached: fmaarzpwomfgar6pq9ll.jpg (300x300, 15K)

>durrrr well, theoretically....
No, nigger. It is not legal for a private citizen to own a goddamn nuke lol

You can legally own machine guns and anti-aircraft guns comrade. read the actual laws before you try to troll this deep

You're making the claims... you are acting as a source. We all think you're full of shit and you just keep fucking talking like we believe you.

fuck you faggot, i was here way before you all came in here and started shitting up Yea Forums with your /pol/ memes, why don't you go back to your containment board?

you and your ilk have been trying for years and nothing yet

>And yet we can't have those things.
Yes you can you just need a federal firearms license...I can buy a tank if I want...

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-10 Tanks - Mortar Investments.png (808x808, 586K)

its absolutely legal its just not logistically possible. You could at this very moment purchase a tactical nukes amount of conventional explosives.

Y....yes they do. Are you retarded? And what does accessory and storage have to do with lethality?

Attached: DF3D5DC2-2945-4A61-9543-19CA357BC0BD.jpg (2250x938, 654K)

>Amendments only need to be explicit in terms of guns

I know you're trolling, but what's funny is that there are liberals who really do think this way

maaan.. i wish i had money to spare, owning a tank would be awesome

surely ammo is not allowed?

Attached: 1540157759754.png (511x461, 486K)

I'm pretty sure hes actually this stupid. At least he's written a novel defending himself from one word answers like leftists do.

762 by 51 is far more devastating than 5 5 6. I can get a 30 round box mag and even a drum mag for the m14 and it's rate of fire is comprable to most "assault rifles". I mean I know you and I are really just talking about semantics here but the point is mute when were talking about what is more deadly.

Aftermarket accessories for gear fags really doesn't do much. Your average school shooter is not competing in 3-gun competitions. Is a collapsible stock or an EOTech sight really going to kill that many more school kids?

Only because the political will wasn't there and groups like the NRA and gun manufacturers have bought and paid for most of the congressional seats. The truth is that a majority of US voters, like 70% nationally, don't think it should be this way. All it takes to change it is another amendment and it's getting to the point where politicians may actually start to cave on this.

but can you drop in a cold air intake to increase them MPG's?

also one day i will own my own M1A1 MBT as a daily driver

>you can legally own machine guns and anti-aircraft guns
You need a special licence from the ATF that's very difficult to obtain. Your average citizen cannot obtain these things.

I've backed up all of my claims with logic. If you need a source for something in particular, lemme know.

Yeah, I addressed this above.

True, but I just think it's funny how this argument only applies to the 2A but not the 1st. And he blatantly says so himself which makes it even funnier.

ammo would cost about 700.00 per shot plus 200.00 for a tax stamp per explosive round. The main gun would also need to be registered as a destructive device. Theres places in vegas that let you drive them but i don't think they use the main gun due to cost.

The 13th amendment doesn’t necessarily guarantee freedom to niggers. It didn’t say anything about amputee niggers or niggers in prison, nothing about child niggers; it’s just ambiguous enough to be left open to interpretation.

That said, even if it did grant niggers the freedom from slavery, or welfare or whatever, simply saying that it’s unconstitutional to own them is a weak ass argument.

>Y..yes
I didn't even read the rest of your post, fix your shit you aren't in an anime.

Attached: 1531588069539.jpg (500x333, 27K)

>Yeah, I addressed this above.
Well you should be happy I proved your point, hombre...

>"Destroying the 'reps' with logic"
>rejects their logic

Fucking link sources or you're legit repeating your hippie parents bulllshit. Who lets these imbeciles with double digit IQ feel valued here?

Both "sides" are filled with their share of jokes. I mean, the right and lard ass in chief are currently pushing the "violent vidya games and movies are bad!" argument that has been disproved and beaten to death all so they can scapegoat and keep their NRA bucks.

>You don't think an armed man using what resources he has around him is effective?
>the Falklands
Wat?

Kethleen is a sexist racist shithead, but generally I agree.

Can't you see past your entrenched narrative?
Ban Abortions, Ban Illegals, Ban Weed, Ban everything you don't like.
But banning guns will never work because bla bla bla.

FUCK YOU

>You need a special licence from the ATF that's very difficult to obtain. Your average citizen cannot obtain these things.

it isn't difficult at all. Ive filled out about 20 of them in 10 years and each takes about 30 minutes.

I get that you don't want the bourgeoisie to own any type of firearm but your rutting in the wrong garden comrade

>you could at this very moment purchase a tactical nukes amount of conventional explosives
Elaborate. It seems like you're moving the goalposts. The user you were responding to was talking about nukes.

They don't need to be specific at all. That's what amendments are for, after all.

what if I'm a public citizen?

>it's getting to the point where politicians may actually start to cave on this.

you want this to be true so badly that its probably palpable but unfortunately it will never happen

>elaborate
>elaborate on a subject i just said wasn't related

derp

>They don't need to be specific at all
And yet if a republican were to say the 1A doesn't apply to computers and phones, people like you would flip their shit

>The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
NY and California can't amend the constitution alone. It's going to take 2/3's of congress to propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states to pass the proposal.

>Its underlying meaning was never doubted that is why they never attempt to change it.
>pushing this narrative
doesn't matter what some guy said hundreds of years ago, and congrats to him on starting his own nation, but it's our country now and that very legal document he helped create empowers us to make and change the laws we have to live by, including the second amendment.

I have a scout Squad I fucking hate the socom they tried to turn a 50 year old rifle men for medium range combat into a SWAT House Clearing gun lol

Attached: f20068864.jpg (2448x3264, 1.91M)

Gorilla support? Jesus Christ, how horrifying.

yeah M1a. I did not say it because most people don't understand though that the M1A is the same platform just without the fun switch.

everyone knows this, the point is that tipping point may arrive sooner than never at the rate things are deteriorating.

>not posting a reverse loaded magazine in the picture

>war... war has changed

Only one of them was jewish and he was adopted. Fuck off with this bs.

>he's dumb, right, guys?
>I mean... he's just a dumb cuck libfucktardo, right?
Lol

it isn't difficult at all. Ive filled out about 20 of them in 10 years and each takes about 30 minutes
You're so full of shit it's unbelievable. If you want to own one, they're very difficult to obtain. And the types of machine guns you can own are very limited.

thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

i get you homey

Attached: 4b3.jpg (480x480, 23K)

>everyone knows this, the point is that tipping point may arrive sooner than never at the rate things are deteriorating.
Nope.

You're either a troll or a retarded spic who studies liberal arts in college

Not true. My grandpa has full auto shit and he doesnt shoot anyone.

>You're so full of shit it's unbelievable. If you want to own one, they're very difficult to obtain. And the types of machine guns you can own are very limited.

I guess if youre mentally retarded or a criminal its hard to fill out but for normal people its not that big of an issue.

It's one of those people who get on CNN and say "Oh yeah I can walk into a KFC and buy a machine gun with no background check DUR"

Yes they should not be replying to you if you're not going to source. Glad to see you finally trying.

It was to emphasize my shock and despair you weeb

Bullshit you fucking asshole, prove it.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-07 Democrat Dayton Shooter Praised ANTIFA Terrorist Who Firebombed ICE Facility - (820x1207, 1.11M)

Who cares what online bitches think.

unironically kys you fucking piece of shit kike.

if criminals can't buy guns then how did Hillary Clintons assassins suicide her opposition?

Attached: Roll-Safe-Think-About-It.jpg (500x281, 84K)

>simply saying that it’s unconstitutional to own them is a weak ass argument
Couldnt agree more. This may come as a surprise, but I think abolishing slavery was a mistake.

Yes, elaborate. As in, tell me what the hell you're talking about so I can respond to your idiocy more specifically.

Not necessarily. It depends on what they're trying to regulate.

Your board? Fuck off with that tribal bullshit. All our names are anonymous here.

>I guess if youre mentally retarded or a criminal its hard to fill out but for normal people its not that big of an issue
I posted a source that outlines just how difficult it is to obtain a machine gun and which guns you would be able to own. Clearly you didn't read it.

No, that's more along the lines of what this moron is suggesting

I dont like your assualt speech, it needs to be banned.

And fuck your assualt religion, and that assualt press needs to be monitored. Only liscensed press people from the goverment should be allowed to write stories.

All Amendments are the SAME under the constitution. They are changed, written and removed and ratified exactly the same. Anything you say about the second amendment, remember the same thing applies to the other amendments. THIS is why the 2nd amendment is important

Do you like your right to vote? What if they say your right to vote requires a background check? Like your freedom of religion? You need a liscense for that.

And if you still dint think its relevant, that AR15 is just as deadly as a 22 pistol. "High powered" is irrelevant. Nobody is wearing body armor, nobody shooting through reinforced walls to murder people. A bullet going through flesh a high rate of speed is going to kill, and pistols are just as fast as rifles. Preferred gun of the wild west? A six shooter.

Hows that for an argument?

>It doesn't say anything about machine guns or bump stocks or even semi-automatic weapons; it's just ambiguous enough to be left open to interpretation.

It says very clearly "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
This is not ambiguous or open to interpretation.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Wow that's almost like a legit government website. Kek

Shall not be infringed.

Abortions, weed, and illegal immigrants aren't protected by the bill of rights.

Put your dick back in your pants, nobody wants to see that

I don't know but I'm definitely voting for more gun control.

>I dont like your assualt speech, it needs to be banned
If the vast majority of Americans decided that certain kinds of well-defined "hate speech" should be outlawed, guess what... there would probably be an amendment. That's how it works in a Republic.

>And fuck your assualt religion
Now you're just being a petulant child and reaching. Freedom of religion is explicitly stated in the Constitution. But, if the majority of Americans decided that Islam was a religion of violence and could unequivocally prove it, theoretically we could make an exception.

>Anything you say about the second amendment, remember the same thing applies to the other amendments. THIS is why the 2nd amendment is important
Correct. I'm not suggesting we should start chipping away at the constitution, but if I feel like an amendment is reasonable, I'm going to support it.

>Do you like your right to vote? What if they say your right to vote requires a background check?
Who's "they"? If it's the public and our elected officials, I may not be in favor of it, but I'd have to deal with it.

>And if you still dint think its relevant, that AR15 is just as deadly as a 22 pistol
Not really. You should stop lying.

>"High powered" is irrelevant. Nobody is wearing body armor, nobody shooting through reinforced walls to murder people. A bullet going through flesh a high rate of speed is going to kill, and pistols are just as fast as rifles
This is true, which is why I'm not necessarily in favor of banning High Powered rifles.

>how's that for an argument
If that's really your idea of a mic drop, you're a moron.

good luck.

Attached: 20190807_195227.jpg (1080x1393, 392K)

>shall not be infringed
However, it doesn't say, "you have the right to bear any weapon you can get your hands on".

And I'll say it again: even if it did, that doesn't make it right.

No, there wouldn't be an amendment. How many amendments have passed in the last 40 years? One, and that one took 200 years to become official.

The standard these days is to whine about how the Constitution is a "living document" and to just invent new rights or restrictions and claim they're constitutional, instead of taking advantage of the ability to actually amend the document.

Lol what a fuckin chump

It says the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Clear as fuck.

And yes, by being part of the Constitution, it's a right. A legal right, supporting a natural right.

Attached: 1548990388918.png (493x334, 144K)

>No, there wouldn't be an amendment
I'm speaking in hypothetical terms. Theoretically, it's possible.

After enough mass shootings, the NRA won't be able to do anything

If the vast majority of Americans decided they wanted slavery to be a thing that's practiced in the USA again, guess what.. there would probably be legal slavery again

Attached: Franklin.jpg (474x524, 78K)

>clear as fuck
Posting this more doesn't reinforce it.

>and yes, being part of the constitution, it's a right
The constitution was invented. It's a product of the imagination. Rights are invented. Rights do not exist in nature, brainlet.

One can dream, user. One can dream.

You fucking retard. We have unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd because your pedo overlords don't want a challenge. So far people have let it slide. It has nothing to do with what the 2nd intended. Fucking idiot.

You might as well just revoke the Constitution, then. Hate speech is just another attempt by totalitarians to put on a nasty label on speech they they don't like, in order to erase a fundamental right.

Unironically rely on facts and not blatant propaganda you can refute with two seconds of research

funny seeing this on here but ive dreamed of buying that t-34 for awhile now

I actually cited the line. Which is as clear as fuck. You're inability to parse sentences, or more likely your failure to ever read the text of the amendment, is just ignorance and willful stupidity.

>We have unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd because your pedo overlords don't want a challenge
Oh ok. That's a very grown-up argument.

>it has nothing to do with what the 2nd intended
It has nothing to do with what the 2nd didn't intend either.

>hate speech is just another attempt by totalitarians to put on a nasty label on speech they they don't like, in order to erase a fundamental right
I agree, but that's beside my point.

>You might as well just revoke the Constitution
Give it a few decades. The shitskin mob and their slave masters are heading in that direction.

>The constitution was invented. It's a product of the imagination. Rights are invented. Rights do not exist in nature, brainlet.
That's correct, except you shouldn't say brainlet unless you're looking in the mirror.

Invented things are important. Non-physical things are important. Once you pass the developmental stage where your brain can process abstract concepts, you'll understand that.

You'll probably still be far to the right of the Hitler, tho.

>Being such a big tool that you give money to a pro-gun association just to try to spite someone else.

I want snuggle weapons.

I still can't figure out if that poster was even trying to make any real points

Sounds like another Yea Forums fascist

Looks like grandpa got access to the internet again and is posting facebook memes.

In reality no one can see past their views and beliefs, not just liberals. Especially people who will go to lengths of sharing/pushing their own beliefs onto other people. I just believe what I believe and vote accordingly

Say the word boomer. You know you want to.

That's why liberals give them fake solidarity speeches in public, and have militarized police and eugenics targeting them. Liberals had MLK eating out of their hands.

When you see "the right to bear arms", you see "the right to own any weapon you can get your hands on". When I see "the right to bear arms", I see something that wouldn't make it unconstitutional to outlaw certain weapons because it doesn't specifically state "any weapon that's available". See how this works?

But the bottom line is, the fact that something is in the Constitution doesn't automatically make it reasonable.

Sneaky fuckers. I will keep calling blacks niggers to distract them from the liberals.

>Invented things are important. Non-physical things are important
Well, that depends on the thing, doesn't it? The fact that these are subjective matters makes it a matter of perspective. If you had a basic understanding of these abstract concepts you speak of, you wouldn't have made an argument that was so easy to poke holes in.

>you'll probably still be far to the right of the Hitler, tho
Ideologically I'm more in line with Hitler than not tbh.

This quote is made up - Washington never said it:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/20/facebook-posts/did-george-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Still clear as fuck.

Tho you've made it very clear that your real objection to the bill of rights isn't based on your inability to parse sentences, but on your rejection of the concept of inalienable, individual, natural rights. Which makes you a totalitarian.

One of columbine shooter was jew so not all seem to be jew

Lol I should have known you can never take a /pol/tard's memes and infographs at face value.

How does it feel to know this is probably the thousandth time someone has said this, but the constitutional justices all disagree with you and have for the past 10 to 30 years?

You were arguing against the existence of abstract things, and now you're admitting their existence but claiming that they're a matter of opinion. That's called shifted the goalposts, aka losing the argument.

>constitutional justices
kek

>but on your rejection of the concept of inalienable, individual, natural rights
It's not exactly a rejection. I'm pointing out facts, whereas you're talking ideology. There are many things that I believe should be considered rights and protected under the law -- however, I don't pretend that they're literally natural or inalienable.

conservatives don't care about you any more than liberals.
You are stupid and nobody cares about you.

>It doesn't matter what the founding tenants of our country are
It must really burn your ass that the fedaralist papers exist and that the justices all disagree with you, huh?

>You were arguing against the existence of abstract things
Context is important. I said they don't exist in nature. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

Because to be a "liberal" as so many call them is to understand exactly NOTHING about what this country was founded on, liberty, rights of individuals over groups, private property, independence from over-involved government, etc.

These people have never read the federalist papers, don't know who James Madison is, have never touched anything even tangentially related to philosophy in their pathetic short lives... and make no mistake, they're almost entirely under the age of 25. The older ones are the failures and burnouts that never got past their "revolutionary" stage as young adults. Most of those wormed their ways into universities, and infected the next generation with their hatred for their country and fellow countryman

A good deal of the problem with this is that nobody alive today has experienced the real lack of comfort brought on by things not being guaranteed to you by the comfort of a civilized society BECAUSE of said founding principles.

Do you think a teenager of 13 to 16 would be swayed by marxism or socialism if they understood what real hunger pains felt like? If they understood the burn and indignity of a state agent telling you that they know what's good for you, and you need to shut your mouth before they silence you themselves?

If they had even a single lesson to learn where the top grades in their class were redistributed and given to bottom earners, and averaged out at the top, would they chant for redistribution?
Continued

Attached: Flowers.jpg (800x1145, 114K)

>conservatives don't care about you any more than liberals
Wrong

You've been arguing about the existence and nature of abstract concepts in general, in a thread about a specific. That's an attempt at distraction, not an valid argument. You could have said you don't think X rights should be protected, and given a reason. But you didn't, you started talking about Platonic abstract shit.

>not realizing most -assault- weapons use a .223 cartridge, a very similar caliber to a .22. Just with more grain.

Shall not be infringed, cuck

Attached: 1125030178.jpg (934x1360, 79K)

>asserting a negative
Man you really are talking out of your ass about things you dont understand aren't you?

>so, I guess it's unconstitutional that we can't have machine guns or anti-aircraft guns, right? And yet we can't have those things.
Correct; the 2nd Amendment is indeed infringed upon by the current pile of gun control fecal matter...

>It's almost as if the constitution is open to interpretation and more malleable than you think.
Except it's not, especially the first ten amendments.

>Again, I'll need a source on this.
Google is your friend, kid; there are plenty of documents and quotes specifically explaining this very concept as being the reason the 2nd exists.

>You've been arguing about the existence and nature of abstract concepts in general, in a thread about a specific
That's been a part of my arguments, but I've also addressed specific things related to the law. It was inevitable that the nature of rights would enter into the discussion, and at no point did I move the goalposts or attempt to distract.

The Founders were liberals. You should use a more precise term.

But your point about comfort is correct. It's telling that after the fall of the Iron Curtain, all you heard was horror stories about Communism. But a generation later, some of the younger generation started praising it. The older generation who remembered the horrors would never support, but they were too used to staying silent, so the younger generation either didn't know, or ignore them.

It's similar with Tianamen Square in China. The elder generation remember is with horror,but the younger generation even know about it because anyone who speaks about is thrown in jail.

In both cases, the horrors of a past generation are hidden or forgotten, and the children make the same mistakes.

>The Founders were liberals
Wrong

Do you think a woman would be swayed to chant for open borders if they had ever encountered men who would shamelessly beat and rape them with no remorse? If they had ever felt the terror of understanding that virtually every man they meet refrains from flat out murdering/raping them NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T, but because they are civilized enough to not do so, taught the morality of a person's right to their own body, taught that to infringe on that right is a violation . Israeli women know the value of a border. Women from the Congo know how much a Wall protects them.

What about pain? And not the vague notion of pain felt from a broken bone, pain that has no emotionally charged cause, but true pain caused by another human being? Do you think people would be so quick to scream and cry for compassion for 9th century barbarians if they had any idea of the pain felt by those being quite literally butchered to death with cleavers and knives for their faith by those same barbarians?

Would they want to bring in the Islamic menace if they had read a single passage from a single book by a Christian living in the state of Egypt or Lebanon during the takeover by Islam?

No, the civilized world needs to experience want, and pain, and hunger, and oppression again to understand that the world doesn't *have* to be this comfortable for them. They think the true depth of despair is the seemingly insurmountable student loan they voluntarily took upon themselves, or the abstract knowledge that somewhere, a person is starving to death. They think they know what suffering is, but do they know the pain of a mother getting notice that both her sons have perished in combat? Do they know what feeling a person gets when being told to lick the boot and be thankful for the chance to do so?

Continued

Attached: Madame butterfly roses in a Venetian glass Cecil Kennedy.jpg (1647x2000, 1.18M)

No, you moved the goalposts in our discussion. Though that might have been inadvertent -- I only know your replies, while you also know what you said elsewhere. But it's still not a good argument. Debating the nature of abstract principles is one thing, but it's not really relevant in a discussion about specific abstract principles. It's like trying to apply quantum theory to a vehicle moving down an inclined plane; it's the wrong level.

They're practically the definition of the word, retard.

>I'm all for 2a
No, you're not. You're a motherfucking turncoat.

>but an M14 does not have a collapsible stock, cannot be separated into upper/lower receiver, barrel + accessories and won't readily accept thousands of after-market parts that enhance or improve its function.
>It's not as simple as "hurr durr wood".
Really, kid? Are you seriously this fucking daft!?

YES, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed ALL about configuration and accessories, and NOTHING about efficiency or lethality, and ALL of the legislation to come forward since has been the same copy/paste bullshit as before.

>asserting a negative
My point is, the amendment doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional to outlaw certain weapons.

We're going in circles here. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree.

>the 2nd amendment is indeed infringed upon by the current gun control fecal matter
See: above

>Google is your friend, kid; there are plenty of documents and quotes specifically explaining this very concept as being the reason the 2nd exists
Go ahead and post one source that isn't based on interpretation, kiddo.

Guys play with guns because they are trying to compensate for something. The more guns, and the more dangerous/extravagant/assult-type the gun, the more they are trying to compensate for.

Do you know what I mean?

Shall not be infringed.

It's really clear.

What about women who play with guns?

The world needs to be made less comfortable. We have taken strife away from our children, a resource has never existed more valuable than it. The fuel for competitive fire, rivalry and determination.

You cannot help the caterpillar crawl from its cocoon, or you make it too weak to survive. It must thrash by itself for a time, developing the necessary muscles to thrive on its own, and climb out by itself. To give it aid in this basic task is to doom it before it has the chance to live. It is the very essence of smothering femininity, to do everything for someone until they can do nothing for themselves.

Ironically enough, there are braindead sacks of flesh wasting breath and life that call 21st century America a patriarchy, there has never existed a society that worships the feminine any more than America. Society must "remasculinize" rapidly to even hope to have a chance at life.

Attached: Socialism Shooting.jpg (600x750, 47K)

Because they're bat shit insane

>No, you moved the goalposts in our discussion
Point it out for me

>Debating the nature of abstract principles is one thing, but it's not really relevant in a discussion about specific abstract principles
It's relevant when you're citing concepts in a document as being self-justified simply as a result of being in that document.

Free the nipple

you dumb cunts are a third world country, full of guns and bullshit religion.

would love to visit America but sadly its full of Americans

Lol I'm sorry you're not bright enough to understand the issue here. Have a nice day.

Yes, I agree and that's why I put quotation marks around the word liberals when I typed that, but character limit prevented me from expounding on that when I had nearly an essay of thoughts to write

Modern day "liberals" are just about as illiberal as a person could quite possibly be. The very idea of guns being licensed and controlled by the state is singularly anathema to anything our founding fathers stood for. That alone would draw a person out of classification as liberal, let alone being able to talk themselves through the mental gymnastics required for support of abortion, re-distributive wealth policies, and death/wealth/estate taxes (along with fifty other various money grab taxes)

Attached: Socialism Marxism.png (1784x1766, 284K)

Nice try foreigner. The United States is the center of the world

So edgy. I've read Locke, I've read the Federalist papers, I've dealt with real problems, yet somehow I'm what you would call a liberal. I'm highly successful in my career and have actually become a bit more liberal as I've aged. When I was 10 or 11, I was very libertarian and pro-gun, thinking if everyone had a gun, we'd all be independent and society would work well with maximum liberty. Then as I got older, I realized that was stupid, as stupid as communism (sharing is nice, but humans get greedy). There's not been a single successful libertarian country (for longer than a decade or two) in the modern era. Libertarianism depends on personal responsibility, which humans suck at. Look at you, you're too scared to take personal responsibility for what you're saying and hide behind /b's anonymity.

A complex modern society demands a complex array of policies. If you're smart, you use the right tool for the right job. Capitalism is great for things that depend on the free market, but it sucks for other things. I don't want to use mercenaries for my military. If Canada invades, I don't have the time to get 3 bids for national defense. Instead I use our socialist military.

You seem like you've read some books and done some thinking, but it sounds like you've let others guide your thinking. Here's some things for you to ponder. You claim this country was founded on liberty, rights of individuals over groups, etc. Can you explain how the Three Fifths compromise fits into that? If individuals are more important than groups, etc, why did they create an Electoral College? When the states were ratifying the Constitution, why did they focus on limiting the Federal gov, not the state govs?

It's ironic you're going on about how it burns and costs you your dignity to have a state agent tell you what to do because they know what's good for you while you're telling them what they should do because you know better.

Liberals today are bat shit crazy and totally backwards. They shun anyone who doesn't share their group think

Write a book about it

>Autistic screeching

Five and a half years to go with an absolute meltdown November 3rd 2020 enjoy

Attached: !cryingloserliberal2019.jpg (589x588, 87K)

Attached: 1557985585011.jpg (1200x784, 123K)

Attached: a-foolish-tie-for-a-foolish-man.jpg (1200x668, 92K)

Attached: a-real-monkey.jpg (806x491, 77K)

Attached: a-sign-of-weakness.jpg (1200x699, 76K)

Attached: awreck.jpg (700x554, 46K)

Attached: babboon.jpg (1079x626, 114K)

Attached: C_UFroiVYAA8rMS.jpg (960x653, 141K)

I did, you replied to that post.

And it's not relevant. You don't debate the nature of words when discussing a particular text, you discuss the merits of the text. If you don't think a particular natural right should be a natural right, you should say so rather than arguing about how natural rights are abstract concepts that don't exist.

You shouldn't look down on people who can read, if it's a skill you don't possess.

I tend to call them progressives for that very reason. Big government FDR or LBJ-style liberals had betrayed some of their principles, but still tended to believe in things like freedom of speech. The new generation does not.

The only people chanting "Open Borders" are the pundits on Fox. Look up Strawman Argument, it'll help you understand how you've been manipulated.

What kind of damage do you have where you feel the urge to rape every woman you see but only refrain because you had to be taught morality, that raping is bad? You keep going on about how some cultures are "9th century barbarians," are you talking about the US? Look at all the Yea Forums incels who are constantly egging each other on about how much they hate women (while desperate for one to pay attention to them). I love our country, but we've done some very wrong things. We locked up citizens in internment camps, denied them their Constitutional rights because of racist vague fears. We dropped napalm on civilians in Viet Nam. According to FBI stats, one out of every three American woman will be sexually assaulted over the course of her life. That means statistically, between your mom and two grandmothers, one of them likely was assaulted, yet you're too busy fantasizing about how gritty you are and know 'true suffering to do the hard work of actually changing society's attitude about sexual assault, etc. I assume you approve of Trump (talk about a guy born into privilege with no understanding of doing without). I bet you don't give a crap about how he bragged on air with Stern about walking in on teens in his pageants while they were half naked simply because he owned the pageant and no one had the balls to stand up to him.

You claim to be high and mighty, but the way you talk, about the lack of civilization in other cultures and the need for them to endure suffering sounds almost straight out of ISIS's recruiting propaganda.

is it fuck! rather go for a nice midnight stroll in Hong Kong tonight

Different user, but the 3/5th compromise was exactly that: A compromise, between the more liberal types who believed in the Enlightenment principles, and practical realities. Some of which were represented by the Founders, others of which were included simply to get public support for the document.

Voting isn't about individual rights, that was the province of the bill of rights. No, the Founders were quite aware of the tyranny of the masses, and felt the need to protect against them. And the electoral college in specific was partially a way of grouping ballots into convenient batches so they could be easily counted and recounted in a pre-electronic society; and it was partially support for federalism and decentralization of power.

You sound entitled. Go home Kyle.

>Can you explain how the Three Fifths compromise fits into that

Political maneuvering and the original version of of what's being done right now with Mexicans being shoveled in by the left by the bucketload as fast as possible. Parties wanted votes, and the party supporting slavery got a concession of their own in exchange for allowing slaves to be considered citizens for tax and population purposes.

>

Not everything has to fit perfectly for my claim to be true, by the way. I'm also not going to defend libertarianism, ancap/anarchism, or pure unfettered capitalism. I don't claim that our police force would be better left to the whims of McDonalds and its shareholders (although...), I claim that capitalism is the best tool we have by any measure, in nearly every frontier we've reached, and the only people that question that are the ones that quite literally have never experienced life when not under the umbrella of a successful, peaceful, capitalist society.'

>why did they create an Electoral College?

??? You say you've read on these issues, but haven't read apparently the literal essays worth of justification on this topic?

"Madison’s fear was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” "

The founders, or at least some, understood that, exactly as is happening right now, a good portion of our country would quite possibly be perfectly willing to give up rights on behalf of their fellow citizens who want nothing of the sort. Right now, NY, TX, and CA would control the whole direction of the country if not for the Electoral college. Why do you think Mexicans are being shoveled into Texas? Free democrat votes.

Continued

Attached: This is not it chief pipe.jpg (960x668, 33K)

>I did, you replied to that post
Refresh my memory. You scared?

>You don't debate the nature of words when discussing a particular text, you discuss the merits of the text
You still don't get it. You were implying that a right is natural and inalienable simply because it's in the constitution. This is where things took a turn towards a more abstract level, and I responded accordingly.

>one out of every three American woman will be sexually assaulted over the course of her life.

Where are you even coming from to think this is true? Reddit?

How can I take you seriously when you think 33% of American women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime? That's so blatantly provably wrong that I can't imagine anything else you say is going to be worth reading or responding to. Even typing this out was purposeless.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2015-05-02-at-6.05.57-PM.png (1206x900, 579K)

Why would I scared of someone who can't remember a few posts back? And I didn't imply it was natural and inalienable because it was in the Constitution, I said the exact opposite, that the legal rights in the Constitution supported and affirmed a natural right .

>It's ironic you're going on about how it burns and costs you your dignity to have a state agent tell you what to do because they know what's good for you while you're telling them what they should do because you know better.

I won't insult your intelligence by saying you don't understand my comment, or re-explain what I meant. You know very well I'm not saying "I'm the tyrant you need to listen to! not that one!". I'm saying those that wish to control others lives through politics have no right, and are largely ignorant of what they screech in support of.

Because they, much like their conservative counterparts, exist primarily within an echo-chamber of ideas. All of their friends, family, etc. are in agreement with them and they constantly parrot the same narrative to eachother to the point that even hearing an opposing viewpoint causes them psychological discomfort. Then they purge the opposing viewpoint from their echo-chamber and continue on repeating the same old tired, irrational bullshit so they can get patted on the back by other mindless drones who agree with them.

They like guys with big dicks. So, there goes your "shot".

Every mass shooter that committed their mass shooting in the name of political ideology is right wing. Read the manifestos. They spout the exact same narrative that fox news does every day

>Read the manifestos
You might wanna take your own advice there champ. The El Paso shooter was a leftist.

99.44% off female suicides are big guns going off during masturbation

oh hey it's you again. you're that schizo who posts these "long tie" trump shops. hope that brain parasite crawls out soon without taking too much with it, but it's probably too late. cheers!

>why would I scared of someone who can't remember a few posts back?
Oh, that. Yeah, I explained why your claims were inaccurate.

>I said the exact opposite, that the legal rights in the Constitution supported and affirmed a natural right
That's not the opposite at all. It's precisely what I said you were implying. Your mental gymnastics game needs work.

That'll teach em

>yfw he didn't have a manifesto and stated no motive

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 18K)

I said
>by being part of the Constitution, it's a right. A legal right, supporting a natural right.
You said I said
>You were implying that a right is natural and inalienable simply because it's in the constitution

That's literally the exact opposite.

Seriously kid, go read it. It's only 4 pages, it's not that long.

>by being part of the Constitution, it's a right. A legal right, supporting a natural right
In constitution = right = a natural right. What am I not getting here?

You missed the supporting. I said the Constitution is supporting a natural right with legal rights. Natural rights don't exist because there's a corresponding legal right in the Constitution, the Constitution is just a way of protecting natural rights.

Just read it. It's blatantly anti-leftist. You're retarded.

>Anti-leftist

Oh yeah which part?

Attached: GUNZ.png (859x274, 53K)

>I said the constitution is supporting a natural right with legal rights
That doesn't make any sense. If natural rights dont exist outside of our imaginations and in documents, then how could they be supported by anything? Think harder.

You seem to have problems reading, you should get that checked.

We create things to support abstract principles. We create laws to support abstract principles. Both these apply.

The part about being anti-immigration and how the Democratic party is going to take over the US dummy.

Btw, my main problem here is the word "natural". Natural implies that it exists in nature -- that these rights are God given.

Yes, the law supports rights, but those rights aren't truly inalienable.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It is a provision for resisting a tyranical government, with whatever means needed.

See: >we create things to support abstract principles. Yes, and those abstract principles are subjective and therefore subject to change -- "natural" implies otherwise.

Natural rights doesn't mean they have a physical existence somewhere, that's an absolutely stupid argument you're making.

The Founders often argued that they're God given, but that's a sop to the prevailing religion and isn't essntial to the concept.

This is why nobody wants to argue with you. You don't address issues, or move the argument forward. You obsess over trivialities and try to revert everything to first principles.

See

>natural rights doesn't mean they have a physical existence somewhere, that's an absolutely stupid argument you're making
Why add the word "natural"? Why not just call them rights? Words matter.

>this is why nobody wants to argue with you
Funny, that's all anyone has been doing for the past few hours. I've had countless replies since we've been bickering and I've chosen not to answer because I've already addressed the arguments and would prefer not to rehash things.

>You don't address issues, or move the argument forward. You obsess over trivialities and try to revert everything to first principles.
You're the one who's been obsessing over the trivial issue. The only reason we're bickering about this right now is because you thought I was moving the goalposts when I addressed your claim about natural rights.

You missed the point. The guy who thinks everything the founders did was based on the right of the individual ignores how some of his idols thought of people forced into slavery didn't have rights as individuals, that they themselves were to be considered private property, and are the epitome of using the power of the government to trample the rights of the individual.

Capitalism IS great, it's a great tool, like a screwdriver is a great tool, but I'm not going to try to fix a car only using a screwdriver. Anyone who uses the boogeyman of "but socialism!!1!1" is either a simplistic thinker or has been suckered in by those who use that cry to distract voters from other issues like the redistribution of wealth from individuals to corporations (like why do we directly give tens of billions a year to oil companies to help them find oil if they're such pinnacles of capitalism and profitability?)

Again, the Electoral College shows that the founders weren't all about the rights of the individual over the government. Because of the Electoral College, a voter in S Dakota counts as more than 4 voters in California (gosh, how democratic!) It also means only 'swing states' really need to be paid attention to, which is why Iowa keeps getting bribed with farm welfare, sorry, "subsidies." You whine about Ca controlling things? You realize over 10 million conservative voters in Ca are denied the chance to influence the Presidential race?

You're also blinded by your racism against people from South America. Since they're typically Catholic and very family oriented, they'd be inclined to be traditional conservative voters. The GOP, still following Nixon's Southern Strategy, however are focused on appealing to racism to distract Conservative voters. Bush II proposed a compromise to fix the immigration system, etc but was stopped by his own party since that would rob them of a boogey man they could rely on to get their voters to go against their own self interest.

>Why add the word "natural"? Why not just call them rights? Words matter.
Because that's the term. They're called natural rights, and have been called natural rights all the way back to Locke and before.

It's the correct usage of the word. If you think it's an inaccurate phrase, then the proper way to handle that is to state that as an aside, and use another term. Instead, you're trying to derail the conversation.

This is why you never have substantive conversations.

>Anyone who uses the boogeyman of "but socialism!!1!1" is either a simplistic thinker or has been suckered in by those who use that cry to distract voters
Not really. Plenty of people use the term to stake out relative positions, i.e. someone prefers more things to be managed by the state while the other prefers more free enterprise, while still being within the normal spectrum in Western democracies. It's the people who claim both terms are always used an absolutist sense, like you, that make it hard to talk.

>Because that's the term. They're called natural rights, and have been called natural rights all the way back to Locke and before
Ok, and I'm pointing out why it's dumb. They're not inalienable, they're not natural, and they're not God given.

>It's the correct usage of the word
It's 2 words. It's a concept. Natural + rights = natural rights = rights that are intrinsic and can't be taken away = WRONG

This needs to be addressed given how many morons itt seem to think "it's unconstitutional" is an airtight argument. I've also addressed why I think it's NOT unconstitutional to ban certain weapon -- and I've addressed why I think it may or may not be wise to do that.

Again, you're just trying to revert everything back to first principles and have very simplistic arguments over established dictionary definitions, and creating strawmen with broad sweeping claims about groups of people nd what they believe, instead of being up anything interesting.

Natural rights are important. They're the most fundamental expression of human dignity, and the Constitution, especially the bill of rights, enshrines some of those principles into law, not the other way around as you keep falsely insisting other people have been claiming.

>instead of bringing up

The various studies will generate different numbers, but here's one from the CDC that puts the percentage at 27.3% cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm
This one breaks things down a bit more, putting the percentage of women being raped at 19% and otherwise being subjected to "sexual violence" (imagine some guy groping your mother's breasts against her will) at 44% ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_SexualViolence_508_QC.pdf

Just because you don't like information doesn't make that information wrong. Again, based on stats, your mom or one of your grandmothers got assaulted, and rather than doing something about it like a man, you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it's not true because doing something is hard.

Before you go on about it's those durned ___ (fill in the ethnicity you hate the most), that second link says that only ~10% of the rapes are 'stranger rapes.'

god still loves you user. he still loves hillary even though she likely had someone killed

inb4 trumpshits or rent f-reeee

I think we can all agree that no matter how hard some people stamp their feet and pout the second amendment isn't going away any time soon

>are largely ignorant of what they screech in support of.

Yes, you are ignorant of what you're screeching in support of as I demonstrated before.

You missed the point. I love capitalism, it's helped me make a decent amount of money while working in a field that doesn't directly pay a lot of money. All of the people in this thread, however, who label anything they don't like as "socialism" and anything that is genuinely socialist as bad while saying "U MUST SUPPORT THE POLICE" (a socialist institution), etc are simplistic thinkers and/or have been suckered in by political marketing

>again, you're just trying to revert everything back to first principles and have very simplistic arguments over established dictionary definitions
I'm not trying to "revert" back to anything. This is the issue we've been discussing for the past hour and a half.

>creating strawmen
You used the terms inalienable and natural, and I expressed my problems with your logic based on the terms that you were using as they relate to laws and rights. There was no strawman.

>Natural rights are important
Rights are important

>enshrines some of those principles into law, not the other way around as you keep falsely insisting other people have been claiming
See, the problem here is that you've been flopping around like a fish out of water for the past hour and a half because you're a pugnacious twat who can't admit when he's wrong. You say I'm the one who's focused on a trivial issue, but you can't simply concede the FACT that my logic has been sound throughout our bickering session.

They had just fought a horrific war against a tyranical government. The 2nd is so we have local militias apart from the government's standing army so that tyranny does not return. If you cant see that, especially given the context of the situation in which it was writen, your either wilfully ignorant or actually brainwashed because no one can be that stupid and have the right number of chromosomes.

>You used the terms inalienable and natural, and I expressed my problems with your logic based on the terms that you were using as they relate to laws and rights. There was no strawman.

God given rights works regardless of what you do/don't believe in.

Attached: DpQ9YJl.png (700x700, 21K)

Libtards btfo

Attached: 745EE37E-76E0-4A5B-9C42-F0214D7D5715.jpg (1200x1200, 142K)

And get killed by Chinese solders. No thanks. They're in a civil war right now fuck wit.

>2029
>2A still exists even after more media highlighted mass shootings
>2039
>"buh u don't have a right to bear lazers!"
>2049
>UK finally goes through with brexit and adopts its own right to bear arms
>2059
>2A is repealed, socialism is in total control of the entire american continent
>"21'st Century Your Way VR: North America edition"
>3019
>Yea Forums still exists and people still post politics threads outside of /pol/

>They had just fought a horrific war against a tyranical government
Yes, and there was the fear that Britain (or any other country) could attack again, and they would be at a disadvantage without a standing army.

Alas, we can only speculate as to what exactly they intended.

Why can't liberals AND cuckservatives see past their own narratives? Both sides are insufferable cunts

>God given rights works regardless of what you do/don't believe in
Oh, they "work"? You really are a moron.

>Oh, they "work"? You really are a moron.
that all you got?

-Mikhael Chang-enbladt

Pandora's box is open. There are more firearms on the planet then people. Laws have yet to stop a determined killer. So knowing that there will always be people willing to take what they want by force. Are you willing to give up your rights and be defenseless to those who won't?

What's the significance of a long tie? Why is that shameful on his part?

>My point is, the amendment doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional to outlaw certain weapons.
And our point is that it does...

its almost as if growing up in REAL poverty with no access to education, no access to healthcare and about 0 ways out causes people to say fuck it. hm.

You get out what you put in. What do you even mean by that? Do you mean we should BELIEVE that rights are God given? Do you mean that we should act AS IF rights are God given?

Btw, I wanted to review our conversation to make sure I didn't engage in any of the logical fallacies that you accused me of, and I think I identified what the confusion was about.

Early on, I said...
>and I'll say it again: even if it did, that doesn't make it right
I think you may have misread this as "A right". When I said, "that doesn't make it right", I meant, "that doesn't necessarily justify it".

I still would have had a problem with the "natural" part (especially when combined with that stupid comic), but I probably would have just agreed that the constitution makes it A right. I just didn't notice that you misread.

I love it when burgers try to educate the rest of the free world about gun laws and health insurance.

Yeah, it would be like Germany lecturing us on Islamophobia or Sweden lecturing us on the dangers of cuck porn.

Please Americans, keep killing yourselves with guns you won't ban because of a poorly worded document. Its hilarious.

Lol, who ever portrayed Elliot as white? He bitched aboit being Asian so much that I'm pretty sure it would be hard to overlook.

You have been visited by Laura the Riveter.

Come on anons, you c-can do it! D-don't let the thread die now!

Attached: Laura.png (114x242, 64K)

Serious question has anyone noticed how most mass shooters are mixed race?

I like that he has the che shirt.
This is basically anti-left.