Which part of that exactly do libcucks fail to comprehend? Guns are here to stay you bunch of catamite anal retentions

Attached: 2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif (827x628, 44K)

I want my Exocets.

>well regulated

So if guns were well-regulated back when the founding fathers, then how so? They had just won a revolutionary war with muskets against the British with muskets. How were they regulated?

The biggest problem with their logic is that they want to take rights away from millions of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens because of the actions of criminals.

Often they cite how many hundreds of millions of guns are in the United States and then in the next breath they cite less than ten thousand gun-related fatalities as a strong reason for taking all guns away. Sure, they say "assault rifles" are their focus, but automatic rifles don't even represent 1% of gun-related crime. It's clear they just see automatic firearms as low-hanging fruit and an easy opportunity to take away more rights. Most of the gun-related crimes (by a great majority) happen in cities like Baltimore, Memphis, St. Louis, Oakland and New Orleans and are committed using illegally obtained handguns. It seems like politicians don't really care about inner-city violence and are more interested in punishing innocent people.

Access to weapons/arms is already restricted and it's not a violation if the 2nd amendment. Are you suggesting that civilians should be allowed to buy hand grenades with no regulation? That nuclear devices should be available to the general population? No obviously you aren't because that would be ridiculous. Just like claiming allowing people to own certain arms if reasonable conditions are met is 'infringing''.

There is no requirement that an assault rifle be automatic. Just select fire. The AR15 has two fire positions and is therefore select fire. Fire and safe. Fire one bullet, fire zero bullets.

They said the same thing about slaves.

Then everyone grew up

Guns are for cowards and sissy's

Only white male landowners could vote then you retard. Who gives a shit what they meant.

Of course, no one is going to argue to the addition of rights. The idea is that they don't want what they currently have to be taken away.

Your analogy about hand grenades would be akin to telling a person who's never seen a television before that you're cancelling their Hulu subscription.

>Who gives a shit what they meant.

Apparently you did here

Agreed. Real men step up and settle shit with their fists.

Faggots stand back and point boom sticks.

I consider hand grenades "arms". Denying my access to them is infringing my right to bear arms and therefore against the second amendment.

Do you think one person other than you posts here?

if we are gonna enforce the constitution as written with no interpretation, nuclear weapons should be available to the general public

Rill

I see. Well I'm sure your consideration will be considered in the highest regard.

I demand my right to set land mines in my garden and claymores at my front door.

To protect myself of course.

Why are we enforcing it with no interpretation? It was written some time ago. I think it needs some interpretation.

Shall not be infringed clearly implies this is perfectly your right.

It's called projecting.

Obviously lol. The retards saying the second amendment somehow precludes restriction are dumb as shit.

Within 10 years:

There will be an outright ban on automatic weapons like the AR15 including any modifications that could make any weapon an automatic.

Limit on Clip sizes.

National Licensing of Firearm and ammunition permits.

Any criminal charge or psychological background including young offender charges will prevent the purchase of firearms.

Age restrictions under 21.

But yes there will still be guns.

Yeah they can have all the fun in the world trying to accomplish that. There are literally millions of people ready to greet these government fucks with bullets of their own. Even that dumb nigger Hussein would not risk what would either be another civil war or a decimation of quite a bit of the population. Either way the US will screw itself hard in the bunghole if they tried to take away the guns, setting up the perfect scenario for Russia and China to come and anally punish them.

Timestamp a pick of your big juicy cock then, ol three inches

Consider a superior alternative

Attached: crate.jpg (650x697, 75K)

Even noted neoliberal right if center president Obama didn't take their guns! Wow huge surprise there. Who passed the Brady bill?

Shall not be infringed, if I have the money to maintain a nuke I should be able to have one. Also you can buy explosives, with the right paperwork.

I sincerely hope youre never in a situation where you have to defend your life.

Lol gay

Attached: gun control fag 19.jpg (1076x1401, 700K)

>Only white male landowners could vote then you retard. Who gives a shit what they meant.
We all should give a shit about it you failure of evolution. USA would be a better place if voting rights were still like that.

Look at the first amendment language. Are you saying only certain people should be allowed to speak or peaceably assemble?

It's the exact same language.

This is perfectly legal in some states lol. You will likely need an explosives license or something but yes you can unironically do that.

Paperwork is infringement. Having money to maintain a weapon is infringement. I thought you supported the 2nd amendment.

Because only a fucking cuck would "intrepet" this in such a way that we all agree we're allowed every weapon except sometimes the Government can decide there are weapons we can't have.

>Any criminal charge or psychological background including young offender charges will prevent the purchase of firearms.
Simply amending the constitution to say no firearms for niggers would solve fucking everything

Then I could vote and you could not lol. That's what you want?

Well, the definition of "infringed" implies that a law is set and afterward there can be no backsliding. It makes no case for what those specific laws shall be, but opens the door for the people to make the rules going forward.

It's a pretty long way from hand grenades and nuclear weapons, I'd think. It does, however, insinuate that we should not take existing rights away from people. Further, I see no reason at all to take existing rights from citizens based on the evidence provided in relation to gun crimes. If we still wish to embrace logic, it seems like a long shot.

Grenades are illegal in all states for the general public. Licensing requirements are infringement.

Attached: implication.jpg (1280x731, 173K)

I do own some property so yeah I could vote.
Mines are not surprisingly enough

It either means zero restriction or some restriction. It cannot mean both. If it means some restriction, it does not indicate at all where that restriction should lie. Sensible firearm restriction is entirely on the table and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not.

They absolutely are.

You're right, I believe the NFA is an infringement of 2A. Your "argument" kinda dies on the money part, you just sound like a bitter bitch, government doesn't have anything to do with me buying ammo or the cleaning fluids I use.

Attached: 1537851549645.jpg (1118x640, 65K)

The number of legally owned guns in Australia has increased, not decreased.

Exploding munitions existed at the time the constitution was written. To restrict access to them at all is infringement of the right to bear arms.

Attached: 1516526914027.jpg (713x249, 42K)

So you also believe that nuclear weapons and hand grenades are 'arms' and access to them 'shall not be infringed'. Ok. That's an insane reading of the 2A

Attached: 1519674194144.jpg (612x792, 450K)

imma laugh my faggot ass off when u get drunk and depressed and shoot yourself

Got any stats on milk crate ownership?

13digitfilename.jpg?
13digitfilename.jpg.

But that's simply not true. Nowhere does the word "infringe" mean that.

One definition says:

"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)."

Another one says:

"act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on."

It's not an either/or thing because it doesn't describe specifically what those rights are or should be. Since there's no precedent for hand grenades or nuclear weapons, that's a no-brainer.

Lol no you don't

tfw nobody in this thread has heard about amending the constitution. The 2nd will be a thing of a dumb past not soon enough. Like this law was written during a time when the most powerful gun available to a common person was a single shot musket.

Liar

Trumptard

The NFA is an infringement. While I think automatic weapons are stupid for reasons that they attract stupid people, the basis for the ban on automatic weapons was based on lies.

The basis was criminals using full auto rifles. It happened. criminals used full auto rifles. The problem is they were stolen from police and not bought legally. So the laws preventing people from buying or owing them didn't address the crimes or the criminals.

Encroach on the right to bear arms = legally restrict access to. Isn't that what this thread is about?

>retarded hemming and hawing to justify an indefensible position

I don't get how the government thinks they can take them when they haven't earned the people's trust enough to do so. Distrust of government is a primary feature of our culture on both sides of the aisle, so to be anti-gun makes Democrats look like they have an alternate agenda. You guys always say they'll just drone strike us but they're not going to ask the military to attack the citizenry they're drawn from to any great degree, also those strikes cost a lot of money they can't just do a millio, you can't drone strike every punk who has a black rifle. It's about numbers, right now resistance is small but significant resistance has happened a lot historically and would be a disaster for the understaffed, underfunded police departments that would actually be allowed to respond. Hell, the army is underfunded, people buy their own body armor - also you can't buy that armor if you aren't in the army. Funny, isn't it? They want the guns but the armor too, it's all about ease of suppression. The AR-15 the dems obsess over is primarily good at siege standoff shit, like you just saw in Philly? Exactly what that gun is for, dug-in-warfighting though is great for legit hunting too (animal didn't die because you missed the haunch? shoot again fast, no suffering animal, no lengthy hunt, no Starks being gored to death by a boar).

Also uh, reality check, you're not reclaiming 390,000,000 guns in any kind of a hurry. You're not even going to get to 30% in 10 years even if you do full disarm laws and armed raids to search. The value of guns would explode and they would start to come over the border with the Fentanyl, like, whatever sells to the gringo, right? This will turn into the perfect excuse to villainize Mexico and cut it off, ironically getting the wall built even if it's real cost of 1tril+ is revealed to the public. Oh, and millions would die during reclamation efforts because of our majority pro-gun culture, so go on, shoot yourselves in the foot.

Attached: i7kYTlW.jpg (720x551, 34K)

Bullshit.

Background checks, universal.

Ban assault weapons

No large capacity magazines

Isn't "It's the law!" a pretty bad argument against those who want to change the law?

Hahahaha great point

A properly functioning militia? Do you think sitting on your ass in your house stroking your gun is part of that definition?

My position is quite defensible. In fact, my position is the one that will win out in the end because it's built on logic and not your desire to blow up your trailer park because your cousin-uncle Cletus drank up all your Mountain Dew after the Monster Truck Jamboree.

This plan would prevent perhaps 2-3% of gun violence. The math says you need to get blickies away from inner city blacks and you just don't give a fuck what math says, do you? You want the police to be able to raid with impunity and without fear. You are genuinely a fascist, I hope you understand that.

Attached: 1565765238949.jpg (562x380, 23K)

Trust? No. You don't need trust when you have the use of force at your disposal. And the second amendment is a limit on the use of force.

In situations where the government thinks you may have weapons, you will notice the over-the-top use of force applied and the frequently disastrous results. (SWAT teams attack the wrong houses and people for example)

Change my ass. SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

Attached: fuck off.jpg (3989x2659, 1.38M)

Only if you know what the definition is. Do you? Punk?

Certainly. But it doesn't say anything about you being able to own any explosive weapon you want. It just says that you can own arms. And you can. But if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath on being able to purchase hand grenades at the Circle K anytime soon.

>numbers from nowhere?
>niggers?
>fascist?
13digitfilename.png baby

Hey orange man good? Triggered? Repeating yourself loser and louder??? lol

I'm not even american, I don't give a fuck if you all shoot eachother. I'm just pointing out that arguing against a change in the law, with the fact that the law is different today, is retarded.

You need construct some ethical or logical argument for your cause. "It's the law!" is neither.

Ah so like you could own a hunting rifle and a pistol or maybe one AR 15 and two mags? Maybe you need to wait a year before you actually get it? Yeah that seems reasonable.

>"It's the law!" is neither.
It is both tbh

How the fuck does a 'background check' stop a depressed kid from stealing his dad's rifle and shooting up his classroom or a mall?

Hey can post count guy get in here and say something about the number of unique posters itt? It's really what we're missing XD

>There will be an outright ban on automatic weapons like the AR15 including any modifications that could make any weapon an automatic.

Buddy, this is already a thing. Where the fuck have you been?

Easy, have the background check include relatives and close friends. Japan does that. So if you have a potentially psychopathic son in your home, no point-and-shootys for you nigger.

That would be a good reason to imprison the dad. You shouldn't provide access to your weapons to anyone else.

I guess it depends on what state you live in. I can get all that in two days if I wanted to. Ultimately, that's decided by elected officials. But as I stated earlier, I don't see a logical case to be made for inflicting a one year waiting period on firearms.

Consequently, Japan's firearm homicide rate is one in ten million.

So for every school shooting, dad goes to jail?

Wow

>inflicting
lol it's not painful to wait a year for a gun

No. Something being a law doesn't necessitate it being ethical or logical. Abiding by the law might be ethical (and perhaps logical), but that says nothing about the law itself. There could (very hypothetically) be a law to punch babies, however that would hardly be ethical, and not really logical either.

Let me help you: An ethical argument for guns could be that the many should not be collectively punished for the crimes of the few, and as such, the majority of gun owners should not be punished because of a few idiots.

If someone uses your gun to kill someone you should also go to jail. Yes.

Ya know, you used to just be able to buy dynamite at farmer supply stores? No problem. Also the cost for a nuke is so high they'd be out of most people's reach

Love that compassion y'all talk about on the left. Good shit my dude.

If you believe they thought small arms would not go past muskets you are actually dumb. Sorry dooder

NFA was also created so if they catch a suspected moonshiner/runner but couldnt prove him of a crime pertaining to alcohol they could get them on these sweet new laws about illegal weapons they just made.

>unibersal background check
Won't stop anything, I can make a gun in my bedroom with no background check, plus its already illegal to sell a gun to a person with a criminal record
>ban assault weapons
As proposed now that would ban every semi auto. Plus youre not getting rid of the ar15, theres more in civilian hands than in military and police hands
>no large cap magazines
Useless, reload time of a smaller mag has little difference in the amount of ammunition shot
On top of all that, I've not broken the law, nor have millions and millions of other americans. Government cant take a person's right without due process.

Any able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the second class of militia, (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of thenational guardor the Naval Militia. 10 U.S. Code §246.

It doesn't but its easier to scream about that and try to change it than get to the root of the problem. Benigin neglect.

Bud, full autos have been illegal to just buy at a store and take home since the 30s, and you can't get anything made past 1986

If the dad was a moron and provided easy access to a gun while raising a mental case of a kid then yes, the dad should be held accountable.

Yeah. If you're too fucking dumb to lock your firearms properly, you shouldn't have them.

I moved out 6 years ago, and my old man still won't tell me the code to his safe or where he stores other firearms/ammunition/magazines.

>There could (very hypothetically) be a law to punch babies
Then we should punch babies. What is there so hard to understand? Laws exist to be followed no matter what they say. Otherwise there would be anarchy and you would not like that unless you are a 14 year old mope.

Prob because he doesn't trust his son

It is far from impossible to secure guns. Maybe gun owners should be required to install large safes secured to their dwellings and keep their guns in there.

Yes, we seem to be having a problem with definitions in this thread.

inflict: impose something unwelcome on.

To ask anyone who pays for anything to wait a year after purchase to receive their item would be a bit unwelcome imo.

Because he is a responsible gun owner. He will never shoot anyone and understands the danger of a gun.

Why don't you want regulation? Last assault rifle ban saw the prices skyrocket. You would have mad an actual investment and have an easy way to make some cash in a bad situation. Plus increased cost keeps the guns out of the hands of bad guys. Win win for the gin owner. Nobody is coming to take your guns. Why let the crazies do so much damage for a small price?
P.S. My kids shouldn't have to do active shooter drills in school.

Ok, are you slow? In the same fucking post I said that abiding by the law might be ethical, but that doesn't make each individual law ethical. And agitating for a change of a certain law could be both ethical and logical.

The law are rules we set up collectively for each-other. It is not God given! It is open to change, which is what we elect politicians for.

Attached: Guns_were_less_lethal.png (960x767, 872K)

Ok order a limited edition Porsche. See when you get it. In two years. It's not unwelcome at all. It seems like if you really want a gun so bad you would be able to wait. You could order it on your 20th birthday and have it there on your 21st. You guys are all so fucking histrionic though.

>less than ten thousand gun-related
nah bro just check the cdc
guns a solid choice for an hero, then also homicides.

the idea is to put some restrictions out there, make the least bit difficult, an extra hoop to jump, to deter the average nut job from being able to acquire, while barely inconveniencing the law-abiding gun purchasers.

that's why it's termed common-sense laws. you don't want the nutjob driving a hazard-load semi truck or doing air traffic control.

im a gun owner, and i don't look forward to it being more annoying to buy shit for my ar's, but if it helps reduce people fucking shooting children or church-goers who aren't hurting anyone, im ok with it

Exactly. If you're not responsible, you shouldn't be able to get any. Its pretty simple.

Nah, its called common sense. If you have guns, you shouldn't let anyone have access to them. Period. That's why he doesn't know the code to my safes either. Not that I don't trust him, its just common fucking sense.

Attached: 1520034001686.jpg (997x802, 236K)

Attached: 1523939538550.gif (741x1029, 103K)

>cost for a nuke is so high they'd be out of most people's reach
literally allowing only the rich to be able be properly armed, rendering firearms useless. at that point the second amendment protecting you against government just allowed for the oligarchs to take over said government

Itt -
>Most shooting guns are stolen anyway! No law abiding gun owner shoots people!
>No I shouldn't have to keep my stuff in a safe and I should be allowed to give it to whoever and leave it laying around!
Very very unrelated.

13digitfilename.jpg?

Attached: 1540682854943.jpg (496x449, 67K)

samefag

Thirteen_digits_rename.gif

lol this is so dumb. guns would've saved none of those groups.

Government is already an oligarchy. If a rich man wants a nuke he can get it.

Shit dude, you're a genius.

And he should be able to under the second amendment.

Post the ones about the Jews, boomer. They're so funny! ( ՞ਊ ՞)

cowards and sissy's [sic] beat (or worse) women, children, the handicapped and the elderly. Guns level the playing field.

Want a gun control bill? Here's one: For one week the US Gov't will accept confiscated firearms for immediate destruction. Only civilians in support of stricter gun control may attempt confiscation. They will not receive the support of the military nor police forces.
Following that week there will be no further gun legislation that doesn't aid in the restoration of previously lost gun rights.

He already can, he just needs to grease some palms.

Attached: Garywebb_b3ab92_6940485.jpg (1200x1582, 320K)

>galaxy brain tier jokes

.

Attached: 1557053361000-3.jpg (2021x1825, 771K)

And it should be legal under the second amendment. Terrorists should be allowed to buy nuclear weapons.

>that projection
>that lack of understanding
hope this is bait for your sake, everyone has the right to defend themselves.

Do you really think stereotypes are a reliable means of reasoning? Even in the culture you claim exists I see no reason outliers would not exist.

Because of the number of illegally obtained or retained firearms involved in crime, essentially it's huge. Gun grabbing some black rifles won't do much to keep gangsters from killing each other with extremely cheap handguns they throw in the river after they've shot someone because getting rid of the murder weapon is a great move. I could get a handgun in .40 legally right now for less than $200 bucks, it's just that it would last less than six months of real use, the expenditure only makes sense if you intend to throw it out in less than a year.

Meanwhile all suggested gun policy is aimed at removing rarely owned guns and gear which are almost never involved in crime because they would be useful in resisting the police in a militia-on-police situation. You claim to be a leftist but you're basically shilling for a part of the government you already claim is racist, corrupt and otherwise malign.

You're just trying to disarm people you think are dissidents because that's what commies do.

Attached: 1565561469480.jpg (608x758, 115K)

Tl;dr 13digitfilename.jpg

So in the past they used this argument to enslave, oppress and kill groups of people? This argument is not about gun control but about groups of people using excuses like a criminality and other dangerous ethic stereotypes to do others harm. They could and have used other more effective reasons for oppressing people like nationalistic and religious excuses. Taking away guns from the people has no impact on how the government can control you, the small arms most people own does little to nothing to the US army. Voting does, just look at Trump.

Nah people are suggesting locking up guns as a requirement. Your point is invalid.

you are dumb as fuck if you think 200+ million AK-47's and hundreds of millions of other small and large caliber bullet weapons can be confiscated lol

Not as dumb as you for biting that hook!

So you want to put your life and freedom into the hands of politicians because reasons?

what you inbred pieces of shit dont seem to understand libs are better with guns then u.

Attached: 1425305977312.gif (282x257, 1.8M)

Do you think politicians do not CURRENTLY have your life and freedom in their hands? That's why we vote for them. To lookout for our lives and freedoms.

you guys will be slaves if you give up your arms
>clips
Are we talking about WWII era rifles?
This
the second amendment is for every American, making it a partisan issue is what the tyrants in Washington want.

>Do you really think stereotypes are a reliable means of reasoning?
yes?

>Do you think politicians do not CURRENTLY have your life and freedom in their hands?
I know they hold a lot of power over our lives, that is why I refuse to give up more ground to their greedy hands. The way I vote and discuss with peers is in the interest of gaining more freedom.

Attached: 1523823061970.jpg (1200x849, 257K)

If you own a gun, it's because you have an issue with your penis. It's probably about an inch or two too small from what you think it should be, so you decide to get one. Oh you tell yourself it's for home defense, it's for your own protection. But secretly you know you like that hard, thick, long piece of metal that you know will spit out something dangerous to whatever you point it at.

Or maybe you had that interesting experience once when you were 10 with another boy that made you think, hmm, I need to get rid of this latent homosexuality and since I see all these macho soldiers on my favorite movies, they have guns, I should get one too!

If you are a woman with a rifle, you're clearly projecting the lack of your significant other from having a penis that can satisfy you. It's such an easy diagnosis. You can't have that giant piece of manly steel on a regular basis, so you buy a rifle and go to the range and that substitutes from what you can't get at home.

It's okay, but really, don't hide behind the 2nd Amendment. Just take your penis issues and speak with a therapist about it. Guys with small dicks - or women stuck with a guy who has a small dick - can still have decent love lives. It takes some practice, and some effort - probably something you're not used to - but with a few years of work, you can be as sexually gratified as someone who doesn't own a firearm.

You just don't really need to buy a firearm to make up for it.

Attached: deadpool-ver9-11e99.jpg (575x414, 94K)

This

Also, why does it seems there's a mass shooting every other week in the US?, are y'all OK with that kind of Nigeria kind of shit happening to your fellow Americans? (not saying because of this people shouldn't be able to buy guns, but y'all seem to defend the fact that even retarded people can buy an assault rifle)

>tfw more guns than people in USA
>top jej

If you think that by giving up on guns the government will automatically enslave you then that speaks a lot about how Americans perceive their government.... (didn't y'all love Trump?....)

Cool story, kiddo!

>that speaks a lot about how Americans perceive their government
it's almost as if the nation was literally founded by a bunch of people who hated the fucking government meddling in their shit.

pinkpistols.org/

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

+
My penis is so tiny I have to put pepper on it to catch it when It sneezes.

But i dont have a firearm.

>Checkmate, I win the game.

Attached: burger-king-diamond.jpg (576x522, 39K)

shall not be infringed

Attached: 1612627.jpg (827x981, 96K)

And what if I'm perfectly happy with the length and diameter of my penis? What if I'm upset at the NFA because it prevents me from shortening my rifles to a nice handy size without jumping through hoops?

Oh pleaze, great wizard of knowings, project your sexual fetishes onto SBRs and SBS!

ammo.com/articles/guns-nra-and-american-civil-rights-movement-guide

Well shit, I would rather be shot than stabbed or beheaded, so maybe I'm OK with that huh? What if I don't want to die "london style" from a sharpened spoon?

These arguments seem to constantly be pointless. On the left and wrong side I find a mob of idiots who either want to ban private gun ownership completely, or want to blather on about "regulating" even though they don't have a fucking clue what the current laws are. On the right side are a bunch of people who aren't going to give up any more of their rights, so fuck off and leave them alone.

Attached: spoon1.jpg (800x420, 138K)

Attached: 1521733413566-time-mag.jpg (1250x702, 96K)

Dude, are u stuck in 1842 or something?, most 1st world countries share the same government ideologies, hate to break it to you but y'all Americans aren't much different from Greek fucks, for example

Attached: d0045194_52158a90a1ee8.jpg (736x500, 71K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Attached: sailor-kissjpg.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0.jpg (1086x724, 123K)

What are the rules then?, I've met the stupidest hill billies on earth and ALL of them own pistols and/or assault rifles, some of them do seem actually retarded.

Common infantry weapons is what one keeps and bears. Exocets aren't those. Neither are tanks or nukes. Troll harder.

You Americans must need more

Attached: a k ira.jpg (640x263, 42K)

Retarded non-argument is retarded. SCOTUS confirmed the meaning of 2A is "common infantry weapons". Nukes and tanks aren't those. Eat a dick homo.

you do understand that my argument was for guns right? there have only been 250 "school shootings" in the last 20 years. Guns are used so much more to defend citizens, politicians are also conveniently going against the weapons that could fight back against them. If you look at goon violence statistics, semi automatic rifles are not even close to the most deaths, handguns are and yet nothing is said about them.

To summarize the current rules:
At the Federal (nation wide) level...
Firearms are divided into several categories, "Handguns" (pistols/revolvers), "Rifles", and "Shotguns". Those three words make sense and most people can understand. You must be 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and 21 to purchase a handgun. If a person or business is engaged in the selling of firearms for business purposes, they need a license to sell firearms, an FFL Federal Firearms License. Any and all sales made by an FFL holder require a background check through NICS, no exceptions. People who go to purchase a handgun from an FFL must purchase it from an FFL in their state of residence. Rifles and shotguns may legally be sold to people who live in other states than where the FFL is located.

Individual people who aren't selling firearms as a business may sell them in "face to face" transactions, meaning both people are in the same place at the same time to exchange firearm. If this cannot happen, of if this crosses state lines, you must mail the firearm to a licensed FFL holder in the buyer's state, where a NICS background check must be done. An individual seller doing a face to face sale is not allowed to do a background check through NICS, according to federal law. They may, however, do their own background check, and are required to deny the sale if they have reason to believe the person who wants to buy is not allowed to own a gun.

Generally speaking, a felony, certain domestic violence chargers, certain mental health problems, and some misdemeanors prevent you from legally owning or purchasing a firearm.

If a shotgun has a barrel shorter than 18", it is a "Short Barrel Shotgun" or SBS, and if a rifle has a barrel shorter than 16" long, it requires registration with the federal government for a cost of $200, and an extensive background check is done before registration is approved...(MORE)...

Wasnt that shit written hundreds of years ago?

(CONTINUED)

If you attach a buttstock to a pistol, this makes the pistol longer, but legally the ATF considers the pistol to have magically transformed into a rifle. If the pistol has a barrel shorter than 16", it now must be registered as a Short Barrel Rifle as above.

Any device that reduces the sound of a gunshot when attached to a firearm is "Suppressor". These must be registered with the federal government, background check, $200 tax.

Any firearm that fires more than one shot with one pull of the trigger is a "machine-gun". Two or three round burst is, legally speaking, a "Machinegun". These must be registered for $200, background check, etc.
Furthermore, other than certain exceptions for entities who hold a Federal Firearms License, and pay another tax for an additional license, it has been illegal to manufacture any new machine-guns since 1986. It is still possibly to buy and sell them, if they were registered before 1986.

Any sale of a silencer/suppressor, short barrel rifle/shotgun, or machine gun requires the $200 tax to be paid again, and another background check/registration for the person purchasing it.

All 50 states, as well as subdivisions within those states such as counties, cities, etc, are free to add regulations to these.

To learn more on your own read about the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

These aren't all of the laws, but they are the big ones currently at play nation wide.

>I think some people are worthless and untrustworthy because of their race and low level of education

what a good liberal you are

Attached: 1565847450502.jpg (640x512, 26K)

Guns are for pussies who can't fight properly.

So was Pythagoras's theorem. Yall motherfuckers out here tryna tell me a^2 + b^2 doesn't equal c^2? That shit's whack yo

Why is it that most anti gun activists look like anorexic string beans with a supposed allergy to push-ups?

Just saying. Youre the typical kind of American everybody in the world points and laughs at.

christ this low level trolling is like garbage covering a street, it's not a threat beyond knowing things have gone to shit

Attached: 1565751057213.jpg (466x493, 51K)

"Oh you brash Americans and your boisterous attitude! It's been 70 years since you last saved our nation from a world war!"

Who gives a fuck what the rest of the world thinks. Europe can't go a century without some fag dictator trying to purge everything and they want to tell people how to govern?

Just saying, Laws need revising at times. Theorems are different.

That jpg offends and frightens me. It should be banned for the safety of children.

Your argument was "It's old so isn't it inaccurate" Which isn't a proper argument. There are laws that are just as old if not older that I'm sure you agree with. If someone else were to say "Well it's old, so it should be looked at" You'd probably disagree.

Probably for a long list of reasons. I think that pretty much throughout all of human history there has been a connection between masculinity and weaponry. Prehistoric man spent an awful lot of time advancing from rocks and clubs to pointy sticks, stone tipped spears, the atlatl, wooden bow and arrow, composite bows, recurve, crossbow, the hand cannon, matchlock, flintlock, paper cartridges, cap and ball, metallic cartridges, on and on and on...It's all men looking for a better and easier way to put food on the table (or in the cave) and keep the thieves (or other cave men) away from his home. It's in our DNA to be tool makers and tool users, because that was man's job for millennia.

The less masculine you are, I guess it's no surprise the less interested you are in masculine things.

As an aside, I want to make it clear that I have no intention to downplay the role of women and feminine roles and contributions to the evolution and advancement of humanity. Quite clearly we'd have never done it without them. My point is merely that certain things are by nature a "masculine" thing, and 'soyboys' aren't usually masculine.

People change. Laws should too. Revising laws after a period of time is a great thing. Prohibition for example.

Makes sense to me. The person who wants to defend themselves is seen as more masculine. To do so via physical prowess or weapons training is irrelevant. Who is anyone else to tell the potential victim how to defend themselves?

13digitfilename.jpg

No only when it is justified. Reason please

Why can't felons own guns then?
Even people with a medical weed card aren't allowed to own guns
Are they not people? Is that not infringing on the rights given by the sacred paper?

How about revising age of consent to 10 to be more progressive mate.

Prohibition was originally a "Change" to begin with. At the time, people were using the same argument against alcohol that modern day people use against guns "Oh, we don't need this anymore! Let's ban it! Look at how civilized we could be if we didn't have this boorish thing in our society! This is a good idea to restrict freedoms!"

Prohibition ended up destroying any mom and pop liquor store while people ended up just as drunk from the various organized crime rings that sprung up to take advantage. Banning guns would see the exact same fucking thing happen!

Guns don't make you drunk user

People have changed and the type of weapon and accessibility has changed. Reason enough.

Age of consent does need revision as it is a baseless random number.

Why not infringe niggers instead?

Attached: gun control fag 20.jpg (800x701, 63K)

This
Many people don’t see the consequences. There are insane fricks all over the place and if they can own guns illegally you better let innocents arm themselves. Look at the UK for instance, instead of gun related crimes, they got knives related shit instead. Sometimes you got to act for your life, polices ain’t doing shit in the middle of the night in nowhere. By the time they came you already a dead man mate

Yes, that IS an infringement. However, felons have, for the most part, gone out and broken some pretty fucking serious laws. They deserve consequences. IMHO, we let them out of prison too early and we don't execute enough of them. When we change that, then it will be time to let the ones who are out of prison own guns again.

Once you eliminate all weapons, physical prowess and training in hand to hand combat will decide who wins. Might will make right, so to speak. In the past, where weapons required physical strength, smaller sized men and women were at a quite significant disadvantage in armed confrontations with larger opponents. What I find quite curious is that the modern firearm is the only tool of self-defense that can be tailored to the end user such that physical differences play the smallest role possible. It is the equalizer. You'd think feminists would be proud to embrace the equalizer? Doesn't seem to be the case, and I don't understand why.

because as you said they are libcucks, keyword beeing "cucks". The are incapable of making free choices, defend themselves or think critically and they let the goverment do it for them. They cant compete in an open market. If they cant get ahead, than they hold others back.

What truly baffles me about Americans is the fact that they get the idea that they should look out for their own safety themselves and have rights letting them own guns, but when it comes to healthcare, the debate is "Who should I have as my caretaker? The government or a corporation" Why not yourself you obese faggot? It's the same principle with guns, don't rely on someone else to protect you.

>amendments can't be amended

It equalizes, true, but a well trained man with sharper reflexes and a stronger body will still win in a gunfight against a fat slob who got his hands on a pistol, even if they have equal firearms training.

I think you'll find that the Americans who argue for the right to own guns, are not the Americans demanding free healthcare.

Sure. But a 5'0" woman with an AR-15 customized to fit her, or a handgun of her choice, has a better chance against a 6'3" armed robber with his weapon of choice than if she's going to slug it out with him with fists alone.

Depends if her instincts let her draw it or she freezes up the first time.

>infringement I agree with is fine
>infringement I disagree with is infringement
That's the best answer you're going to get lol

Exactly my point regarding the first reply. The americans arguing for gun rights should see that their health is the broader issue and that they shouldn't be reliant on big pharma or the government to protect themselves from a heart attack when they don't trust them to protect them from criminals.

As for the second point, I agree completely. This new wave of feminists should be radically pro gun, but here's why they aren't. The nature of a woman is to find a competent protector. Very few women have the innate desire to learn self defense, which sucks given that they need it more. I fully support women who want to take martial arts and learn how to use firearms properly, but the interest just isn't there, so it isn't a big feminist talking point.

By the same token, confronted with an armed home owner, might the thief not also decide to cut and run?

Guns are not drugs hth

Absolutely. Just saying that having a firearm, and whether or not you can draw it in a tense situation, are not the same thing.

Attempting to use the legal system to stop people from doing what they want safely because criminals and people with no moral fiber use it wrong is the same. The fucking item it targets is irrelevant. The principle remains that banning it won't do any good.

A smart thief would target the weakest person with the most shit to be stolen, yes.

>millions of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens because of the actions of criminals.

Look at the shooting statistics though, So many are because 'an argument escalated'. You faggots can't even have an argument without getting all pissy, reaching for your gun and start shooting. Too many of your law abiding citizens are actually fucking idiots. This cannot be denied.

>people changed
How exactly. People has always changed but rest assured that bad guys wield their guns regardless of the law.

And you faggots can't even have an argument without trying to restrict the rights of everything you don't understand.

Wrong. Banning children from nightclubs keeps them out of nightclubs real good. Not all things are equivalent. Banning people from doing things that are dangerous to others is the basic foundation of law.

Murderers also kill despite the law. This is not an argument to loosen restrictions on murder.

You cannot possibly know if that poster understands the ins and outs of gun regulation. He might be a supreme court justice. Stop firing from the hip when you're btfo

Look at the purpose of banning them from nightclubs. They hold their own parties at their parents house to the same effect you absolute brainlet. Again, the same fucking human desire for stupid teens to throw parties manifests. I agree with making things like this harder to do, but goddamn do you miss the point.

A smart thief would target the joint that's full of guns, knowing they're immediately saleable on the street to other criminals and useful for further criminal endeavors.

>He might be a supreme court justice.
>He

It's obviously RBJ on a fucking tablet slowly dying on a hospital bed you misgendering bigot.

"I'm going to rob this gun store! What could possibly go wrong"

Attached: gun don't kill.jpg (1280x800, 446K)

Uh so banning children from nightclubs is an effective ban. Banning children from drinking is not an effective ban. Some bans are effective. They are not all equivalent. Drugs are not guns. You cannot assume the effects of restrictive gun laws will be what you say when countries with restrictive gun laws demonstrably have fewer shootings.

Who is RBJ?

Happens every single day and criminals get away with guns.

lmgtfy.com/?q=gun store robbery

13digitfilename.jpg

>Demonstrably fewer shootings.

Not per capita. Nice try though

Yes per capita you mongoloid
Notice to the left of the US are places with more restrictive gun laws and to the right are less restrictive gun laws.

Attached: qmhmsxd4cnh01.jpg (960x694, 50K)

In Japan the gun violence rate is 1 in 10 million. They have the most restrictive firearm laws on the planet and also the lowest rate of gun violence.

They also don't have niggers.

Wrong. They are almost 100% slant niggers.

Moving the goalposts won’t help. I didn’t argue to loosen gun restriction, there is no need to ban guns as they don’t imply murder faggot. More

The rate in Japan is orders of magnitude less than for white murderers in the US. Maybe whites are just as bad? Or maybe it's the guns.

The only purpose for a gun is to murder. It is an explicit part of modern self defense doctrine.

Physically, psychologically, emotionally,culturally The list goes on.

Can you explain why bad guys in Japan do not use guns despite the almost complete ban?

You are incorrect. If your assertion were correct, even a pistol would qualify as EVERY firearm has a safety. Select fire means being able to toggle from single-fire to either a burst fire mode like the M-16 or full-auto mode like the AK-47.

Technologically, spiritually, etc etc. The only constant is change.

Attached: gun control fag 23.jpg (600x975, 63K)

So, small rifles will let us fight back against F-16's, Tomahawk Missiles, and Nuclear Bombs?

Every firearm does not have a safety that's a ridiculous assertion. Are you retarded? Do you know anything about guns? There are other criteria for assault rifles. AR 15s are select fire and meet the other requirements. Fire one, fire zero. Use a two position selector to make that choice. A three position selector would select between zero, one, and lots.

Nah small arms aren't effective against air targets. It's not Vietnam anymore lol.

13digitfilename.rename

Exactly. Things change, and as change occurs, revising laws isn't necessarily a bad thing.

uhhh show me the safety on a Colt single action or a grease gun. ill wait.

>the only reason
Wrong as you answered yourself
>self defense

Please

Why do we have guns? So the government can't just steamroll our rights.

The problem here is two-fold. One: technology has changed. No amount of bullets is going to save you from a drone strike. If the US government wants you dead, you're dead. Two: Your rights are already being steamrolled as we speak without them firing a shot. The weapons have changed. They're not interested in battling your bodies with blood and gunpowder when they can battle your mind with memes and misinformation.

Actually there's a third part that's kind of why we're here: we would like American citizens to stop shooting each other.

I was in a debate on another site where a guy was like "would giving every eligible adult a gun reduce gun violence or increase it." And the correct answer is that it would increase it. It's not even up for debate; having a gun in your house makes you more likely to die from gun violence. And somebody was like, "that's like saying living near water makes you more likely to get wet." Technically correct and also irrelevant, but it does make for an interesting analogy. Imagine for a moment that there was a drowning epidemic with groups as big as fifty being found floating. Now imagine some politician suggesting that the solution to this problem is more pools.

But you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Let me rephrase: all MODERN firearms.

Actually it's a requirement. Just like our government adapted to a more modern government than monarchy. Our laws should adapt to more modern weaponry and societal issues. It's obvious common sense if you aren't a simp.

Murder is murder in self defense or not.

Exactly. Revising laws based on the changes of people isn't a hard concept.

Oh so like Glock pistols have selectable safeties? Uhhhh no.

all modern weapons do not have safeties. not even close.

>people should should just stand there to be robbed and killed as oppose to take a chance for their life

I’m done

You're a fucking idiot, but I'll reply anyway.

Nuclear bombs are irrelevant, just like you.

Tomahawk missiles you don't know fuck about. Tomahawk missiles are also mindless robots that don't know shit about fuck. Just like you.

F-16's don't like getting shot, they'll fly higher. Most likely a few potshot with a semi auto rifle, they won't even have a fucking clue it's happening. Just like you.

Hey I'm the gun loving rights defender who thinks all pistols have safeties. I have never heard of revolvers or glocks.

Grease gun safety is built into the dust cover. Closing it locks the bolt in place, which prevents firing as it is an open bolt design.

People who don't know shit about guns shouldn't be allowed to make laws about them, or even voice an opinion.

This image Is Correlation, Not Causation, you would do well to learn the difference.

Not here to discuss what people should do. Saving your or someone else's life with a firearm as a civilian is a pipedream.

See This

Again...Some of those actually DO have manual safeties.

Revolvers with a safety include the Mateba Unica, and the Webley.

Glock did actually make some pistols with a safety, including some for a foreign sale I don't recall, and the gun for the army handgun program.

Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Ammendments can be made or undone any time Congress and the states see fit. It doesn't matter what the words in the current ammendment say. If they want it gone, it's gone.

A locking bolt is not a safety you retard.

What about the natural and innate right to self defense, and access to the tools of self defense?

Ah so all revolvers and glocks have selectable safeties? Oh cool I guess everyone is wrong because you and that other guy are the only people who think that.

A locking bolt, in the case of an open bolt firearm, LITERALLY IS a safety, you fucking slack jaw idiot retard.

>i consider
Does Congress consider them arms? You could consider cocaine an arm if you wanted, but it won't stop anyone from coming to get it

Some /= All
Retard
Plenty of guns without safeties exist. Plenty of modern guns without safeties exist.

Hand grenades were considered arms at the time the 2nd amendment was written. So were cannons.

Attached: gun control fag 1.jpg (500x500, 86K)

Absolutely not.

The Constitution is a living document, we need to be able to reinterpret it as times change. Right now, times have changed so that shall not means shall, and arms means legs.

I think Congress considers hand grenades arms. Yeah. Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

13digitjpgrename.jpg

Some guns without "safeties" exist, yes.

You might not realize it, but although revolvers and Glocks don't have a manually activated "Off Switch", there are mechanisms incorporated to ensure that they only go "BANG!" when the trigger is pulled.

In what world is a hand grenade not an armament, but cocaine is one? The mind of a right winger.

OK hot shot, since you don't consider that to be a safety, please explain to me how the M3 'Grease Gun' is fired, and what you would add to it in order to have a "safety"?

Safeties prevent the gun from going bang when the trigger is pulled though. That's what they do. Thanks for playing.

> to counter-balance the government's requirement to have a military.

>the people must have arms, specifically to oppose the government

You're the same people that keep voting to pump up the military so they can go win "wars" and "protect our freedom" as though it's in any danger from the outside. You seriously think you stand a chance?

Attached: fuck up lib.jpg (1080x2280, 582K)

It's still Niggers.

Also NIGGERS TONGUE MY ANUS

Attached: fuck up lib 2.jpg (640x640, 84K)

Can we do that now?

You wanna know how I know you're an idiot?

I know you're an idiot because closing the fucking dust cover, like I said however many posts ago, locks the bolt in position, and stops the M3 grease gun from firing when the trigger is pulled.

Like I told you before, it is an "Open Bolt" gun.

A trigger disconnector? A device to prevent a round being stripped from the mag? A firing pin that isn't fixed and is lockable in the rearward position? But it doesn't have those things so that would be a different gun. Like one of the many grease gun clones with safeties.

The rates in Japan are 1/1000th what they are for white people in the US though.

Attached: gun control fag 12.png (1080x1274, 369K)

12digitrename.gif

Closing the dust cover prevents a round from being stripped from the mag, at least in the context of the Greasegun.

They have higher suicide rates, tho

You want to know how I know you're an idiot? You're arguing that all guns have safeties.

You're all so obsessed with propaganda but also so bad at it. Die angry boomer.

Attached: gun control fag 16.png (334x301, 78K)

>"Well regulated" In 18th century means "properly functioning," it does not mean legally restricted at all.

Literally the same thing it means now. Laws are put in place to ensure a system remains properly functioning and doesn't get warped by the criminals that seek to undermine it for their own agenda (e.g. banking, business, branches of government, etc). It absolutely applies to gun control.

AS SOMEONE WHO SPEND 15 YEARS IN THE MILITARY, THE WHOLE WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ASSUALT RIFLE ARGUMENT IS FUCKING RETARDTED. A MARLIN 30-30 IS FOR HUNTING, A AR-15 WAS DESIGENED TO DROP BODIES, NOTHING MORE, STOP BEING CHILDREN.

Autorenamegunfolder.jpg

No I'm arguing that the vast majority have at least one from of safety. Seeing them completely without one is kinda rare.

are you serious? you already lost. Right to bear arms means no rules. You should be able to carry concealed across all 50 states, across state lines or open carry anywhere you want. The government should not be able to disarm you in anyway. not on a plane or in a school or in a hospital or even in a police station. You have the right to be protected at all times. You lost this fight long ago. you conservatives conserve nothing.

IS THAT YOU BITCH!

Attached: gun control fag bitch.jpg (768x512, 51K)

Sure kid

Attached: kid.gif (500x248, 1010K)

Attached: 1549083847752.jpg (960x960, 148K)

Attached: reddit spacing.png (866x475, 78K)

Why do so many gun grabbers bring up hunting? The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

That's correct and why hand grenades should be available at Walmart and also allowed on planes.

Attached: so sad ffl.jpg (500x649, 75K)

no dipshit, cowards are the ones who sit by as others get slaughtered. heros carry and protect people when some asshole goes postal.

NIGGERS

Doesn't seem like America has many heroes then.

Not at all

god given right. the constitution didn't give people rights, it protected rights they already had naturally.

Attached: gun control fag 22.jpg (720x640, 34K)

lol no.

Sorry. Just because you don't realize it's there doesn't mean it isnt

WHAT'S THE MATTER DID I HURT YOUR FEELINGS, IF YOU SERIOUSLY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUNTING RIFLE OR AN ASSAULT RIFLE, YOU ARE INFACT RETARDED

just so you right wingers know. that guns are old tech. all the leftist fags the run silicon valley and other nerds are smart. there are electromagnetic weapons that have far superior range then your guns, also microwave weapons that can cook you from the inside out. also sonic weapons ect. and with the laws on the books many of these things may not be regulated at all. just keep that in mind for the up coming civil war with the leftist commies

Guns without safeties are not rare. A dustcover bolt holdopen is not a safety. The end.

You are so ass blasted.

Let me guess, at 15 stands for assault rifle too...

Attached: 1565914573150.gif (430x408, 908K)

also its the nerds that are trying to figure out how to mass produce graphene, that very smart people backed by major investments are trying to solve this puzzle. when they do if they hand out the new body armor to their own and you are dorking around in your Kevlar vest they will eat your lunch. it was the wild beasts that were super buff alpha bros and it was cavenerds that invented the tipped spears and the bow and arrow to kill animals way buffer then any dude bro. Do underestimate nerds. they will shove a real life light saber up your ass if you do.

we would be safer if most decent law abiding people carried and it was easier for those people to get a CC license. the violence unstable mentally ill are everywhere these days. example anti fa

I have never been on reddit. I do watch the ask reddits on youtube, those are good.

>citation needed

kids used to bring guns to school. They used go hunting after class and teachers knew and didn't think anything of it.
we used to be a decent white society. look up the 1965 immigration law change and the Frankfurt school.
compare our crime stats today with that of hitlers germany before the war. guns are not the problem when it comes to social violence. we had plenty of gun back in the day and not nearly the level of social violence. you leftiest fags are the problem, your ignorance is the problem. guns are not. You could have grenades on a plane back in 1950's America or in National Socialist germany and it wouldn't have been a problem, since they wouldn't think of killing their own people, they were a united people unlike today. Sweden when it was full of whites was super peaceful, now look at it, what changed? enjoy the civil war faggot.

bawww

if you actually need a citation for that you are beyond help.

>citation needed

gun are for both. hunting and self defense. the whole point of owning a gun is to kill some motherfucker who is trying to kill you or harm your family. that's the fucking point dipshit! to drop their ass. speaking of dropping ass, dude come on, are you eating baby diapers?