A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

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

THAT'S PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR NOW ISN'T IT? i mean they didn't leave a WHOLE LOT TO THE IMAGINATION with that one now, did they??

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

that means no fucking background checks, no fucking legislation against bumpstocks or automatic weapons. no fucking denials for mental illness. NOTHING. NO BULLSHIT.

you hold on to your fucking weapons to hold YOUR fucking government accountable and make sure that they don't turn into repressive, tyrannical monsters. if you're too stupid to understand the vital importance of that and want to whine about "muh children" or "muh mass shootings", then that's your fucking problem, hombre.

END OF STORY.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw
reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7ybwc9/i_have_to_call_bs_on_conservatives_obviously_some/
youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM
youtube.com/watch?v=5WLRZbRllKo
supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2015/08/28/founding-fathers-trashing-immigrants/?utm_term=.ee0489dcbabc
scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0
youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Keep your guns, but don't go out and buy ten tons of ammo every time this happens or Soros and kikes like him make a profit from it

huh? omfg fuck off retard. no end to the bullshit you people manufacture. "soros is profitting from ammo sales" ok you jew faggot.

You really think a militia is going to stop the government?
>Shays' Rebellion
>Fries' Rebellion
>Slave Revolts
>American Civil War
The constitution can be amended. It's not stuck in stone.

>Own guns but don't buy ammo to shoot out of them

Retard

>You really think a militia is going to stop the government?
Yes
>The constitution can be amended. It's not stuck in stone.
Just because 2nd amendment CAN be changed doesn't mean it SHOULD be changed.

We need regulations, not amendments to the constitution.

Oh just be quiet.

Infringe = "To Break" (latin). To regulate is not to break. The 2nd Amendment is an auxiliary right. Life, liberty and estate a natural right.

>2018
>Not making your own ammo
Why do you do this Cred Forums

The Constitution is fine. Why are you so anti Constitution?

>We need regulations
Grow up.

Every rebellion in US history has failed. Of course that doesn't mean the next one will, but it does suggest the next one likely will.
It's a document based on cultural ideas of what is right and wrong. Cultures obviously change and sticking entirely to a document in the past does not make sense. We need to either change every single person's ideas about killing other people, change the laws, or accept mass shootings as a fact of life.

I've never owned a gun. I'm not opposed to the idea, but its just not a priority for me atm

But the second the 2nd gets repealed is the second I quite my well paying job and dedicate my full time to forging and designing guns

Its just how that would go

And that's exactly what the entire national debate is happening over, numbnuts. Whether or not it SHOULD be changed.

Wrong image, sorry.

Well regulated just meant well trained.

Commie anti-gun fags BTFO

pretty sure that's just some LARPing faggot.

>pretty sure
I'm positive you're retarded.

>Every rebellion in US history has failed.
I can think of at least one that was pretty successful
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

You are wrong, this country has suffered two coups already. Executive Order #1 and the communist takover of banking through the Fed and thus the government. Now (((they))) want the guns. I hear my music playing. That music is called #CivilWar
Fucking prepare dipshits this is no drill.
How many things have I now called out that then happened the last 3 years in order?

Carlos out.

It shouldn't be changed. Human beings have the right to self-defense.

it cannot be taken away
the founders were clear in that rights can only be added but not taken away
the govt is already out of control

>communist takover of banking
>bankers are communists
Americans need to be range banned, your stupidity is an eyesore.

Yes, and it would be fairly simple to pull off too. You seem to be picturing a battalion of around 20 men with hunting rifles charging an army of tanks and helicopters. This is not at all how it would play out. An small but organized group would bypass the military altogether and go straight for the puppet masters themselves. Wouldn't take a large force to topple them at all.

guns are going bye bye thanks to Trump Vegas and Israel :)

I find your reductionist false dilemma ridiculous

He was involved in the creation of Freedom Group, IIRC. This front company bought and shut own Bushmaster & Marlin. Also Remington which just declared bankruptcy.

I want all the lefties proposing gun control to die in a fucking fire, but maybe it’s the European in me speaking so please let me know what you guys think:
>that means no fucking background checks
Seems like a recipe for disaster, aren’t convicted felons barred from purchasing firearms or s this a state by stated deal?
>no fucking legislation against bumpstocks or automatic weapons.
Bump stocks are fucking gay and the assault weapon ban is retarded, but a background check if someone wants to buy an M60 seems like a good idea.
>no fucking denials for mental illness.
Giving violent schizos unfettered acces would be counter productive, mental illness is a rather broad term to put it though. People have depressions, phobias and what not that can be grouped under mental illness that shouldn’t be an issue when purchasing weapons.

For the record, all the soccer moms and liberal faggots shouting for gun control can suck a dick. But having some rules and checks seem reasonable in my eyes.

Scotsman here, and of course I am well jelly of your gun rights.

However maybe I can see a different way of interpreting this second amendment thing of yours, which may well become relevant.

I mean this is te first time I've actually read it, and to me it seems to be saying that the right of citizens to bear arms, is intrinsically linked to the point about the militias.

I mean couldn't they argue that the amendment only guarantees citizens access to arms when they are signed=up members of a militia?

It sounds like it is speaking in general terms of citizens being allowed to bear arms not specific individuals.
Also it says well regulated. That sounds like it could be background checks.
The intent seems to be to allow the body of citizens as a whole to defend itself not let a particular high risk offender wield heavy weaponry.

The very state of today's govt is the reason the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment how they did. Every other ruling party in the history of Man has ended up being tyrannical. It's inevitable and the only reason this govt hasn't, is because the citizens are so fully armed. If we weren't allowed to have guns this country and every other country would probably be slaves to a single ruling party. No fucking joke.

>>I mean couldn't they argue that the amendment only guarantees citizens access to arms when they are signed=up members of a militia?
They are. Everyone from 16 to 45 is a member of the citizen's militia, and rulings by the Supreme Court have extended that to basically everyone else since it's a bit rude to leave an avenue open for gun grabbers to deprive 50 year old women of the right to bear arms.

>It's a document based on cultural ideas of what is right and wrong
there is nothing moral in the constitution, it is just the embodiment of the declaration. the declaration is the moral document--we are going to violently overthrow this tyrannical government and here is our moral justification for doing so.

the constitution could be re-written every generation, and it would look the same as long as it was derived from the first principles of the declaration. Of course, there are many citizens and politicians with slave morality that rebel against the morality imposed in the declaration, you seem to be one of these people, and that's why can't re-write it every generation. What you want is a new government, but the one that we are living in is the 9th oldest in the world, so I think we are doing fine without your reactionary opinions.

> Vietnam
> agghanistan

M8 some fucking jungle gooks and sand niggers defeated the worlds most powerful military with basic weapons and IEDs.

You might not realise it, but you just survived 8 years of a communist president. Do you know why you didn’t notice he was a communist? Because the second amendment forced him to keep his tyrannical bullshit in check.

Even if it is, the analysis is good. Military can defect, but case for the police is a bit different.

...

>Also it says well regulated. That sounds like it could be background checks.
Well regulated meant "in working order" back then.

They have families, if SHTF, they would probably go home.

srs every burger is legally a member of the militia?

now that is bizarre.

I support the 2nd amendment . That doesn't mean I support the mental health of x y and z

Anyone like to argue why it is OK to have a system that lets you keep the right to guns but lose your right to life?

I will save you the time, you are wrong. It is never OK to have a system that can take your life but not your gun.

The 2nd is an anachronism that is destroying your county.

Problem is even components vanish during panic buys. And then our supply gets affected by your bullshit.

This

SHALL

NUT

...

They are going to take the guns and microchip Americans.

I used to care until I saw how they all behaved and they have done nothing but insult me.

God has special plans for America.


"Who the fuck do you think wrote the Book of Revelation? A bunch of stone-sober clerics?” Hunter S. Thompson.

>You might not realise it, but you just survived 8 years of a communist president

kek you lads :)

Increased gun control isn't unconstitutional

How else are you going to destroy the government?

They aren't.
God has plans for America.

:)

The Founding fathers Wanted citizens to mainly use . 50 caliber.
I think banning the 223/5.56 would be wise and bring back semi auto 30-06.
The push should be to allow full auto again, the 1986 "ban" is just as illegal and infringing. The 2nd has already been infringed.

Says a Brit who obviously has a degree in American Constitutional law...........

justice is negative--it is the absence of injustice. you state apologists will never understand this, I know.

'Member the time that those veterans fought against a corrupt local government with their guns after the second world war?

the militia should assemble for exercises in some kind of mass format.

the state would shit itself.

I agree. I own something in a .223, but my go to is my lever action 30-30. When I move to the country I am going to get myself something in a magazine fed .30

I own the .223 because the rounds are relatively cheap.

>Anyone like to argue why it is OK to have a system that lets you keep the right to guns but lose your right to life?
The right to defend your life with a "tool" has nothing to do with the right to life. Are you going to join me and protest planned parenthood? There are millions and millions of lives being taken without consent.

Bump stock mcghee

The only issue really is how boomers hoard all the good old rifles and classics, so the easiest shit to get is an AR.
Boomers should be voted to give GenX 1/2 their guns. Not a confiscation, but a transfer.

Gun control exists already and has always existed to some degree in the US.

Stop.

Yes battle of Athens Tennessee

youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw

>but my go to is my lever action 30-30

oh shut up you cunt.

...

reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7ybwc9/i_have_to_call_bs_on_conservatives_obviously_some/

You wouldn't think the difference between a 1/4 inch projectile and a 1/2 inch projectile make that much of a difference but it does

Why? I use a 30 30 when I hunt deer. Large mammal and all..........

The question then becomes. How many members make a militia?

That is a beautiful gun right there

yes but top tier leftists dont agree because it undermines their end goal of communism so they want to get rid of it. low tier leftist peons are retarded and lemmings with hivemind so are easily manipulated

OP is not a faggot


If you do not agree with bill of rights please exit this country or gas yourself

meant in sarcastic jealousy cousin.

i would love me some lever action rifle.

We have the right to a well regulated militia
We have the right to take up arms
Thats all that means little boy

>boomers

I remember reading about that. Good shit

Cheers. You ever in the neighborhood we can go plinking with it......

California has been completely shitting on the 2A for DECADES and the courts haven't put a stop to it, and in fact SCOTUS has REFUSED to take CA based 2A cases.

The next Civil War will be over the 2A mark my words.

You make your own ammo? What is this, Fallout?

Nothing beats a Marlin 336. You wont even want a mag fed 30 after you carry a nice saddle rifle.
I want an old 348 Winchester.Or a old Browning lever action.

And well regulated means keeping your guns clean and keeping up to date with group tactics, not allowing yourself to become "rusty" over time but always being prepared.

Even I know this and I'm a brit.

Let me sum this up for you, fucking amerimutts:

Nowhere in your precious Constitution does it say ANYTHING about the right to own, purchase, buy, or sell a gun. When it says "the right of a well-regulated militia", it means that you can only use guns PROVIDED TO YOU, or guns that you have grandfathered up.

I'll repeat this: Nowhere in your constitution does it say ANYTHING ABOUT YOU BEING ABLE TO ACQUIRE A GUN, EXCEPT IN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING A MILITIA.

You're fucking welcome. Stop killing each other.

We all know they will be easier to microchip and control without the guns.

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]

> every "free able-bodied white male citizen"
> every "free able-bodied white male citizen"

One.
As long as you "Self Guard" to protect ones family or property all armed self guarding citizens make up the unorganized militia.
It is their duty to maintain domestic tranquility and exercise the laws of the Union.
To form a more perfect Union, so we shall not perish from the Earth.

>Implying people won't just make their own parts and ammo.

Damn right.

youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM

Mark Passio breaks down the entire thing in this video, leaving no room for error.

Also, let's not forget. The constitution doesn't give anyone their rights. It just lists them.

The rights it lists are inherent from birth until death and nobody has the right to relinquish them from you, nor does anyone have the right to grant you them. And this is why all arguements like yours are illogical. Because the foundation of your arguement is that the constitution grants rights, and if certain things aren't listed, then they're not rights and you don't have a right to them. But that's not true at all, as I said, the constitution merely lists certain rights that the founding fathers felt were of the upmost importance for the safeguarding of a free state and society.

i am in general very for the right of the people to own guns, but it is getting ridiculous. at least universal background checks.

we should not be focused on stopping a shooting as it happens, but stopping it from starting altogether.

everyone else in the world is doing fine and we can "defend our lives" without guns

does that mean americans are just giant pussies?

seems like it

Great, make sure you get your musket and powder horn soon, before the government comes and fucks your ass.

They will. The difference being you can't just buy this stuff at Big 5, you moron.

Great, so theft, rape, and murder aren't in the Constitution either. By your stupid, republogic brain, it is Constitutionally just to steal, rape, and kill. Fucking moron.

how worn is that mag

Guns aren't going away
thanks for your time

You are all stupid.

Every last one of you. Both sides.

The fact you are on a side, proves how stupid you are.

They are you numbskull.

You're clearly a complete idiot.

Firstly, I'm not even from the US, check my flag.

Secondly even if I was, I'm not a statist so nor would I be republican.

And last but most certainly not least. The founding fathers were philosophers. They understood what's known as natural law, which is basically "do no harm but take no shit." And the constitution is essentially a legal breakdown of the basics of natural law. It is not constitutional to steal, rape or kill, because to do any of those things breaches natural law. All of those things are violations of your victim's natural rights (the right to health, happiness, property, and the right to be left alone / not accosted if one so chooses) therefore they're immoral and breaches of natural law and by extension, breaches of the constitution.

How does it feel to know you know less about the constitution than somebody who's never set foot in your great country?

Fake fucking Christians.

God hates you

That boy has a bumpfire shoulder.

k meme

SMART REBUTTAL.

Jesus christ if this is how well 2nd ammendment dumbasses argue, maybe I should run for office. It'd be a fucking cinch.

>durr theoretics but when it comes to gun ownership we take the Constitution at its word
How about you stop being a worthless, stupid europoor you fucking loser?

The right to self self guard is ancient and inalienable and endowed upon Americans by the Creator of your chose to list.

Maybe if you coherently gave your opinion and not post retarded barely linked pictures, phrases and quotes, maybe people would start taking you seriously.

I never argued for or against the 2nd amendment
I just said they're not going away
check your spelling too

God HATES America and everything it has become


youtube.com/watch?v=5WLRZbRllKo

OH DAMN THE GRAMMAR NAZI ARGUMENT

shit that makes my completely correct analysis of the 2nd ammendment moot!

>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.
>A well regulated Militia
I think a well regulated militia would have background checks.

We need to not give the lefties anything on the 2nd amendment. Not one fuckin inch.
#NotOneInch

I just told you to check your spelling
Did you ignore the rest of my post you brick?

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

So completely wrong. Constitution describes well the power of our Supreme Court and here they are in their landmark BTFO of your argument.

No. To know the constitution you have to have a philosophical understanding of it which you can only attain by actively looking to do so. You have to look into American history, the philosophy of the founding fathers, their inspirations, philosophy in general too. Only then can you understand the constitution and why it's 100% accurate and should be defended at all costs. When you defend the constitution, or defend it's amendments for the sake of their upholding. You're not actually doing so for the sake of the constitution but rather for the natural rights it lists. It's literally not even about the constitution. It's just a piece of paper. The only thing that matters is the natural laws that are the foundation of it, which you can only understand through philosophy as I said.

So basically, anyone who takes the constitution at face value and doesn't understand it or it's deeper meaning and what gives it substance is an idiot.

Also, nice counter-argument btw.

>Great, so theft, rape, and murder aren't in the Constitution either. By your stupid, republogic brain, it is Constitutionally just to steal, rape, and kill. Fucking moron.
> the right to not have someone telling you you cant own a thing is the same as murder and assault

you must have turbo autism

You wont have militia if God destroys America

Nice work on your argument OP I'm sure it'll lead to a great discussion in your eight grade civics class

Dude, you literally called SOPHIA god a few weeks ago, stop trying to deceive people as if you care what the Christian God thinks.

>right wingers completely ignore the first fucking part

WELL REGULATED MILITIA you retards, are you in a well regulated militia? no? then hand over your fucking AK 15s

there are only two kinds of people that are against the constitution. those who feel powerless and those who want power. I have a feeling he is the former. as in, he's a coward and doesn't feel he has what it takes to fight, so he'd rather defer to authority and feel safe + secure by relinquishing freedoms to the state in return for protection. and he's so virulently attacking anyone who contradicts his preferred narrative because they threaten his illusion of security.

10/10 bong

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Does not imply you must have a balanced breakfast.

you've already been wrecked, go away

Both of those cases are about handgun possession you fucking moron.

great, meaning that my interpretation of the Constitution is literally just as valid as yours. get out you self-hating faggot

yes it's actually the same thing, since the thing in question is LITERALLY DESIGNED FOR WAR AND MURDER. holy fuck that's some burgerlogic

>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.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>A well regulated Militia
>regulated Militia
>Militia
>Militia
>Militia
>Militia
THAT'S PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR NOW ISN'T IT? Funny how guntards always want to conveniently forget that part.

do you even know what a well regulated militia is?

literally all it means is you have to be well-trained in firearm useage and have some sense of group tactics. it doesn't mean you have to literally be part of an organised militia similar to a standing army.

basically, the founding fathers just wanted every able bodied person to be able to use a gun should the time come that they needed to, and if the time came when an entire community or state needed to do so together they could organise pretty quickly. you don't need to be an officialised, centralised organisation for that to occur, you just need to have the same objective, the defence of your homeland and some training for that to be able to happen.

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
This is why your Army was referred to as the Regulars.. they were regularly practiced at fighting.

Any reason you are using multiple accounts to stalk me?

see

They want your guns or they want you dead. No other option.

>A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
>comparing a common turn of phrase to an amendment.
I think if it was just a suggestion they'd make sure to state that, why would you want the possibility of crazy people having guns, wouldn't that just give more gun owners a bad name and get even more people on the anti-gun side?

> a tool is the same as an act
confirmed brainlet

Agreed only whites should be allowed to own fire arms since blacks and Mexicans were never included in the 2nd.
To Form proper militias the US needs to build an internal ethnostate for whites and Congress is obliged to fund it.
Segregating whites so they can form legit militias and live in ethnostates is a really good idea since militia basically means white.

its where perception meets reality, that is the glass wall they cant see

Stalk you?
You linked that thread while I was in this one, friend. It's because of you that I even entered that one so don't blame me for your posting.
You're style mimics pedophile jewgle group user.

Yeah dude you should run for office
Post your campaign page I want to see what your face looks like

dude should be dragged out into his back yard and put in the ground.

the fucking audacity of these people man.

actually advocating for state democide of law-abiding people who want to keep their firearms for the sake of protecting them against the exact thing these people are calling for.

they need to be lined up and slaughtered.

If you think the Founders were referring to a State Run militia like the national Guard you have to delete the rest of the constitution because the whole point is to guarantee the PEOPLE the right and ability to defend themselves from tyrannical governments... how is restricting Gun ownership to Government armies going to preserve the right of the people to remain free from government tyranny.. can you possibly understand how utterly ludicrous your notion iis?

Are you stupid? Why does the deleted post have a trash can beside it?

You posted it, that's why.

>Agreed only whites should be allowed to own fire arms
Then columbine wouldn't have happened, right?

>need gun permit to own gun
> require knowledge of how it works and how to care for it and others
> implying that combined with their citizenship is not in fact a militia

>society proceeds to shoot itself up
>muh 2nd amendment
>school shooting
>shall not be infringed

You have your forefathers to blame for your current state.

a militia is an organised paramilitary force, that would mean formal group training and very strict safety/control mechanisms, similar to the actual army, where you cant just walk into the fucking armory and go off base with a machine-gun

the NRA endorsed supplementary definition of militia (contrived over a century after the constitution) is irrelevant to the intent of the founding fathers

>A militia s defined as all able bodied men
>All able bodied men
>ALL
>ALL
>ALL

So, yah it is clear...just not to you...

I don't buy hammers if I'm not nailing something. Explain how a gun is a tool, and if you say "it's for hunting," then you don't need a handgun or anything semi-automatic.

LOL

How stupid are the agencies these days?

I think "mentall illness" is a biproduct of modernity mostly.

I think that back in the late 1700s most mentally ill people died young, and they were in a minority whereas now they have a much longer lifespan due to healthcare + welfare and because of modern society's affect on the human mind, mental illness is far more prevalent.

the founding fathers likely never foresaw this because they didn't forsee an essentially artificial society taking precedent over the natural. to the point where it made almost all citizens sick in the head to some degree.

>he didn’t even read the landmark decisions.

I mean you could at least try to come up with an argument valid under USA Laws but you don’t.

1) Heller: is there an individual right to keep and bear arms? Answer: yes.
2) McDonald: Is that right applied against states to protect individuals. Answer: yes, under due process.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

In fact Jews were never militia either, so legally Latinos, Negroes, and Jews should be totally banned from militia tools.
The Militia is only white with a few Indian scouts.
There is no black or mexican/Jew militias allowed, legally.

>You posted it, that's why.
I posted it?
The guy pretty much admits to it all when called it, you can go read it for yourself. He posted a laughing image when called out, WTF is that user?

if they didn't want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted, they would have made it far more detailed and extensive. Obviously it is a general statement, and can be interpreted. You don't have a right to a semi auto rifle.

>when called it
When called out***

The constitution doesn't grand rights.
Every human being has the right to bear arms.
Race doesn't matter.

kek yeah, point to the end that shoots, wait 3 days, here's your dozen assault rifles and 1000 rounds

Do you mind telling me why you are trying to frame someone?

Do you buy a fire extinguisher intending to start a fire?
or do you buy it in case you NEED it

Jews aren't white and there never was a Jew, islamic, Black, or Mexican militia.
Militia is only white by definition and contemplation of law.

I am not MethAnon, retard. I was merely a witness to you posting a laughing.jpg when he asked you about it.

>Explain how a gun is a tool
It's a tool for permanently stopping somebody from doing what they're doing

You are seriously fucking creepy dude.

Daily stalking.

Tick Tock

see

who said shit about fighting leo/mil when they are expecting it ready for it or even on duty? you gonna get murdered on your day off while shopping lol

grant*

>You don't have a right to a semi auto rifle.
yeah... actually they do.

>interpreted
define this word.. because i don't think it means what you think it means... you can not change the meaning of the text...

well regulated has been MISINTERPETED to mean contolled by the Government.. that is totally outside the whole meaning of the entire amendment which is obviously aimed at protecting peoples right to defend from a tyrannical GOVERNMENT.

> " hi i dont understand current firearms laws"
the post

Nah dude.


We all know who you are because I hacked your email.

Thanks for this user

militia
mJˈlJʃə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

So if a militia is a civil army we should compare it to the actual army, can a literally who just drop by a base and walk in and pick up any gun they without proper, consistent training and heavy background checks?

I never signed the Constitution. I reserve ALL rights.

If you knew who I was, you'd know I have no involvement in any of that nonsense, quite the opposite actually.
Can you explain why you got all giddy when questioned about the deleted post?

That's a bullshit definition pulled out of right-wing asses. If it just meant everybody, it wouldn't need to be mentioned explicitly.

your complaining? I have to live with them

QUOTE GEORGE WASHINGTON:


"YOU WONT BE NEEDING YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNTIL THEY TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU"

His family will be murdered first.

they wouldn't need to because they'd already have their own firearms in their home, lock stock and ready to go.

>You don't have a right to a semi auto rifle.
why would you think that? semi-auto rifles existed at the time the Constitution was ratified

I have a right to full auto.

>I think "mentall illness" is a biproduct of modernity mostly.
>I think that back in the late 1700s most mentally ill people died young, and they were in a minority whereas now they have a much longer lifespan due to healthcare + welfare and because of modern society's affect on the human mind, mental illness is far more prevalent.
>the founding fathers likely never foresaw this because they didn't forsee an essentially artificial society taking precedent over the natural. to the point where it made almost all citizens sick in the head to some degree.

Unfortunately, I guess that's also a good argument for euthanasia as well.

You're trying to say you know who I am which is utter nonsense.

I do know who you are however.

How's the weather in Utah?

> implying you couldnt form a militia with 75% of law abiding gun owners
kek

Yes, to KEEP AND BEAR arms. Which is literally the very first argument I made. Holy shit, that's some INCREDIBLE BURGER LOGIC, to ignore the VERY FIRST ARGUMENT made, only to come back to the initial argument after arguing about shit the burger doesn't understand

Great, so no recreational firearms. Agreed?

not really.

>The Founding fathers Wanted citizens to mainly use . 50 caliber
How about .458 SOCOM? Close enough to 50 cal for me...

Cultural appropriation does though.
Africans, Latinos, Jews, even Asians cant appropriate white culture or fire arms obviously.
Indians are banned from owning booze so its the same as banning indians or negroes, joos from owning or appropriating white's militia tools too.
Whites cant own arrowheads found in a field, so arms are only traditional by race.

>recreational guns
> tool for recreation
nope

Needed help though

so did artillery pieces

>inb4 a citizens right to own a coastal defense battery should not be infringed

...

>You're trying to say you know who I am which is utter nonsense.
Above, you said someone tried to frame you with that image, pretty much admitting your that CrypticAnon.
>I do know who you are however.
Great, then you know my intentions are good.
>How's the weather in Utah?
East Coast, it's fucking cold.

oo do me do me!
FBI been tracking me for years cuz my dad's job, so I had to grow up really not giving a shit someones always watching.

>I mean couldn't they argue that the amendment only guarantees citizens access to arms when they are signed=up members of a militia?
No. Not at all. Foreign people really have issues with this part of our rights. No one gives us a right, and no action gives us a right. We simply have the right, and no one can take it away. It is a natural right, and is really odd in the world. Our government has no choice basically. All they can do is attempt to contain it.

>your that
You're that***

Look, if you didn't ever post that jewgle pedo group bullshit, why laugh when that MethAnon started questioning you about it. You even implied with an image that your job was done.

youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM

a 250 year law: "don't change me"
amerimutts: "WE MUST NOT CHANGE, SEEEE?!?!"

tl:dw

...

>it's not a tool if it's used recreationally

holy shit that's some burgerlogic

go get some more funny faces

I live near the confluence of the missouri and mississippi. Theres a quarter mile stretch where lets just say would be dope to control in an apocalyptic scenario

>the average length of an average television show is too long
S A D

Good intentions spreading lies?

Is that right?

Absolutely we have a right to anti-aircraft lasers.

What about the well regulated part?
Not arguing, just don't know

I'm simply asking you questions user, not spreading lies.

the truth is the founding fathers where a bunch of uneducated drunks who couldnt put together a sentence to save their lives, they refused to even use an oxford comma because it was 'too english'

Not according to the guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

You might not like that. I suspect you don't like it because you are a tea slurping faggot, prone to acid attacks and too afraid to do anything about it.

>a baseball bat is not a tool
10/10 man 10/10

What, is your Dad an alien or something?

(pretending you aren't the same dude)

BE

white only.

We'll regulated = tight groupings.

eh, i don't really care if they change it or not, but to base your argument on a 250 year old peice of paper... OH BOY

>Jews aren't white and there never was a Jew, islamic, Black, or Mexican militia.
>Militia is only white by definition and contemplation of law.
Wow, so where's the line because I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't consider germans, italians, spanish, swedes or russian as white, in fact they were referred to as having a swarthy complexion.
washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2015/08/28/founding-fathers-trashing-immigrants/?utm_term=.ee0489dcbabc

So please, tell me what you define as white.

Girl posted about how nobody needs an AR. Brings gun owners out and wants to hear her proposals on regulations. To nobody's surprise, she has no ideas, just. "Before you own a gun think of the children."
People throw statistics and comparisons as facts that gun regulation is but a small problem in the us.
Her leftist brain shuts down and then...
>pic related

This is the state of the left.

>document that talks about God-given rights
Good job advancing fairytale arguments. LUL

INFRINGED

I would guess they laughed because the cover of the book is a reference to The Book of Revelations and the solution to the Cicada puzzle.

INFRINGED

if something isnt broken why fix it?

THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I'M ARGUING

durrrrr wojack

What's prohibition Senpai?

youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM

...

Who needs ideas or data when you've got feelz?

>the eternal bong doesnt like the fathers of democracy
checks out

The very first argument made would be our constitution with the bill of rights. The Supreme Court was given powers from that and used those powers to render decisions. I keep to the standard that actually matters, not the ignorant nonsense you spew into the internet.

wait wait wait wait
you dont think a basebal bat is a tool?

Does she even consider the possibility that maybe the most insane of all people are in power and will do the most harm if people are disarmed?

Women...

God you are stupid.

It needed to be listed explicitly, just like every other amendment...you know - because fuckwits like you are always itching to undermine and destroy everything that is good, hence your commie flag...

The whole point of the constitution was to enumerate into binding law, the rights of the people..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................why the fuck would the government - an organization that is by definition able to bear arms - give itself permission to -wait for it....bear arms.

But then you are a commie, so I wouldnt expect you to understand simple things like rights and property and hygiene.

>> implying you couldnt form a militia with 75% of law abiding gun owners
And you should, then it'd be far easier for those on the outside to understand that whatever school shooter of the future really is just a crazy that would've been weeded out if the rules were enforced properly, then anti-gun people would be on your side as well because who wouldn't want an army that is more likely to protect the people when they literally are the people.

Why is only when some "white" guy shoots up a school that guns become a problem? I guess not even liberals care when niggers off each other.

>Trump is an orange cheeto
>Only the government should have guns!

Hessians count. Fuck some Hessians just stayed in the US. became Penn Dutch.
Mormons were more of a militia than a religion, shit the prophet is truly John Browning.
The USMC was created to fight barber pirates and Slavers.
It is forbidden to allow islamic/muslim gangs in the US. Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Fuqra, Gulan, all illegal.

>plebs not using a baseball bat to flatten mole holes in your yard.

fuck her, I bet she loves cops.

this HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You didn't even attempt to address what I said....

But I don't expect anything more from retarded gun-masturbating right-wingers.

j-j-j-just one more law!!!

a lot of reasons. imagine if your water pipes were fixed when they broke, or your power plant. you would be out of power/water. Imagine waiting for a bridge to break before fixing it. but yeah, that has nothing to do with gun control he he.

Black people statistically more dangerous than guns . Time to ban them .

>>lets slaughter all people who refuse to give up guns
>lets slaughter all people who say we should slaughter all people who refuse to give up guns
lets slaughter all people who say lets slaughter all people who say we should slaughter all people who refuse to give up guns

The idea is that we are supposed to do that ourselves.

It was entirely common to elect a leader and train on your own time, using our own equipment.

This is what was meant by "well regulated".

What is a minuteman(historically, not your sexual stamina...)?

So, do you mind telling me why you posted this?

You can't lie to me remember.

In the USA firearms are a religious icon not just a tool.
Fire Arms are protected under the First Amendment as well as the 2nd.
white Males 15-18 get trained and at 18 if vetted by the communnity can act as active militia.
If they can shoot well. Militia is white men 18-45.
So boomers need to hand over the good shit to GenX.

>be communist
>follow ideology that has killed millions
>bitch about "right to life"

once upon a time before Ronald Reagan cucked us you could buy a full auto for under $10,000
>tfw you will never own an mp40

mate, eventually it's gonna get to the point where that's the only thing that'll stop them. they'll keep pushing until people who value their freedom are put in the ground.

when people try to encroach on your freedoms and by FORCE, you have the right to use force to combat that attempted violation of your natural rights.

sometimes killing is the only remedy.

Also all the ugly shit you posted to try and anger me.

Any particular reason?

Trying to keep me under control or something?

The Supreme Court's Heller decision is easy to read and addresses your concerns.
scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Guess what brought on all the gun bans of the 1980's?

so then what the hell is your argument?

just a question. how come americans don't want to give up their weapons in their own country, but force other countries around the world to give up theirs. that graph could easilly represent USA/Iraq relationship. seems kinda like sweeping in front of others doors

This, all you old fucks hording guns need to hand all but a few over to us youngins who are ready to kill Jews.

>Hessians count.
>stating Hessians count right after I've stated that Germans were considered swarthy by the founding fathers and by their standards aren't white.

>preventative maintenance is the same as rights to self defense
what did you mean by this


you have to explain how doing nothing would lead to its failure?

>Government cant enforce the laws currently on the books
>Surely more laws will fix this!
Whats it like being a complete fucking retard?

You're a dumbass if you haven't realized almost every element of the constitution is situational and should evolve with time. The only one with any real issue currently is the 2nd amendment, due to a few things that didn't exist at the time of it being written.

>Political divide to this extent
The average person (retard) currently wants people who think differently than them to be shot dead, I hope you realize.

>population centers
Guns are banned in places like NYC because when there's 30,000 people on a single block you can do some serious fucking damage. That outweighs rights of protecting yourself with force. The 'arm more citizens and people will think twice' argument doesn't apply here, in a situation where someone shot at a gunman in a populated area in a city with that kind of population, you can still guarantee some people dying.
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state
And this is an issue when people disagree politically as to what defines a 'free state' right now. Both sides are leaning somewhat fascist with their beliefs at the moment, and if you're not in the middle you're probably wishing harm on the other group. This is a direct opposite to the homogeneous political state of the amendment's founding.

In time, all will need to be revised eventually.
And before I get called a lib, I'm pro-gun ownership, have concealed carry and a glock 18, and knowing the 'responsible' gun owners I do, I think you're a fucking retard if you're preaching for gun ownership for EVERYONE and ANYWHERE.

Just wait until your family members die for no reason because you insisted on letting a schizophrenic neo nazi who thinks the jews are coming for their share of his sheckles go out into a major city with a semi-automatic rifle.

I'm not MethAnon, I don't know anything about what the trash can means.
I can however tell that you post in the exact style as the CrypticAnon, name files in the same manor and are refusing to admit that you are him, why is that?
You're even unironically using the flag he does a lot.

You realize Ruby ridge and WACO was to divert attention to the real Miracle Valley Cult right?
((Fuqra))

You were saying something about good intentions?

>The idea is that we are supposed to do that ourselves.

Okay, training aside would you let someone that you know is mentally unstable use a gun?

>Also all the ugly shit you posted to try and anger me.
What ugly shit?
Is it outrageous to believe someone who witnessed you laugh about pedo posts may be concerned?

I honestly dont know. I'm having an American moment. Forgive me.

retard detected

Regulated meant well armed and disciplined.

OH FUCK, its worse than I thought.


Get out of my helicopter!

If you keep pushing gun control your family will die in a war.

I don't trust you user. I don't think you're a Christian and I think you're using it against people.

...

Define mentally unstable. Everyone I've ever met was mentally unstable

>you hold on to your fucking weapons to hold YOUR fucking government accountable and make sure that they don't turn into repressive, tyrannical monsters
then the american people have wholeheartedly failed

>well-regulated militia
you idiots misinterpret this shit on purpose, don't you?

it means in good working order

So you follow some guy around the internet who calls himself crypto user...

Now you accuse me of being crypto user.

Do you know the statistical probability of that scenario happening naturally?

Let me tell you, it's slim to none.

Who do you declare crazy? You can take guns away from crazies, you just have to actually prove they're crazy by due process of law.

>well regulated Militia
>A well REGULATED Militia
>A well REGULATED Militia
>A well REGULATED Militia
THAT'S PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR NOW, ISN'T IT? i mean they didn't leave a WHOLE LOT TO THE IMAGINATION with that one now, did they??

>REGULATED

that means fucking laws.

END OF STORY

"mentally unstable" insofar as gun ownership is concerned should be "anyone inherently predisposed to violence".

people prone to schizophrenia, delusions, psychotic breaks, bi-polar, depression, etc.

I agree that 'mentally unstable' applies to most everyone, but there's a difference between "i'm disorganized and unreliable" compared to "the ghosts in my head tell me to kill and fuck the corpse of andy milonakis"

Felons deserve to have their gun rights restored when they are released from prison.

I just showed you whoever posted that shit, took the screenshot of it themselves, hence the trash can.

Looks awfully like someone is trying to frame "crypto-user" for whatever reason.

Of course, you know that already.

>Great, so no recreational firearms. Agreed?
wtf is a recreational firearm? Any gun can be "recreational" depending on how you use it.

A Remington 700 is recreational if I'm hunting deer. It's not recreational if I'm hunting human, unless I was Richard Branson or the like.

Your post reeks of ignorance and fallacy

>So you follow some guy around the internet who calls himself crypto user
Nope, I was already in this thread reading when you arrived linking your Trump AntiChrist thread.
>Now you accuse me of being crypto user.
If it looks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck...
>Do you know the statistical probability of that scenario happening naturally?
I've already laid out the reasons for my thinking you're him, instead of attacking me, why don't you address my concerns?
>Let me tell you, it's slim to none.
See above.

And who determines such things? Jew psychology?

I mean, the idea is that we'd have mandatory therapy for a period of time to determine that, not have some guy on the internet's opinion decide it.

That's the whole point, yo.

Well-regulated as in well kept. Like how a clock is well-regulated if it's properly operating. Consider learning English.

Hunting is not recreation. We have a right to hunt for sustenance. You faggots need to stop giving up your rights, because then they use it as an example against you and you don't even realize it. Hunting is a RIGHT and hunting licenses are BS.

>Define mentally unstable. Everyone I've ever met was mentally unstable
I was going to state someone that could be diagnosed with something along the lines of clinical depression, bipolar or border-line personality disorder but I honestly don't know how educated your countries populace is in regards to mental health.

I guess anyone that goes off the rails easily but then that's quite vague, it's the closest I have to what I mean though.

I'm not tech savvy, I don't know if that negates the post.
>Of course, you know that already.
user, I was a bystander, you're reaching.

still waiting someone to answer

If you don’t have, at minimum, 1000 rounds for each caliber, you’re a fucking idiot.

you realize that the comma makes a difference here in the language


and we have tons of laws, fuck off

Opinions are opinions whether on the internet or real life.

it depresses me how much this will get ignored

End of any attempt.
Any law intended to further a criminal conspiracy is thus the perfect legal reson to disobey it's commands, you owe no allegiance to those laws or those that impose them, as if they were never even written.

That's not what regulated means

>what is asymmetrical warfare
I guess liberals haven’t been paying attention the last half century.

This is good. Save it and spread on social media.

Those disorders you mention are kike pseudoscience BS and are completely based on the opinion of the doctor.

I'm an individual user, I don't represent my military or what goobermint officials say about other countries.

Let's see

Your words are

>I'm not MethAnon, I don't know anything about what the trash can means.
I can however tell that you post in the exact style as the CrypticAnon, name files in the same manor and are refusing to admit that you are him, why is that?
You're even unironically using the flag he does a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, let me get this straight. You follow cryptoanon around to the point you recognise his behaviors off the bat? Hence your assertion that you recognize the patterns and flags he uses.

You are now asserting
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck"

The implication again being, you follow this dude around, for whatever reason.

Correct?

You post an image you claim is by crypto-user but it has a trash can beside it, indicating the person taking the screenshot, took the image.

Right?

First it was taking firearms rights away from "felons", now it is the "mentally unstable", and I'm sure next it will be people "who believe in the 2nd amendment". Every single one of these efforts is just a way to slowly disarm the people. The people who disarm you will be the same ones that come to kill you immediately after. I'm almost certain that if the left ever regains power and is successful in disarming the people, they will begin rounding up and killing right wing voters and other "dissidents". This is why it is so important to never allow that to happen.

Explain how shall-issue infringes? (Not may-issue)

>the 69th amendment may guarantee the right to a balanced breakfast, but NOWHERE does it say you can own, purchase, buy, or sell food.
How are you supposed to form a militia, if you aren't allowed arms?
>murderrapists have already cracked your front door, might as well just let them in.

If jew psychology lets my kids go to school one day without worrying about being shot up while they learn shit, sure.

I used to think montana's gun-show loophole was dope until i moved there and saw how many crazy fucking meth heads have arsenals enough to level their major city. You have to be retarded and or severely paranoid if you think jews have some agenda for this.

>we sneaky jews have a secret plan
>we make it hard to get guns for crazies so the goyim stop killing each other in learning environments!
>haha that'll teach them
>good goyim

tfw you realize jews might be looking out for you.

I'm joking though, fuck israel. But still this board is so fucking paranoid about jews holy shit.

That's what the word meant when the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. Do some research. I think someone posted a video that explains it in this thread or one of the other countless 2A threads going now.

Agreed. Taking away somebodies right to adequately defend themselves is bullshit. Same with those with domestic violence charges. It is all just a roundabout way to disarm the people.

True my friend, true. But I don't come to Cred Forums to get advice for how to fix my car. I go to a fuckin mechanic.

Not all opinions are equally valuable.

no it doesnt in historical context of the time well regulated means maintained. for instance it was common to say you have a well regulated watch/farm/etc. KYS bootlicker.

IDGAF about your kids nigger. They're more likely to die in a civil war.

because it's retarded you fucking idiot.

Here here, fucking wish we had your bill of rights

Hunting is absolutely recreational for the majority of people that do it: They don't hunt because they have to, they do it because they want to. There are plenty of people that hunt because they live off the grid and do it to survive, but they are in the minority. You're missing the point entirely though. I'm saying there's no such thing as recreational firearms, and saying there are is an attempt to whittle away at our inherent right to protect ourselves.

All opinions are equally worthless when they attempt to violate my God-given rights.

>consent
>embyro/fetus
Are you commiting genocide whenever you have your partner ejaculate into your anus, wiping out a whole plethora of bacteria that lives within you?

yes you are, but you don't pass the laws. people who do pass the laws on domestic gun laws also make decissions on who to invade and why. you also elect those people and you too could be one of them (that's the beauty of democracy, right?) thus making you all as a nation responsible for that. It seems really weird when you do that. It would be like a priest preaching to people that they should not have sex outside of marriage and then sleeping with a hooker.

youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

They talk about their children's privileges as if they were rights, and talk about people's rights as if they were privileges.

Your children's privileges mean nothing if they don't grow up in a Free state secured by the people and for the people. Why are guns fucking banned from schools? Why aren't teachers carrying guns?

You also have a right to feed yourself. Just, because you don't do it doesn't mean that right should be taken from you. My point was that once you start allowing them to restrict your gun rights and agree with it in one regard, you already lost.

I've never voted in my life, because I do not consent.

>You follow cryptoanon around
No, the guy fucking joins every single Occultic thread on this fucking site and shits it up with no coherent opinions. There are probably a handful of people in this thread alone who know of the fucking sperg.
>The implication again being, you follow this dude around, for whatever reason.
See above, he's impossible to miss when joining certain threads.
>You post an image you claim is by crypto-user
No I didn't. I posted an image that was apparently taken by MethAnon, then posted in CrypticAnon thread to ask him about the deleted post.
>Right?
Yeah, my concerns were with you laughing when asked about it. You called it a probable agency fuck up, not someone trying to frame you.

I think Planned Parenthood and Family Court violate the 2nd amendment's Militia clause by not allowing fathers custody to raise their sons.
Militias are made young, and its a family initiative.
Indians in canada and Alaska hunt whales, walrus, musk ox, seals for profit but whites cant.
That is the largest infringment today of right to bear arms. Indians violate our 2nd amendment rights more than anybody.
NOAA/EWC actually fund Indian whaling corps and give them grants to buy bigger rifles, so the only militia the feds recognize are native corporations like ASRC,BBNC.

We don't live in a "democracy" retard, we live in a constitutional republic. The "democracy" meme is being pushed to brainwash people into voting for the left because they named themselves the "democratic party" because brainlets think if they have the name "they must be the good guys".

youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

"Magna Carte"

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

That is a legit question and I appreciate your sincerity.

My answer is no, however. The reason is because I dont trust concentrations of power, like a government, to decide what is and isnt "Mentally unstable".

It may be clear to you and I what constitutes a mentally unstable individual, however you must understand the nature of both government and people: in short - the corrupt will always seek to control the power of the state. This withstanding, any power to regulate a firearm will be abused.

And then we have a situation where the government having the power to determine what is and isnt mentally unstable, will simply classify everything as such.

As for the few crazyies that do exist, not only are not as much of a threat as a corrupted government, but any danger that they do potentially pose would certainly be quickly countered by any armed individuals that he might attack.

Consider that the national average arrival time of the police to a crime scene, is somewhere around 12 min.

You can do a lot of killing in 12 min. Killing that could swiftly be put to an end by a well regulated militia man.

>listening to steven crodwer
aahahahahha

Because Jacob Schiff didn't give the Bolsheviks 20million in gold

>once you start allowing them to restrict your gun rights and agree with it in one regard, you already lost.
Exactly. Whether it's "you can only use your gun to hunt" or "you only can only use your gun to shoot targets", once that line has been crossed we're fucked

>oh look! The medical field has now published that anyone who has ever had any level of depression or sad thoughts should now be barred from owning firearms
>fuck off, we’re the authorities on this topic, anyone not us need not apply

> not disputing anything said in the video

The key word in your argument is could. In the past 30 years has a mass shooting been stopped by a armed civilian?
Answer: No. Source (motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/)