[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 70 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>https://www.vox.com/2021/4/26/22364154/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-state-rifle-corlett-shootings-kavanaugh-barrett
The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right. Be mad as fuck about it chang. NYC is about to get slapped down. Shall issue to the 2 states and dozens of counties who dont have it. 20 states have permitless carry, which pigs get mad at because concealed carry permit fees usually go to police or sherifs departments, so less cash for pigs. Also in this article john paul Stevens (may he eternally burn in hell) said kennedy added the "some gun control is ok" language to heller, not Scalia. Hopefully we get strict scrutiny.
>>
>human right
Gun nuts aren't human. Gun legislation is to protect ourselves from you.
>>
>>834001
Dems do most of the gun crimes. Half of all murders in New Jersey are done in just 5 cities with Democrat mayors, according to NJ governor Murphy-D who is the head of the Democrat governors group.
>>
>>834001
Dehumanizing your enemies is a typical fascist move. Its clear that the real reason you want to disarm people is so that you fascists will be able to run roughshod over people's rights.
>>
>>834003
>Dems do most of the gun crimes
Guess we should ban guns then
>>
>>834005
That would mean that only dems have guns while law-abiding folk would be left defenseless.
>>
>>834001
Gun legislation happened because right wingers got scared of blacks arming themselves.
>>
>>834012
>while law-abiding folk
Like convicted murderer Chauvin?
>>
>>834017
No, I did not mean cops since they'll still be armed regardless of what gun-grabbers take from civilians.
>>
>>834005
Nah, ban Democrats
>>834015
The 1993 awb and Mumford act were both passed with more Democrat votes than gop votes.
>>834017
Gun laws almost always exempt cops. Regardless of what gun laws are passed, cops will still carry guns.
>>
>>834020
Because armed black people are the cause of over 50% of homicide
>>
>>834023
Seethe
>>
>>834024
Guess we should ban guns then
>>
>>834026
How do you propose to confiscate the 400,000,000+ unregistered firearms in private hands?
>>834025
Why? We are winning.
>>
>>834034
Seethe
>>
>>834001
There’s a lot of nigga gun owners you calling them inhuman? That’s kinda racis man
>>
>>834001
You spent all summer rioting and beating white people, even killing some.
You're just mad because some people like Kyle Rittenhouse were able to defend themselves against your murderous comrades.
>>
>>834001
You can "protect" yourself from us by moving to Totalitarian England, its just like in V for Vendetta in the U.K. right now. No guns for anyone, or sharp kitchen knives, and you need government permission to go outside. Is that enough government control for you to feel safe you little sissy?
>>
>>834053
Won't be happy until he has a social credit score and the government has cameras inside his ass to protect him from all the danger. he's not a man. He's a scared little rabbit
>>
>>834063
>Won't be happy until he has a social credit score and the government has cameras inside his ass to protect him from all the danger.
I bet you won't
>>
>>834034
>confiscate the 400,000,000+ unregistered firearms in private
Since only @35% of households own guns and it's generally poor black/white trash, just dangle the carrot of some gibmedats and all except the handful of nuts like you who wish to fulfill Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" prediction, will be lining up to surrender them lickity split.

But we'll be fair and responsible hunters will be permitted to keep a certain number of sporting firearms in armories they can check them out from during hunting seasons, you know, where the well regulated militias stored their firearms during the Founding Fathers colonial period if they lived in cities and towns.
>>
>>834004
>Dehumanizing your enemies is a typical fascist move.
you have no awareness of the cringe level of irony, fagela
>>
>>834053
>murderous comrades.
Umm, they were not white...
>>
>>834000
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.
Oh boy, it's that guy with the micropenis again...
>>
>>834120
>micropenis again...
you sound like a fucking bootlicker.
I do not know when absolute trust in the state became a thing? "Them" to be the only ones with weapons, and the absolute right to quash all discourse, and even inject shit right into your blood? jesus.
>>
>>834143
Well, when a "state" is populated by complete morons like you, it's much better if you don't have access to weapons, yeah.
>>
>>834071
Less government involved in human lives the better. You want them to hold your dick while you pee cause you're so scared and easy control like they want you to be.
>>
>>834080
Considering the failure of prohibition, I don't see an outright ban on guns working any better. Once the population has something, none of them are quick to give it up.

If this wasn't the case, the war on drugs would be working.
>>
>>834159
Less guns mean less deaths.
>>
>>834080
The fact that you're a sissy that waves the white flag the second conflict arises has nothing to do with the thousands of true patriots in the military. They're not giving up shit, because like anyone with a brain - they understand the 2nd amendment protects from tyranny. And a government caught in bed with helping Epstein run his pedo empire? Yeah I'm sure they'll maintain a free democracy without a threat of a forceful retaliation. Your brain is made of wood and for show kid.
>>
>>834163
Not when a government that was caught helping Epstein run his pedo empire decides tyranny is more profitable than democracy and no true patriots have the armament to stop them, peabrain.
>>
>>834163
>Less guns mean less deaths.
https://files.catbox.moe/xnebvd.pdf
Of Holocausts and Gun Control - Washington University Open ...
by DD Polsby · 1997 · Cited by 54 — The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or ...
>>
>>834190
His brain is a program owned and operated by the wealthy corporations/banking interests. You can't expect him to learn from historical mistakes or apply critical and common sense thought to things.
>>
>>834186
>But what about this insanely specific scenario?

And people wonder why we’re the only country with a mass shooting problem.
>>
>>834181
Having served in the US Army I assure you privately owned firearms are not allowed on base w/o being stored in the unit's armory. And they have to be signed out with a specific purpose and checked back in. You know, that clause that governs all other clauses of the 2A, "well regulated." Cope harder, nail Pelosi/Biden pics on a rotten stump and spray rounds at it to release your microchode incel frustrations. Don't feel bad, your Dear Leader is well documented as having a microchode too!
>>
>>834192
>And people wonder why we’re the only country with a mass shooting problem.
Absolutely.
Other countries have gun ownership. They don't have mass shooting issues
Ergo, the problem is not with guns but something else which is unique to america.
Our culture, perhaps.
We are also one of the only countries with both guns and baizuo. Maybe the issue is the baizuo.
>>
>>834191
>not wanting to spend money on weapons of war means I'm a corporate tool
Buy more guns, goyim. Spend at least half of your paycheck on guns.
>>
>>834163
Not according to the CDC
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=3e7777d1299a
>>
>>834215
That doesn't say anything about having more guns saving lives.
>>
>>834003
How do you know the political affiliation of murderers? Are you a psychic?
>>
>>834218
Defensive gun use means people having guns can save their lives. Taking away their guns would mean they can't.
>>
>>834206
>Not knowing you need guns to protect from tyranny by the jews
Your brain is small, and not good at critical thinking.
>>
>>834200
>Having served in the US Army
Nobody cares POG. Your point is dogshit when you consider Ft. Hood got shot up at least twice. Also guns not being allowed on base doesn't mean that shit doesn't happen. I used to leave my pistol in my truck on-base all the time. Unless they search it they weren't going to find out. So there goes that irrelevant "well regulated" argument you pulled out of your ass.
>>
>>834221
How many blacks in Chicago, the murder capital of the U.S. do you think vote republican or side conservative? Why would you need someone to point this out?
>>
>>834226
If they're a street thug that guns people down they probably aren't voting so...
>>
>>834229
Oh but I'd bet they would all be Trump supporters? Fucking idiot
>>
>>834224
The money I save not giving money to jewish firearm corporations is all the protection I need.
>>
>>834080
Based
>>
>>834233
>Jewish firearm corporations
>Heckler and Koch
>Glock
Lmfao
>>
>>834225
You should have been courts martialed or at least Article 15'd and if your grunt ass had been in my Company, I would have done so. I routinely ran unannounced full searches on barracks and cars just to find contraband. You had a lax, shitty CO, scumbag.
>>
>>834250
>You should have been courts martialed or at least Article 15'd and if your grunt ass had been in my Company, I would have done so.
You'd never find out faggot and if your ass was in my company I would have knocked you the fuck out. Go fuck yourself.
> I routinely ran unannounced full searches on barracks and cars just to find contraband.
Yeah I love how this still doesn't help your bullshit argument of keeping guns locked up in a well regulated armory. Just do full searches of everyone to make sure they're complying with your horseshit. Fuck the 4th amendment, but hey it's not like you gave a fuck about the constitution in the first place cocksucker.
>>
>>834235
Yes.
>>
>>834250
By the way you " routinely ran unannounced full searches on barracks and cars" - What was your rank again?
>>
>>834256
Man they must have more freedom in countries with no guns then, like Great Britain?
>>
>>834257
Major. Major Bullshitter.
>>
>>834259
Freedom means nothing to you people who aren't responsible enough to use it, which is why we will keep taking it away because you can't be trusted with it
>>
>>834265
>you find deserve freedom, but I do
-said every communist ever
>>
>>834261
That's what I'm getting from this. This guy searches cars in his company... First off he has the free time to do this is questionable, but whatever. Routinely inspects the entire company, barracks and POVs, without MPs being there and without the commander signing off on all these routine searches? And nobody had a problem with this? No complaints?

Yeah this smells like bullshit. Starting to doubt this guy even served.
>>
>>834080
No one is going to turn in shit. What are you going to do, offer $100,000 per gun?
And the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about the people being armed so they can defend themselves from Democrats
>>
>>834084
They were jewish pedophiles
>>
>>834151
Do you know what you are talking about? The state is the government and they will always have guns. We are the people and you are a commie
>>
>>834163
CITATION NEEDED
also
*fewer
>>
>>834200
That's a lot of REEEE there Nigel. Also we are people, not government slaves. We have rights unlike army whores
>>
>>834268
Nigel still hasn't told us what gun he hunts with
>>
>>834000
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.
Oh, hello there schizoposter. Thought we lost you for a minute there. Its unfortunate that we didn't.
>>
>>834295
Not that anon but here we go again with your bullshit. He said human rights so you're going to completely ignore everything in this thread and focus in on that phrase. You're going to go on and on about what is or isn't a human right until you pull the UN out of your ass.
1) UN has no fucking authority in the US
and
2) the UN's idea of rights, aren't. You do not have a right to a job, free healthcare or free education. Those are not rights. After being called out you might go three or four posts in arguing semantics on what a right is or is not and then you'll go silent and not bring up the UN again.

We've done this a few times. So how about we skip all that bullshit in this thread?
>>
>>834295
Life is a human right. Given that, then the ability to defend one's life must also be a right, because how could there be a right that cannot be defended? To take away a person's ability to defend their life would mean depriving them of their rights.
>>
>>834301
>Not that anon but here we go again with your bullshit.
Yes.

>He said human rights so you're going to completely ignore everything in this thread and focus in on that phrase
Yes. Schizoposter is an unhinged maniac and under no circumstances should be taken seriously. You seem to be under the assumption that disagreeing with schizoposter is somehow agreeing with gun control. Incorrect. I both support the 2nd amendment and dismiss schizoposter as the mentally ill degenerate that he is.

>You do not have a right to a job, free healthcare or free education. Those are not rights.
I would go on at length about how fucking retarded libertarians are but I'm not doing another anarcho-capitalist arch. Its boring and trying to have arguments with you people is like talking to drift wood.
>>
>>834306
>Life is a human right
Kys death grabber
>>
>>834320
I'm not stopping you from dying if that's what you want.
>>
>>834306
>Life is a human right.
Clearly it isn't. When libertarians make the claim that free healthcare is not a right or that housing or food isn't a right how is that not depriving one of the ability to survive? How is that not exactly the same logic? I'll give you a hint - its the exact same logic. This is the one question you psycho libertarians have failed to answer again and again because the real issue is you don't actually give a shit about human rights. You have your single wedge issues you're completely ideologically bought into but completely abandon all logical or moral consistency when your ideology contradicts your political principals.

Also, a gun is not a human right because we don't give guns to children. We don't give guns to prison inmates. If it was truly a human right then, ethically, we could not deny an incarcerated person the right to a firearm. Your logic fucking sucks. I know I said I wasn't going to be sucked into this but you libertarians are so mind numbingly idiotic its so difficult to understand how you can say the things you say outloud and not notice how completely logically incoherent they are.
>>
>>834325
No one is demanding free guns given to them by the government, just the freedom to create or purchase them. Just like with healthcare and housing and food. Its completely consistent.
Rights limit what the government can do to its citizens, they don't oblige the taxpayer to give you free stuff.
We don't give guns to children because we don't expect children to have to defend their own lives or be able to, and there are many rights that are restricted for children to begin with. Do you reject freedom of speech because parents can punish their kids for saying curse words? Do you reject freedom of religion because kids can be dragged to church? The rights of adults have never been dependent on the rights afforded to children.
We don't allow prison inmates to have guns because they have demonstrated that they act in bad faith, the whole idea of inalienable rights is that they cannot be infringed upon without due process. There is a big difference between restricting the rights of individuals shown to be violent and the infringing upon the rights of individuals who haven't.
You keep interjecting complaints about libertarians being illogical and resorting to ad hominem attacks, but it is obvious that you do not understand the concept of natural rights.
The logic is simple and straightforward. So where is the inconsistency? Where is the contradiction? You assert that they are there, but you don't actually show them.
>>
>>834200
>>834250
Nigel, I see you found how to google some "military terms" finally. You're still not fooling anyone.
>>
>>834325
>Also, a gun is not a human right because we don't give guns to children.
Well shit, someone should've told my dad that when I was 14.

>When libertarians make the claim that free healthcare is not a right or that housing or food isn't a right how is that not depriving one of the ability to survive?
Nobody is stopping you from obtaining those things. You're simply not entitled to them. Nobody owes you healthcare because you exist. This is what I mean when I said the UN doesn't know what rights are. Rights are not goods and services provided for you. Rights are something the government cannot take away, prevent or punish for having. You have the right to free speech (or would if this country could stick to the constitution) meaning the government cannot punish you for saying something they don't like.
>in before retarded fire in a crowded building argument that had nothing to do with fires when it was created
You have the right to bear arms meaning the government cannot stop you from obtaining one, nor can they punish you for owning one (again, this is how it should be if we followed the constitution like we're supposed to). Nobody owes you a free gun.
>>
>>834316
>>834295
Commies always use that same schizophrenic line for the past 100 years.
>>
>>834325
Why do you think you are entitled to own slaves?
>>
>>834000
wrinkly dementia man bad
>>
>>834345
>Well shit, someone should've told my dad that when I was 14.
Now you're pretending to be dumb to obfuscate the point. If a 14 year old walked into a gun store they wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. The gun store, according to your logic, would be violating that boy's human rights.

>Nobody is stopping you from obtaining those things. You're simply not entitled to them. Nobody owes you healthcare because you exist.
You still haven't addressed the logic of the point. Your argument specifically was that if you deprive someone of a necessary tool to sustain their life then you are violating their human rights. Explain to me how this logic applies to guns but not to housing, food or healthcare. All of those things are necessary to sustain your life. So, again, how is it different?

>Rights are not goods and services provided for you. Rights are something the government cannot take away, prevent or punish for having
This is the crux of the libertarian delusion - a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between positive and negative freedom. If the government allows a company to pollute your drinking water and air to the point that you can't survive then they are stripping you of the human right to life. A polluted environment is negative freedom - a factor which is inhibiting your freedom and autonomy. A clean environment is a positive freedom - a factor which is enhancing your freedom and autonomy. Your argument is non-sensical. Your argument is basically that the government is ethically allowed to enable an environment and society that inhibits your freedom but they are not ethically allowed to remove something from your possession that enhances your freedom. In both situations, your right to life is being inhibited. So, if you dare to pretend like you can string together a coherent argument, what is this difference?
>>
>>834365
Fuck off, schizoposter. I'm not going down this mentally ill rabbit hole with you again where an entire thread of people have to explain to you why your tax dollars funding things you don't like isn't slavery.
>>
>>834363
>Everyone I don't like is a commie
Yeah, we know, schizoposter. We know. The doctors that keep trying to get you to take your meds are all commies too I bet, huh?
>>
>>834000
(You) do realize, don't (You), that every time you ose your shit and blast incomprehensible sperge-speaking in tongues like this post, that

1) nobody has any fucking idea what you're saying
but 2) everyone understands that you're too mentally insane to be in the same county as any firearm

(You) are the reason why there can't be any discussion on the topic. There isn't any common ground with whatever alien tongue you're screeching in to even understand what you're saying.

The fact that (You) posted this should be a permanent red flag on your record to make sure (You) never come within touching distance of a firearm for the rest of your life for the safety of everyone and all society around (You).
>>
>>834369
A person isn't being deprived of something when people refuse to give it to them for free. They are being deprived of something when something they have or could buy is made illegal to have or buy by the law.
Put as simply as possible: "right to have" is not "right to receive for free"
Your environment argument is flawed because you conflate the negative right to life with the positive 'right' to live in an environment without pollution. In preventing pollution to uphold the right to life, a government is addressing a direct threat to the negative right to life. Banning guns would not be removal of a direct threat to a right, it would indiscriminately target people that are not a threat to others' rights. Preventing a violent offender from having a gun would be directly addressing their actions, but preventing everyone, even innocent people would not be.
>>
>>834392
>Put as simply as possible: "right to have" is not "right to receive for free"
Firstly, the vast majority of working aged adults in this country pay taxes so, effectively, nothing is recieved for free. Secondly, you haven't addressed the logic. The government allowing something to happen that inhibits your freedom has an identical effect to the government banning something that enhances your freedom. The effect is exactly the same so, for the third time, how is that different? How is it okay for the government to enable a condition that inhibits your right to life but not okay for them to create a condition that inhibits your right to life? Given how that right to life is framed in the constitution of our country how are they compelled to do one thing but not the other?

>In preventing pollution to uphold the right to life, a government is addressing a direct threat to the negative right to life. Banning guns would not be removal of a direct threat to a right
So, you massively loaded the question and again avoided addressing the logic. If you lived in an area so riddled with gun violence that it inhibited your freedom then yes, removing of that violence, theoretically, would be protecting your right to life.

>it would indiscriminately target people that are not a threat to others' rights
Another bad argument. We inhibit people's freedoms to preserve the autonomy of other people all the time. We inhibit your right to drive drunk because it represents an increased chance for you to inhibit the freedom of others. We inhibit your freedom to fire a gun into the air because it inhibits the freedom of others.

>Preventing a violent offender from having a gun would be directly addressing their actions, but preventing everyone, even innocent people would not be.
A firearm existing represents an increased chance of gun violence. You're not arguing my premise - you're arguing a threshold. I agree with that, it still doesn't address the contradiction in your logic
>>
>>834369
>Now you're pretending to be dumb to obfuscate the point.
Said the guy who brought up children and criminals to try to make his point.

>Your argument specifically was that if you deprive someone of a necessary tool to sustain their life then you are violating their human rights.
No my argument is rights are not goods and services given to you. Rights are what the government cannot prevent, take away or punish for owning/having/doing.

>Explain to me how this logic applies to guns but not to housing, food or healthcare.
Again, you have the right to obtain those things. Nobody is obligated to give them to you for free.

>All of those things are necessary to sustain your life.
And nobody is stopping you from obtaining those necessities. Just because you don't have a "right" to free healthcare doesn't mean you're prevented from buying healthcare.

>This is the crux of the libertarian delusion - a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between positive and negative freedom.
I'll agree with you that we have a different stance on what positive and negative freedoms are.

>If the government allows a company to pollute your drinking water and air to the point that you can't survive then they are stripping you of the human right to life.
And then you can sue them for damages - assuming the government isn't in bed with the company, which is all the more reason to limit their power.

>Your argument is basically that the government is ethically allowed to enable an environment and society that inhibits your freedom
And right there is where you lost me. It was already kind of shaky logic with your environment example when we're talking about gun rights. Just because our government isn't supposed to prevent or punish people from owning guns does not mean government cannot enforce laws and maintain a justice system. See you're trying to make this about anarcho-capitalism when we're talking about the constitution.
>>
Cool schizo thread
>>
>>834397
>Firstly, the vast majority of working aged adults in this country pay taxes so, effectively, nothing is recieved for free.
The people that would receive the things you demand are not the ones paying for it. It would be free to them, at everyone else's expense.

>Secondly, you haven't addressed the logic. The government allowing something to happen that inhibits your freedom has an identical effect to the government banning something that enhances your freedom. The effect is exactly the same so, for the third time, how is that different?
I have addressed the logic, you just refuse to address the argument that has been made. I spelled it out in my response to your environment example.

>So, you massively loaded the question and again avoided addressing the logic. If you lived in an area so riddled with gun violence that it inhibited your freedom then yes, removing of that violence, theoretically, would be protecting your right to life.
I loaded nothing, you just keep refusing to engage with anything being written. Removing violence is not the same thing as taking guns from nonviolent people, which is what gun bans do.

>We inhibit people's freedoms to preserve the autonomy of other people all the time.
You didn't understand the argument. Driving drunk is a direct threat to others, as is firing a gun into the air. Owning a gun isn't. This isn't hard, you are deliberately ignoring what is being argued.

>A firearm existing represents an increased chance of gun violence. You're not arguing my premise - you're arguing a threshold.
I have never argued a threshold, I've drawn a distinction between those that act to cause harm and those that have the capacity but don't cause harm.

This argument is pointless since you've shown an unwillingness to engage with it. You simply assert contradiction yet there is none.
>>
>>834397
>The government allowing something to happen that inhibits your freedom has an identical effect to the government banning something that enhances your freedom.
How does government banning something enhance freedom?

Clean air and drinking water isn't a right, it is a necessity. You do not have the right to drinking water. You need it to survive, and by all means you should be able to get it, but it is not owed to you. Does a man stuck in a desert in Arizona have a right to water? No. He NEEDS water, but there is no government mandate to provide water to everyone, everywhere, everytime. This is where we can't agree on what rights are. You think rights means the government has to give you something. I'm saying a right is your ability to own or do something without reprisal. So if you had a right to water, then you would have the right to obtain that water without the government throwing you in jail for obtaining water.

Now a company polluting your water, that you obtained legally for yourself, would be a matter for the courts. Nobody is saying the government cannot enforce laws. This is where your argument is flawed - you're conflating business and government.
>>
>>834080
Mate counties do buy backs all the time, go have a look at the "guns" that are handed in. Shit doesn't work the way you think it does in reality
>>
>>834080
>lickity split.
Fuck off boomer your type is what's ruining the country.
You believe every piece of propoganda fed to you by domestic outlets, you idiot.
Your type is this single greatest demographic threatening this country.
>>
>>834000
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.
Have all the rights in the Bill of Rights been translated into international human
rights? One right that has not become an international human right is found in the
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. It provides: "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."'
It is curious that no international human rights instrument protects the right to
keep and bear arms for two reasons. First, self-defense is the only exception to the
use of force set forth in the United Nations Charter in article 51 2 Second, representative democracy is intrinsic in every international human rights agreement that presupposes the people have the right to rise up and overthrow a non-democratic form
of government.
>>
>>834392
>Put as simply as possible: "right to have" is not "right to receive for free
So you believe humans have no rights and or believe you have a right to own slaves?
>>
>>834549
Rights dont come from the UN you fucking retard. The un exists to protect the ruling class, not you.
Also no one who lives outside the USA is human.
>>
>>834585
That's like your opinion, man.
>>
>>834549
>Have all the rights in the Bill of Rights been translated into international human
>rights?
No, because America hasn't conquered the world yet.
>>
>>834000
Gun for a free proletariat against the big corporations
>>
Remember Athens, Tennessee 1946
>>
>>834588
No, its pretty much objective fact. It's made up of unelected autocrats and gives high level commity powers to dictators like Putin and Xi
>>
>>834585
No rights come from any government or agency or person. It's just something you recognize.

So when you're talking about the international body of world governments on the planet agreement on what is or is not an unalienable human right, you can say "BUYING DORITOS IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT" but who recognizes that.

Self-defence is a basic human right,

Overthrowing and dismantling the government because it's tyrannical is not a basic human right.

Drinking beer and shooting logs in the backyard is not a basic human right.

Purchasing antiques with friends and family on the weekend is not a basic human right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is not a basic human right. It literally says, "a free State"

That doesn't even indicate "for the people" until after when it has to mention the "people" after, that need to own Arms to defend the free State.

It's not a basic human right, it's a basic free State right.
>>
>>834589
US literally founded the UN from the start. You really have no idea about international human rights.
>>
>>834655
>Murica stronk! Murica invented the moon and the stars!
The US were literally not even invited to the founding talks.
>>
>>834667
>The US were literally not even invited to the founding talks.
The founding talks were literally in San Fransisco you fucking lemming
>>
>>834000
'Im Joe Biden and someone shit my pants'

He will probably get the black woman who stocks his shelves to wash them for him
>>
>>834679
The basic framework for the proposed United Nations rested on President Roosevelt’s vision that the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China would provide leadership in the postwar international system. On 25 April 1945, 51 governments met in San Francisco for a conference and started drafting the UN Charter, which was adopted on 25 June 1945 and took effect on 24 October 1945, when the UN began operations.

But I can understand your misconception that the US didn't have much to do with the UN because they really don't regard it highly.
>>
>>834702
>But I can understand your misconception that the US didn't have much to do with the UN
You're retarded, did you mean to reply to >>834667?
>>
>>834707
ya
>>
>>834654
You are literally a retard. Diagram the sentence. It refers to an individual right. We've already won this. Its settled law. See heller. What fucking retard things that the government said they could own guns? Every other time the constitution and bill of rights mention the people, they are referring to an individual right and people distinct from the government.
>>
>>834005
We should ban registered Dems from owning guns.
>>
>>834825
Who is "We"?
>>
>>834821
From a literal sense, the 2nd Amendment says "We need to have an army with guns" and doesn't indicate that private citizens need to have "well regulated militia" but that a "well regulated militia" is okay with there being some barring to the provisions of "right to bear Arms" because of the "well regulated" part, from the State.

So...

The state can regulate the people with Arms. We call it an Army.

Thomas Jefferson was not thinking "All people, even lunatics and criminals and children, should have the means to kill everyone" It was assumed the reason for the weapon was for DEFENCE.
>>
>>834827
>he's still using the National Guard = well regulated militia argument that has been debunked on 4chan more times than I can count
>2021
>>
>>834827
Can't tell if serious. "Well regulated" in this context means "well equipped." The 2nd amendment specifically refers to a militia which is different than a standing army and was meant to oppose a tyrannical govt.
>It was assumed the reason for the weapon was for DEFENCE
You get this part right. Which is why the panic from gun grabbers when it comes to this case is out of place. A ruling against NY in this case would mean that they would need a shall-issue concealed carry permit system not the "deny for whatever reason" system they currently have. This would just mean that more people can legally carry a gun for self defense. It doesn't mean free guns everywhere.
>>
>>834833
National Guard? No, State Militia, which I think only Texas still has, which the meaning changed from State Militia to the Army. Kind of why they call them Army.

The National Guard of the United States is part of the reserve components of the United States Army
>>
>>834827
>From a literal sense, the 2nd Amendment says "We need to have an army with guns"
It does not. A militia is not a standing army. The first clause says being able to call up a militia to defend the state is needed.
>and doesn't indicate that private citizens need to have "well regulated militia"
No, it indicates that the PREEXISTING BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>but that a "well regulated militia" is okay with there being some barring to the provisions of "right to bear Arms" because of the "well regulated" part, from the State.
Nope. It explicitly states that the federal government cannot in any capacity do anything to harm or injury or deny the people their right to keep and bear arms.
>The state can regulate the people with Arms.
The second amendment says the exact opposite of this
>We call it an Army.
Militia is by definition, not an army.
> It was assumed the reason for the weapon was for DEFENCE.
Yes, defense against democrats.
>>
>>834836
Militias by definition does not refer to professional soldiers
>>
>>834835
>"Well regulated" in this context means "well equipped."
No, it doesn't. Nor has it ever. Why would the Army being well equipped ever by a constitutional right for the people? It's not dealing with the QUALITY of rights, but QUANTITY of rights of the people. Not how good, but how much?
>adjective (well regulated when postpositive) (of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition,

There was no standing Army at that time. It was all down to the private citizens to defend. It was down to state militia. Going by the literal text, the 2nd amendment says that only state militia have the right to guns.

It's an outdated right, that no one else in the world adopted, even tho they took all the other rights.... I guess every democracy developed free country on the planet is just too corrupt.

Also overthrowing a tyrant is not a human right, it's a given development of circumstances.
>>
>>834840
>Why would the Army being well equipped ever by a constitutional right for the people?
Because the second amendment doesn't refer to the army and it isn't a "right of the militia". It refers to the right of the people. It literally says "The right of the people, to keep and bear arms"
>Going by the literal text, the 2nd amendment says that only state militia have the right to guns.
"...the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Nah, it refers to individuals
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-066860b98f30065e815cca23700303b2
You already lost this argument, see Heller. It is settled law, smooth brain.
>It's an outdated right,
There is literally state sanctioned genocides going on right now, what the fuck are you talking about?
>that no one else in the world adopted, even tho they took all the other rights.... I guess every democracy developed free country on the planet is just too corrupt.
This, but unironically. Also those countries don't have freedom of expression either.
>Also overthrowing a tyrant is not a human right, it's a given development of circumstances.
It is a human right, as no human has the right to own another human and all humans have the inalienable right, endowed upon them by their creator to self determination.
YOU do not have the right to keep and bear arms because YOUR monarch does not grant it to YOU.
I have the right to keep and bear arms, because I will end the reign any tyrant who attempts to take MY rights from ME.
That's the difference between you and me.
>>
>>834840
>It's an outdated right, that no one else in the world adopted
Ok, chang
>>
>>834838
A militia is an army. You're thinking of Army. I am saying army. Lowercase 'a',

Because the Bill of Rights talking about the need of a military to secure the nation was done before there was a unified nation or federal Army or machine guns or automatic guns or rapid fire guns or rifles. Muskets and swords. Not even rifled muskets.
>>
>>834839
You're right. This is why they call them "WELL REGULATED". That's the "professional" part, because as everyone knows and it cannot be disputed, but a militia of and on it's own is just all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
>>
>>834842
>I have the right to keep and bear arms, because I will end the reign any tyrant who attempts to take MY rights from ME.
No you won't. You and your handful of butt buddies are not going to defeat the strongest military in the world on their home turf when laws that implement gun control and "well regulate" your ass as the Founders intended are passed and upheld under judicial review according to the processes outlined in the US Constitution. The members of the military are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, not your hurt feefees, Rambo.
>>
>>834842
The first half of the 2nd amendment is the explanation for WHY THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE EXISTS. If it just said "The right of the people, to keep and bear arms" you'd be right. Except there's more to it then just that.
It's saying the people are the army, and they need to have weapons.
>>
>>834846
Talking about the https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights which says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." which doesn't define the need or requirement of a weapon. "self-defence" is a basic human right. Owning a weapon isn't.
All of the human rights apply to prion too, in fact MORE SO to prisons.

So do every prisoner deserve the right bear arms?
>>
>>834848
Even cannons were no regular part of a battlefield army back then, they were treated primarily as ship and siege weapons. Napoleon was the first general to use cannon tactics as central element of a battle. The Heinz Guderian of cannon warfare, so to say. 25 years after the American constitution.
>>
>>834848
>A militia is an army. You're thinking of Army. I am saying army. Lowercase 'a',
No, they are distinct. A militia is a fighting force raised up from the civilian population in an emergency to fight alongside or against a standing army. It isn't an army.
>Because the Bill of Rights talking about the need of a military
It isn't. It is talking about an armed civilian group that could be called up in the event of an emergency.
> or machine guns or automatic guns or rapid fire guns or rifles. Muskets and swords. Not even rifled muskets.
Are you fucking retarded? Not only did the SCOTUS already unanimously rule this was a retard argument for smooth brain retards. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). The rifle was invented in fucking 1498. The first machine gun/automatic gun was the puckle gun, patented in 1718, and the Girardoni air rifle was invented in 1779 and used by Lewis and Clark and was well documented and was rapid fire enough to shoot 20 rounds in under a minute.
>>834849
So, everyone in the USA is part of a militia and therefore all private gun owners are doing so in a militia capacity and you have no leg to stand on? cool
>>834852
HAHAHA good one Nigel. They wouldn't be on their home turf, they would be on our turf and the constitution is on our side, not the side of the politicians.
>>834854
>The first half of the 2nd amendment is the explanation for WHY THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE EXISTS.
Yes, because they understood morons like you would want to get rid of it and say "no one needs" so they preemptively told you why the right exists.
>It's saying the people are the army, and they need to have weapons.
Militia =/= Army and yes, we need to have weapons. All private gun owners are the militia and their right to keep and bear arms for defense of person, hearth and home, and land shall not be infringed. Glad we agree, now let's get rid of the NFA.
>>
>>834857
Jesus fuck, no one cares about your group of unelected bureaucrats. The fucking woman who chaired that committee literally threw her own citizens in concentration camps in the desert for being asian.
Rights don't come from the UN. Fuck powder blues.
>>
>>834858
There were privately owned warships at the time and there was one of the federalist or anti federalist papers that explicitly says a group of neighbors should group together to buy a cannon.
Also, you are full of shit because I can go like 20 minutes from my home and get to a place where there was a makeshift base by a lighthouse during the revolution that they had a cannon embankment on
>>
>>834859
>The first machine gun/automatic gun was the puckle gun, patented in 1718
It was never used during any combat operation or war.[3][4] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.

Anon, that's a glorified tech demonstrator.
>>
>>834862
Forget it. I wasn't aware I'm talking to a retard.
>>
>>834863
You said it didn't exist. Good on you for cucking out on the other parts though.
>>834865
You are the one saying canons didn't fucking exist. Also
>25 years after the American constitution
is a dumb cope when it is already settled fucking law that that is smooth brain cope. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). Fucking Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor said you are a fucking smooth brain retard
>>
>>834857
>You have a right to security, but the state can deny you the means to protect that right while maintaining a monopoly on violence

Ok, chang.
>>
>>834859
Schizo
>>
>>834884
the cry of the commie as he licks his tail and flees back to discord for a new script from his oligarch master
>>
Jump to 1.07 it really is happening!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTHmQQFeYZw
>>
>>834886
Fuck off Tucker, you literally admitted you're full of shit.
>>
>>834888
Aw, are you waking up the reality that he is braindead?
>>
>>834840
>"Well regulated" in this context means "well equipped."
>No, it doesn't. Nor has it ever.
Yes it did you fucking idiot. Proficient, trained and in working order. I cannot believe we are having this argument again.

Seriously look at some quotes from the men who WROTE the fucking constitution and then tell me what they really meant is you can have a gun only if you're in the army. Fucking stupid.
>>
>>834857
>quoting the UN

CALLED IT!
>>
>>834861
Rights don't come from anyone or anything. God, infinite stones, Presidents, or restaurant chains.

So doesn't every prisoner deserve the right bear arms?
>>
>>834897
You found the secret jew??? Who you calling BINGO out too? I was saying how every other developed country has adopted the Bill of Rights as the US established them, except the 2nd.

So doesn't every prisoner deserve the right bear arms?
>>
>>834893
The Bill of Rights doesn't talk about quality.

Ever.

Period.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Quality.

So the "well equipped" is wrong on the basis of it existing. Having a "WELL EQUIPPED MILITIA" is not a basic human right.

The 2nd is talking about state militia in times of conscription for "the people" as a collective and not individual private citizen "person" for the specific and permitted purpose of the security of the State.

and not the private citizen, again, but this time in refernece to the "well regulated" (government oversight not how much food and weapons they have, but as a means of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION) for the "Militia" a Permitted institution, not just any private citizen, because AGAIN;

IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT PERSONS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE. COLLECTIVE PLURAL.

WE

THE

PEOPLE

The very reason for the 2nd amendment is for defence of the free State, not the citizen, by the Militia ran by the the people, not the citizen.

By misunderstanding this term, is a break of that term. infringes on the only adamant to say to not infringe.

tl;dr Bear arms for Militia/the people, as in WE the people, as allowed by the Federal Government, because they run the Militia of the people, for conscription.

We now have a service to provide them with bear arms.
>>
>>834004
Looking in the mirror?
>>
>>834265
So you're against or for Democracy?
>>
>>834848
Semi automatic rifles existed at the time. They were even used by the Austrian-Hungarian military. Look it up!
>>
>>834911
Yes
>>
>>834911
You can stop repeating yourself because no one here has said "prisoners should be allowed weapons."

>>834918
>"The people" is not individual private citizens
>We now have a service to provide them with bear arms
chang, your English is terrible.
>>
>>834915
Remember earlier when I said the UN doesn't know what rights are because you don't have a right to a job, free healthcare or free education?

You should since you're bringing up prisoners right to firearms bullshit again. How about you spare us your 20 posts and just scroll back up to when we had this argument last time?
>>
>>834918
>It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Quality.
Okay this is a new one.
>>
>>834926
I'm not dehumanizing anyone, nor am I infringing upon anyone's rights. Fascism is still fascism even when it comes in a Democrat wrapper. Gun grabbers are fascists because gun grabbing is fascist.
>>
>>834940
"What is a finite supply?"
>>
>>834946
Rights aren't in a finite supply, everyone can have rights. Just let people be free.
>>
>>834918
>The 2nd is talking about state militia in times of conscription for "the people" as a collective and not individual private citizen "person" for the specific and permitted purpose of the security of the State.
Well that's just plain making up a lot of suff that wasn't written in there, and I'm not even who your arguing with
>>
>>834080
All you're going to do is disarm poor people with that strategy
Not that it's a bad thing, poor people are the reason we have gun violence so I'm actually all for this strategy
>>
>>834948
The more we give you people rights the more you abuse them which is why we're going to keep taking them away from you, you don't deserve them
>>
>>834959
I've never abused my rights, but you to want to abuse any power you can get to take my rights away. You're the problem here.
>>
>>834964
Ok you know what? Not the anon you've been arguing with but for fucks sake, can we ignore all this rights bullshit and try to explain what we're supposed to do to avoid the fucking epidemic of public mass shootings our country has?

Fucks sake, other countries literally are starting to think of late spring as mass shooting season in America. We can't go a fucking week without some nutjob shooting up a school or workplace. We seem to be the only first world country with this problem, so what the fuck are we doing wrong?
>>
>>834968
>can we ignore all this rights bullshit and try to explain what we're supposed to do to avoid the fucking epidemic of public mass shootings our country has?
Get rid of gun free zones. They don't work. Let people with concealed carry permits, who are five to seven times less likely to commit a crime than your average citizen depending on which stat you use, carry concealed in places usually off-limits - schools, colleges, anywhere you do not have police or a properly equipped security.

Disclaimer: This is not a magical cure-all that will guarantee stop all mass shootings. People will still die, the difference is instead of 20 people killed you may only have 2. Again, not a magical cure-all. Some situations there won't be anything you or a carrier can do, like Vegas.
>>
>>834946
Which is all the more reason why a good or service (free healthcare) is not a right.
>>
>>834948
see
>>834977
>>
>>834975
So why do countries that have much stricter gun laws and are effectively completely comprised of "Gun-free zones" not have this problem?
>>
>>834968
No.
>>
>>834983
Lower population, homogeneous society, less gun deaths but more knife deaths, etc. You're going to need to be specific and name a country.

This might shock you but the US isn't in the top 10 for gun deaths. Russia has us beat and they have much stricter gun laws.
>in before Russia is a third-world country and doesn't count
>>
>>834988
>https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

Unfortunately, wrong.
>>
>>834968
>can we ignore all this rights bullshit
No, we cannot ignore our rights and the attempts to take them away. I will not be disarmed and left at others' mercy, especially since they've shown time and again how little mercy they have.
>>
>>834980
See what? No one's asking for free guns, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean they're handed out for free.
>>
>>834983
3% of the USA population is responsible for over half of all murders. Those countries with lower murder rates don't have that 3%. They also don't have a media network that makes millions off of every shooting, an obsession with 15 minutes of fame, and a cowboy culture that lionizes irresponsible gun use.
>>
>>835008
Who is "they" ?
>>
>>835015
Where do you people get these stats from and why did you believe them?
>>
>>835008
I'm not saying that. I'm asking to stop the debate on what's a right and what's not and address the actual goddamn problem.
>>
>>834004
Oh yeah. You got 'em. Nobody but fascists dehumanize others.
>>
>>835016
other people
>>835027
I'd be willing to address the problem if it didn't always start with "let's disarm people who don't cause the problem".
>>
>>834931
rifles didn't exist, let alone semi automatic. There was the gatling gun, it existed, but it was not widely known.
>>
>>835018
The FBI. Racists paint it as a Black issue, but the majority of Blacks do not murder anyone, its just a small number of people who commit so many more murders than even the average murderer that it swings the stats. Those people are less than 3% of the population. Its one shitty subculture of gang violence that puts a thumb on the scale and makes it look like there are a ton of murderers, when there are few murderers doing a ton of murder.
>>
>>834953
It's confusing because the 2nd amendment is confusing.

It's talking about the Militia. If you can be in the Miltia you need to have a weapon. Most supporters of the 2nd Amendment read only the last half. "the people have right to bear arms" and forget the context of the Revolutionary War that just ended. When the war began, Congress lacked a professional army or navy, and each colony only maintained local militias. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time and lacked the training and discipline of more experienced soldiers. Local county militias were reluctant to travel far from home and they were unavailable for extended operations.

The just added in a "right to bear arms" to help provide for that, and it was necessary back then. The "free State" was little more than a colony. USA now has the most powerful army in the world, the need for a Militia is outdated. That's what the 2nd is about, not about personal defence or home defence or even about high capacity magazines.

The idea that since people have a right to Arms means ALL ARMS, NO EXCEPTION. That being denied a bump stock or drum mag is removal of your rights to Arms.

Going by the founding fathers, you're allowed a musket and a cannon and a sword.
>>
>>835030
They're probably the only political ideology that supports dehumanization. Ya. Fascism is not a political movement, it's an ideology. It's essential a caste system, which inherently dehumanizes.
>>
>>834918
>The Bill of Rights doesn't talk about quality.
>
>Ever.
>
>Period.
>
>It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Quality.
I have no idea what you are talking about with this autistic rambling
>IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT PERSONS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE. COLLECTIVE PLURAL.
The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their..." So are you saying that individuals don't have a right to not be searched without probable cause, only the collective? Like a cop can go into your house on a whim and search the place all up and down as long as he doesn't do all houses at once?
The 9th amendment says,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Is this saying all other rights not listed are collective and not individual rights?
>>
>>835039
Rifles were invented in 1498. Rifle literally just means a shoulder fired gun with a rifled barrel.
>>
>>834848
>>835039
>mfw chang doesn't know about the fucking Kentucky Long Rifle near me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
>https://www.outdoorrevival.com/instant-articles/rifle.html
>https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/05/04/the-kentucky-rifle-how-americas-famed-frontier-long-gun-changed-warfare/
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONot7ujoxfc
Can you stop larping, literally every American was taught about the Kentucky (or I guess Pennsylvania if they are from Pennsylvania) long rifle and how the superior American Marksmen used to snipe bong officers with their superior marksmanship skills using a long rifle.
>>
>>834959
No one "gives" you rights. Rights are inherent
>>
>>834968
>>Fucks sake, other countries literally are starting to think of late spring as mass shooting season in America. We can't go a fucking week without some nutjob shooting up a school or workplace. We seem to be the only first world country with this problem, so what the fuck are we doing wrong?
CNN makes up fake mass shootings that never happened
Fewer than 100 people died in mass shootings in 2018 and 2019. There were 10 in 2018 and 12 in 2019. The USA is the biggest first world country. What the fuck is going wrong is CNN literally makes up fake news that never happened in order to deny people their rights
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view
>>
>>834983
They have people mass murder with knife and truck attacks. There are also multiple nations with higher mass killings per capita than us. We are literally the biggest first world country
>>
>>834001
>>human right
>Gun nuts aren't human. Gun legislation is to protect ourselves from you.

Up yours Shareblue.
>>
>>834994
Russia isn't on that list and that list doesn't show the USA is top 10 in gun deaths. Nonblack Americans also have the same murder rate as belgium
>>
>>834004
>Dehumanizing your enemies is a typical fascist move. Its clear that the real reason you want to disarm people is so that you fascists will be able to run roughshod over people's rights.

The illiberal left are the closest group to fascist in the US right now.
>>
>>834005
>>Dems do most of the gun crimes
>Guess we should ban guns then
Or we give the needle to people convicted of murder. 1 appeal allowed within 6 months of conviction.
>>
>>834024
>Because armed black people are the cause of over 50% of homicide

Shhh, we're not supposed to talk about that anon.
>>
>>835056
>It's talking about the Militia. If you can be in the Miltia you need to have a weapon.
If you are a abled bodied man over 17 you are in the militia according to US law. I am sure if you pressed the issue the 14th amendment and Section 504 extends that to all people above the age of 17 who are citizens or want to become citizens
> Most supporters of the 2nd Amendment read only the last half.
Because that is the operative part of the 2nd amendment. The first part is just a justification.
>and forget the context of the Revolutionary War that just ended. When the war began, Congress lacked a professional army or navy, and each colony only maintained local militias. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time and lacked the training and discipline of more experienced soldiers. Local county militias were reluctant to travel far from home and they were unavailable for extended operations.
The justification for the militia part was so we could remove tyrants
>The just added in a "right to bear arms" to help provide for that, and it was necessary back then. The "free State" was little more than a colony. USA now has the most powerful army in the world, the need for a Militia is outdated.
Are there no such thing as tyrants? If you think it is outdated, repeal it, faggot. Go for it.
>at's what the 2nd is about, not about personal defence or home defence or even about high capacity magazines.
high capacity magazines are explicitly protected by your reading of the 2nd amendment.
>The idea that since people have a right to Arms means ALL ARMS, NO EXCEPTION. That being denied a bump stock or drum mag is removal of your rights to Arms.
it is
>Going by the founding fathers, you're allowed a musket and a cannon and a sword.
People owned warships and rifles that could shoot 20 rounds a min at the time. Plus you already got unanimously BTFO over this retard, see Caetano
>>
>>834968
Better mental health care that is not an automatic forfeiture of your guns. Jobs programs in urban areas. Gang violence intervention programs. Cops/prosecutors/ATF doing their jobs to arrest for straw purchases or acting on warnings. Allow more people to carry in more places. Report gang violence separately from spree shootings.

And you could try being friendly to the weird, quiet guy at work.
>>
>>835128
>Cops/prosecutors/ATF doing their jobs to arrest for straw purchases
But anon, that would mean actually arresting and prosecuting the WoC and Mudsharkarinos. You really think the big bad government should actually apply the law to roasties?
>>
>>835110
Constitutions do not discuss the quality of human rights. They're pretty binary, you either have a thing or you don't. There's no discussion about quality of human rights.
So someone thought "well regulated" was talking about "well provisioned" or "well equipped" or "well trained", that would false on the fundamentals that Bill of Rights does not discuss the quality of Rights. It's discussion the existence. It's pretty fundamental, because it's the fundamental of the entire country and law that preceded.

This is why the 2nd is not like the others, it refers to BOTH "Militia" and "the people". If it just said "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." You'd be correct, on all accounts.

>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>Is this saying all other rights not listed are collective and not individual rights?

The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social contract, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law were enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.

Not an uncommon practice to name parties in a contract as a collective as one name. Check out your employment contract, it's the same one everyone else signed, but not's addressing you as an individual, but as a member of the business.

The USA operates on the same principle of a corporation the President is the CEO, Chief Executive Officer if there ever was one before. Only if you're a part of the business, as part of the collective, do you gain benefits to the recognition of these rights.

Some guy from China is an individual, he doesn't.
>>
>>835111
They might have been, but in the US there wasn't much understanding or manufacture them. Rifling existed, but not for infantry. In the territory of Kentucky, one of the most successful early rifles, the long rifle, was developed over the course of the 18th century. Compared to the more common Brown Bess, they had a tighter bore with no space between bullet and barrel, and still used balls instead of conical bullets. The balls the long rifle used were smaller, allowing the production of more rounds for a given amount of lead. These rifles also had longer barrels, allowing more accuracy, which were rifled with a helical groove. These first started appearing sometime before 1740, one early example being made by Jacob Dickert, a German immigrant. By 1850 there were a number of such manufacturers in the area. About 50 years after the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>>835118
>CNN makes up fake mass shootings that never happened
CNN is the one fabricating it, to deny people their rights? Because they reported it? They are there to sell ad space, not control your mind, scitzo.
>>
>>835129
Yes. They wanted equality, they'll fucking get it.

>>835130
Are you paid by the word now? You realize when Americans say "the people" we mean all Americans, right? It's different than "the People's Committee on Dog Meat Distribution of Yee Yee Province," in that case "the people" means the govt.
>>
>>835039
>rifles didn't exist, let alone semi automatic. There was the gatling gun, it existed, but it was not widely kno
Rifle existed then retard.
Non-rifled barrels were most common because of the ease of manufacture but don't even act like Pennsylvania Rifles didn't exist and weren't used.
>>
>>835132
>Rifled firearms saw their first major combat use in the American colonies during the French and Indian War, and later the American Revolution in the eighteenth century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
>>
>>835133
>They are there to sell ad space, not control your mind
I disagree
Not only have they fit the pattern of a domestic propaganda outlet but one of their own technical directors was been recorded on tape claiming cnn regularly releases propaganda and is a propaganda outlets
>>
>>834983
>So why do countries that have much stricter gun laws and are effectively completely comprised of "Gun-free zones" not have this problem?
Why do countries that have much less gun laws not have this problem?

Because countries that have both less and more gun laws do not have this problem, that leads one to believe that it's only very loosely coupled with the level of gun laws and there must be something else at fault here
>>
>>835130
>Constitutions do not discuss the quality of human rights. They're pretty binary, you either have a thing or you don't. There's no discussion about quality of human rights.
Yes, you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms. I agree.
>So someone thought "well regulated" was talking about "well provisioned" or "well equipped" or "well trained", that would false on the fundamentals that Bill of Rights does not discuss the quality of Rights. It's discussion the existence. It's pretty fundamental, because it's the fundamental of the entire country and law that preceded.
The militia part is just referring to why. The operative part of the 2nd amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is settled fucking law. Stop making this retarded yuro argument.
>This is why the 2nd is not like the others, it refers to BOTH "Militia" and "the people". If it just said "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." You'd be correct, on all accounts.
It only refers to the people. The militia part is just a justification because they knew retards like you would try to repeal it.
>The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social contract, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law were enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.
Yea, someone denied their rights.
>Not an uncommon practice to name parties in a contract as a collective as one name. Check out your employment contract, it's the same one everyone else signed, but not's addressing you as an individual, but as a member of the business.
This is some retard cope.
>>
>>835132
Kentucky (or Pennsylvania) long rifles we commonly used by American Marksman during the revolutionary war and would surely have been known to the founders. They weren't invented after the war. You are literally a fucking nonAmerican. They teach us about the Kentucky long rifle in school.
>>835133
They reported shit that didn't happen. They aren't just there to sell ad space, but to push propaganda. See the wikileaks documents and how the media took orders from the DNC/Clinton campaign.
>>
>>835127
>If you are a abled bodied man over 17 you are in the militia according to US law. I am sure if you pressed the issue the 14th amendment and Section 504 extends that to all people above the age of 17 who are citizens or want to become citizens
Yeah, except we're not talking about Starship Troopers, and citizens and civilians are actually one and the same. EXCEPT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. IT REFERS TO "THE PEOPLE" AND THE "MILITIA" AS ONE AND THE SAME. It doesn't say age 17. That's up government to decide, as entailed in "well regulated" part.
>or want to become citizens
You either have the rights, or you don't. Having a visa or a green card entails you the full rights. It's not like we house soldiers with immigrant families houses. Same rights.
>The first part is just a justification.
Which is the important part. "the meaning of the law" the operative doesn't exist without the justification. You don't need bear arms to be conscripted into the Militia anymore, but there's still more guns then citizens in the US.

>The justification for the militia part was so we could remove tyrants
Then the made the President, and the entire point was moot.
>Are there no such thing as tyrants?
Yeah, the President. That's what a tyrant is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. John Booth was just exercising 2nd amendment.
>high capacity magazines are explicitly protected by your reading of the 2nd amendment.
For the purposes of United States law, the receiver or frame is legally the firearm. Barrel, stock, grip, scope, magazine are all accessories. This was a big point in 3D printed guns. So in US law, magazines are not protected as Arms.

In fact the right for arms, some could say means you're allowed a musket and a sword, and that's it. Right fulfilled. You see how the 2nd is hard to describe as a "basic human right"?

Warships are not arms. Cannons are. Militia, not Navy has the right to arms. So not even.
>>
>>835144
>Yeah, except we're not talking about Starship Troopers, and citizens and civilians are actually one and the same. EXCEPT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. IT REFERS TO "THE PEOPLE" AND THE "MILITIA" AS ONE AND THE SAME. It doesn't say age 17. That's up government to decide, as entailed in "well regulated" part.
The Dick Act literally says abled bodied men from 17 to 45. I didn't make that up out of thin air. And I'm sure if litigated the SCOTUS would say it refers to all Americans due to the 14th. Granted it is irrelevant because the 2A refers to an individual right and this is settled law and you are just a coping chinese faggot.
>You either have the rights, or you don't. Having a visa or a green card entails you the full rights. It's not like we house soldiers with immigrant families houses. Same rights.
Yea, court in AZ ruled illegals can own guns.
>You don't need bear arms to be conscripted into the Militia anymore,
We need it now more than ever with a literal fascist in the white house who appointed a dude who gassed and burned 25 kids to death as head of the ATF.
>Then the made the President, and the entire point was moot.
It isn't moot. Presidents can be fascist tyrants. See Biden
>Yeah, the President. That's what a tyrant is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. John Booth was just exercising 2nd amendment.
yup
>For the purposes of United States law, the receiver or frame is legally the firearm. Barrel, stock, grip, scope, magazine are all accessories. This was a big point in 3D printed guns. So in US law, magazines are not protected as Arms.
Magazines are an integral component to a firearm. All militaries use 20 or 30 round standard capacity magazines. Miller literally states that militia weapons are protected and therefore mags 20-30 rounds are protected.
>>
>>835134
The individual does not gain anything from the Bill of Rights. It's the government that promises these, it's not Bill of Sales. This isn't something you buy into, it's something the founding fathers came up with to prove they could build a better country themselves. And they did. 200 years later, we have a bit better information and understanding to go by. Like Slavery is bad.
>>
>>835115
Ya. That was 50+ years later. I doubt any founding father was alive by the time they manufactured those rifles. They changed the face of war.
>>
>>835144
>In fact the right for arms, some could say means you're allowed a musket and a sword, and that's it. Right fulfilled. You see how the 2nd is hard to describe as a "basic human right"?
RBG literally called you a smooth brain retard for saying this. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
It is settled law. You lost.
The right to keep and bear arms means all bearable arms technically. As in the government can't restrict at all. But the case law says that only weapons of war and weapons commonly used for defense are protected. Ergo muskets and swords aren't protected by the 2A, but semi auto carbines and machine guns are.
>Warships are not arms.
They literally are.
>Cannons are. Militia, not Navy has the right to arms. So not even.
You know boat militias are a thing? And the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia. Again. Settled fucking law.
>>
>>835135
50 years after the 2nd existed.
>>
>>835147
The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the government so they cannot harm preexisting basic human rights because a legitimate government cannot deny those rights. It literally refers to individual rights.
>>835148
Are you fucking retarded. Timothy Murphy fucking sniped a Bong general at Saratoga during the revolutionary war with a Kentucky Long Rifle.
Daniel Morgan was a revolutionary war general who lead Morgan's Riflemen who were armed with fucking rifles. Seriously stop fucking arguing and fuck off yuro. Your opinion doesn't matter
>>
>>835151
Are you fucking retarded. Timothy Murphy fucking sniped a Bong general at Saratoga during the revolutionary war with a Kentucky Long Rifle.
Daniel Morgan was a revolutionary war general who lead Morgan's Riflemen who were armed with fucking rifles. Seriously stop fucking arguing and fuck off yuro. Your opinion doesn't matter
Also
This is a dumb cope when it is already settled fucking law that that is smooth brain cope. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). Fucking Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor said you are a fucking smooth brain retard
>>
>>835146
>The Dick Act of 1903
>The United States Bill of Rights ratified in 1791
I am not chinese, just all the world's constitution are based on the US, and of all the rights, the 2nd is the only one everyone else ignores. Owning a weapon is not a basic human right. 2nd states "Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia." Most people use the measure of "equal or lesser force" AKA "common sense"

Half of the original 10 amendments, were addressing criminals, too. So to imply EVERYONE has the right to bear arms, is false. Because access to weapons is not a basic human right.

It wasn't until 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The existences of a POTUS, the position is tyrannical. Not the person.

Magazines are as integral component to a firearm, but from a legal point, they're not a firearm. It's only protected now. From the original Bill of Rights, doesn't mention non-Arms being protected. But since the idea of the 2nd is expanded to "EVERYONE IS MILITIA" yeah.
>>
>>835156
>>The Dick Act of 1903
>>The United States Bill of Rights ratified in 1791
your argument this entire time has been "the government can regulate" the dick act is the government regulating and it says pretty much everyone is innamilitia.
> just all the world's constitution are based on the US, and of all the rights, the 2nd is the only one everyone else ignores.
And the first, because they are run by tyrants
>Owning a weapon is not a basic human right.
it is
> 2nd states "Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia."
It doesn't say that, but even with that tortured as fuck reading, that still states that ARs are protected because they can be used for militia purposes.
>Most people use the measure of "equal or lesser force" AKA "common sense"
I don't even know what retard shit you are arguing here. Someone has a right to use absolutely any force needed to protect themselves from death or bodily harm from an attacker.
>Half of the original 10 amendments, were addressing criminals, too. So to imply EVERYONE has the right to bear arms, is false. Because access to weapons is not a basic human right.
the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right. Knock it off with this cope. Pensioners are also denied freedom of association and freedom from search and seizure.
>It wasn't until 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Nope. Dred Scott says they don't want to consider blacks as people because then it would mean blacks had the individual right to keep and bear arms.
>The existences of a POTUS, the position is tyrannical. Not the person.
Nope, the person is. Biden is. Teddy wasn't.
>>
>>835149
>Settled fucking law.
In the US. Everyone else sees "equal or lesser force" as the basic human right. The ability to have the same capacity as the military is a modern interpretation. I mean it's the reason why sawed-off shotguns are illegal. The Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. Not the individuals rights, but the collectives. Now it's changed, now it's the individuals. So it's weird.
>>
>>835157
>he dick act is the government regulating and it says pretty much everyone is innamilitia.
That came 100 years later. And then the conscripted everyone, twice.
They didn't need to bring their bear arms.
Tyrant doesn't mean a fascist. It means a person of absolute authority. They were talking about the King. This is why the founding fathers didn't include a President to have the unmitigated power he now has. The ability for the President to declare war, technically doesn't exist, still.
>>
>>835157
>Someone has a right to use absolutely any force needed to protect themselves from death or bodily harm from an attacker.
from death. Not from bodily harm. Someone punches you, doesn't mean you can kill them. Why would it.

You lack basic common sense.
>>
>>835156
>Magazines are as integral component to a firearm, but from a legal point, they're not a firearm.
no, this is some retard cope. Since it is an integral part of the arm it is protected in the same way ammo is.
>It's only protected now. From the original Bill of Rights, doesn't mention non-Arms being protected.
Mags and ammo are arms. They are a component to the weapon and the word arms refers to ammo as well. Firearms can't function properly without their mags.
>But since the idea of the 2nd is expanded to "EVERYONE IS MILITIA" yeah.
The militia has always been the people. We just went from white men to all people. Like voting rights.
>>835158
>In the US.
This thread is about the US and US law. Cope yuro
>Everyone else sees "equal or lesser force" as the basic human right.
I literally do not care what subhumans who enjoy being chattel think.
>The ability to have the same capacity as the military is a modern interpretation.
No, it's a historical interpretation. When the 2A was written people had warships and the same arms as the military.
>I mean it's the reason why sawed-off shotguns are illegal.
They aren't illegal, you just need to pay a $200 tax. And the justification for that was that SBS weren't used as a weapon of war. That was literally the argument. If you read miller the way it was written the NFA isn't valid for anything but SBS.
>The Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
Militia=/=military
> Not the individuals rights, but the collectives. Now it's changed, now it's the individuals. So it's weird.
It has literally ALWAYS been an individual right. Or are you saying the 4th amendment only applies to the collective? Because the 4th amendment also starts with "the right of the people"
>>
>>835161
>no, this is some retard cope. Since it is an integral part of the arm it is protected in the same way ammo is.
no, because some judge 200 years later said this. The word of the Bill of Rights was to improve military strength. We're past that now. I am pretty sure USA has a strong enough military.
>>
>>835159
>That came 100 years later.
You said the government can regulate. The dick act is the government regulating.
>And then the conscripted everyone, twice. They didn't need to bring their bear arms.
The dick act doesn't refer to conscription. That is the army. The dick act says that if the bongs or commies invade everyone needs to get their OWN guns and muster so shoot commies.
>Tyrant doesn't mean a fascist. It means a person of absolute authority. They were talking about the King. This is why the founding fathers didn't include a President to have the unmitigated power he now has. The ability for the President to declare war, technically doesn't exist, still.
The president still can't declare war, congress has to. Biden is a tyrant.
>>835160
>from death. Not from bodily harm.
No, in the USA you are allowed to use self defense such as a gun to prevent yourself from getting severe bodily harm.
>Someone punches you, doesn't mean you can kill them. Why would it.
Because they could kill or maim you from punching
>You lack basic common sense.
So you are fine with men punching old grandmas in the face and the grandmas should fist fight and not be allowed a weapon?
>>835163
NO, the word of the bill of rights was to protect individual rights. The second amendment doesn't even refer to the military. It says militia, which by definition are not the military, but regular people who are raised for combat during a crisis. That crisis could involve fighting the military should a Tyrant like Biden, say appoint a piece of shit who lit 25 American kids on fire to be head of an agency known for extrajudicial murders of American citizens.
>>
>>835163
>no, because some judge 200 years later said this.
Also this is retarded because the docs from the time absolutely regarded ball and powder as arms the same as the musket itself. Same with the bayonet.
>>
>>835161
>Militia=/=military
It is a formally part of a country's armed forces, you know how I can tell. Because it's the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Military.
>>
>>835166
The militia are the people who are armed. Not the military. The militia is necessary because it can fight both invaders and tyrants using the standing army
>>
>>835165
Yeah, the bullets in the gun are arms, seperate from the firearm. They are integral. There are some guns with no magazine, but none without ammunition.
>>
>>835166
You're literally just taking words from historic documents and redefining their meaning using a subjective interpretation based on your own contemporary bias
>>
>>835167
By tyrant they mean a person that is above the law. You keep saying 'tyrant' like it's relevant in any legal standing. Technically fighting tyranny is what the Bill of Rights itself it doing. As a whole. That's the entire reason for the constitution. It's not that the 2A is fighting tyrants, but ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS ARE OPPOSING TYRANTS.

2A was to make the Militia better.
>>
>>835170
No, I am trying to keep it the original meanings. The modern meaning of 2A is "everyone gets a gun" the original meaning was "everyone is in the military"
WHAT PART OF THE MILITARY, you might not ask, the MILITIA!
>>
>>835169
The second amendment protects gun used for the purposes of military use and self defense. All guns in common use with armed forced and for self defense have magazines. Magazines are arms and protected by the 2a.
>>835172
>By tyrant they mean a person that is above the law.
Yea, Biden and Chipman.
>2A was to make the Militia better.
And it still does, because it ensure the militia, which is the people, are armed.
>>835173
>The modern meaning of 2A is "everyone gets a gun"
That was the original meaning too.
>the original meaning was "everyone is in the military"
WHAT PART OF THE MILITARY, you might not ask, the MILITIA!
The militia is not the military. The militia is by very definition, not the military, but civilians who can be called up in times of crisis to supplement or fight against the military.
>>
>>835173
The militia is not the military. You seem to be incapable or unwilling to understanding this.
>>
>>835130
>that would false
>It's discussion the existence.
>but not's addressing you
>capitalization/punctuation errors

Stop using google translate.
>>
>>835188
Make no mistake
There is a chang assigned to this board who shills bigly daily
>>
>>835193
Okay Ivan whatever you say. Tell Oleg he still owes me 40000 rubles from that poker game.
>>
>>834001
Heh if we were the problem you would know it
>>
>>834120
>obsessed with dick still
Rent free I say
>>
>>834120
>Oh boy, it's that guy with the micropenis again...
Ah, this reminds me of Patrice O'Neal (may he rest in peace) back when he did the Black Phillip show and he had some goofy girl who was being ridiculous, calling Patrice gay and other stupid shit. Anyways! So a caller calls in talking about relationships, doesn't even mention her, and she goes on about how he can't get women and he's angry because he has a small dick. Now when everyone asked her why she went there, she went right to victimizing herself and "oh everyone's attacking me" stupid shit and could not - the entire show - answer why she did that.

My point is this is what you remind me of. You have no argument so you're making some baseless attack without any reason or logic behind it.

You're acting like a girl. Even if you're a guy, you're using bitch tactics at this point. This is what arguing with a woman is like.
>oh you can't get women
>you're probably gay
>you've got a small penis
>have sex incel
This is what you do when you have no argument but you need to attack someone you don't agree with. You act like a woman.

tl;dr not an argument.
>>
>>835164
>That crisis could involve fighting the military should a Tyrant like Biden, say appoint a piece of shit who lit 25 American kids on fire to be head of an agency known for extrajudicial murders of American citizens.
Iow, when legal Constitutional processes occur that hurt your feefees, you and your fellow gun nutzis have to take action. Thus, the attempted coup by right wing gun fanatics on 1/6 to prevent acceptance of legally certified state electoral votes and crpwning Trump King, attempts by kill teams to execute elected officials, the seizing of the MI Capital because Gov. Whitmer was implementing Covid public safety measures recommended by US federal health agencies and attempts to kidnap her.

So you're advocating violence and tyranny when legal Constitutional processes hurt you and other gun nutzis feefees instead of using methods of Democracy outlined in the Constitution to seek redress. You are literally a perfect example why tight enforcement of comprehensive redflag laws and tighter gun control including the banning sales and ownership of military grade assault weapons are imperative. You and your authoritarian, tyrannical anti-Democracy buddies are a danger to the US.

In some ways, your attempted coup on 1/6 and attack on the MI Capital were good simply because they prove your arguments that unregulated guns are necessary to PREVENT tyranny is a dog whistle expose your true motivations to the American people that it is to IMPOSE tyranny when Democracy does not produce the results you want.
>>
>>835271
I wasn't at the capital on 1/6 so quit trying to take my gun.
>>
>>834000
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.

No one cares about your Yankee doodle dee country, Billy Bob.
>>
>Human rights
Conservatives will claim that guns are a human right, but not access to healthcare. The argument can be made that neither are a basic human right, but it's funny how they can pick one without the other. So arbitrary.
>>
>>835276
Why do you want to enslave doctors?
>>
>>835276
There's nothing arbitrary about it. Natural rights are presumed to exist independent of governments. There's no way for taxpayer funded healthcare to exist without taxes, which require a government, so it can't be a natural right since it can't exist prior to government. There may plenty of great arguments for why a government should pay for healthcare, but none of those arguments are based on it being a natural right. If it were law that the government was obligated to pay for healthcare, then that would be a civil right, but there is no meaningful distinction between a civil right and a privilege since both are at the discretion of the provider, i.e. the government. Any concept of ethics that obliges people to support others beyond their responsibilities is no longer engaging with rights or ethics, its asserting the existence of entitlements where none exist.
>>
>>835306
Do you realize how absurd and ironic you sound when considering how healthcare is a universal basic human right in every country except the US?
>>
>>835308
Good job ignoring his entire post.
>>
>>835308
>in every country except the US
So not in nature but in countries, so it isn't a natural right but a civil one. Glad we agree on that.
>>
>>835276
>but not access to healthcare
FREE healthcare. Nobody is stopping you from purchasing healthcare.
>>
>>835308
>healthcare is a universal basic human right in every country except the US?
Unless you're too old and they decide you no longer have a right to treatment that extends your life a few more years.
>>
>>835308
human rights =/= natural rights. You do not have the right to another person's property or labor.
>>
>>835327
As opposed to the US, where if you’re too poor going to the hospital means massive debt and an addiction to painkillers.
>>
>>835327
Remember they consider any distrust of the government to be "tinfoil". Even though even a tiny glance at history shows you should never trust government.
>>
>>835331
You act like doctors don’t get paid in other countries.

But ooooooo the big bad tax man scares you. God help you pay a little bit more every year in exchange for not losing ten thousand dollars for a hospital visit.
>>
>>835335
I'm going to pay a lot more because your taxes will force all the richfags to leave.
>>
>>835335
>you pay a little bit more every year in exchange for not losing ten thousand dollars for a hospital visit
That's called insurance and it already exists.
>>
>>835332
I'm just saying, so much for what you fucking think rights are. We keep having this stupid argument. You do not have a right to healthcare because healthcare is a good or service, which are not rights. How many times do we need to go over this? Especially in this case because clearly you don't all have a right to healthcare if the government can say tomorrow that you don't have a right to healthcare because you're too old.

>b-but muh debt in US muh addictions
If you want to argue the effectiveness of this healthcare vs that healthcare then make another thread.
>>
>>835338
>muh john galt
This never happens in reality.
>>
>>835339
Except instead of a universal tax controlled by the state it’s a personal one a health insurance company can jack up at any time. You’re paying more for the same thing.
>>
It isnt a basic human right, in America they say it is a right but if you arent a part of the in group the police will murder you for having guns. Why are you lying about this?
>>
>>834003
I bet if you asked each criminal what their party is 100% say Republican.
>>
>>834062
In England they are beating up the cops right now and having Anti-Lockdown protests so nothing you say is true.
>>
>>835348
>Why are you lying about this?
You know why.
>>
>>834053
Kyle killed white people. BLM killed nobody. Nazis use BLM riots to kill people though.
>>
>>835271
Go to bed Nigel. Your script is stale.

>>835276
So funny how liberals can pick healthcare over the right to self defense. How arbitrary. You can have medicaid, enjoy.
>>
>>835348
Just because the police violate a right doesn't mean it isn't a right. If anything, by pointing to those violations as an injustice you are affirming that is a right since it must be a right to have been violated.
>>
>>835354
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html

I guess his life didn't matter.
>>
>>835357
Except official police and US protocol dictates that if the subject has a gun they’re considered an active threat to everyone in the area.

Go ahead, try taking a gun to a government building/police station. See what happens.
>>
>>835347
The state can jack up taxes too, difference is that I can shop around for competitors or just refuse to deal with insurance companies, but I can't quit paying taxes without the state getting violent. And not everyone would be paying more for insurance, some would be paying less than what healthcare-funding taxes would demand of them. I don't see why I should be paying for some fatass's triple bypass or a chain-smoker's chemo when I didn't make their choices, they did.
>>
>>835358
And the evidence he wasn’t killed by Nazis is... where exactly?
>>
>>835360
>Why should I pay for roads I don’t use
>>
>>835359
You do know there have been armed protests at and around government buildings right? IIRC there was one in Virginia in 2019.
Could you cite this policy, since it doesn't seem to be enforced?
>>
>>835324
>Nobody is stopping you from purchasing healthcare.
Health insurance companies did prior to ACA for any reason or no reason at all. If you had recently had appendicitis, you were not going to receive individual health insurance. And even with ACA, a number of Neanderthal red states failed to expand medicaid eventhough it would be funded by federal money so there are tens of millions of people who earn too much to qualify for medicaid but too little to qualify for subsidies. Ironically, many of them live in brain dead red states.
>>
>>835363
Here’s a fun little clip and article
>https://www.pressandguide.com/news/armed-men-who-walked-into-dearborn-police-station-sentenced-to-jail/article_1443f049-5f17-5096-a5d7-bae9f45309c1.html
>>
>>835362
If someone came and started breaking up the roads, shouldn't they be the ones that pay to fix them? Smoking, obesity, and plenty of other things healthcare treats are a result of decisions that I'm not responsible for. If you just wanted healthcare for the people that took care of their bodies and drew a bad lot, then we could talk, but I'm not going to entertain paying for everyone else's poor life choices.
>>
>>835356
>Go to bed Nigel. Your script is stale.
Nope, in fact it's clear you can't argue against it because your own words here convict you. American people aren't so stupid that they can't see it clearly. Keep pretending I'm Nigel though if it makes you feel a false sense of security, but I'm from AL. Now go take out your incel frustrations by blasting rounds at a ground squirrel or songbird to get your rocks off.
>>
>>835366
And what about the other people it benefits? The kids with cancer, the people getting horrifically maimed in accidents. Why should they have to hope their gofundme makes enough money for them to not die?
>>
>>835365
Just because the police violate a right doesn't mean it isn't a right.
You'd have defended slave-catching if we lived in 1830 on the grounds that since cops catch slaves they don't have the right to be free. Same retarded logic as saying a right to bear arms doesn't exist if laws ignore it.
>>
>>835366
Then go live in a cave, Ted. The fact is, that's the way society works. Either accept your role in the social contract or get out of society and decrease the surplus population - YOU!
>>
>>835368
You seem to have missed
>If you just wanted healthcare for the people that took care of their bodies and drew a bad lot, then we could talk
Paying for that would be negligible compared to other taxes. Still not a natural right, but if you want to pass that law I won't oppose it. But in a nation with an obesity epidemic, subsidizing lardasses would fuck over the taxpayers. And then to counter that there will be people arguing that fatties need to be regulated, which is government overreach. Or they want sin taxes, which would punish people who may not actually be unhealthy despite making unhealthy choices (e.g. not every smoker gets cancer), which dodges due process.
>>
>>835370
That isn't the social contract, you don't even understand the theory you're trying to use.
>>
>>835364
And you couldn't purchase healthcare without insurance?
>>
>>835382
Do you have any idea how much it costs without insurance?
>>
>>835361
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/charges-filed-in-murder-of-retired-st-louis-police-captain-david-dorn/article_3e95441e-4126-520b-9c41-fbbcbf889e6c.html
>>
>>835367
Let's pretend for a second that you do in fact live in Alabama. Consider that your words and mannerisms give you away on an anonymous online forum and you are consistently called out as a brit bong. How fucked up is your posting style that you continue to be confused with some cuck half way around the world? How many times are you going to say that every pro 2A poster here can't present an argument because of 2 bullshit events that no one here was involved with?
>>
>>835374
>social contract: an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits
Fool, you are.
>>
>>835425
Subsidizing your obesity is not a social benefit

Fatass, you are
>>
>>835425
People who abusev the social contract and are a detriment to society should not reap the benefits of said contracts.
I agree with anon.
>>
>>835415
Lets realise for a second, that I occasionally throw in a few brit words just to see you throw a piss fit. Lets also realise the poster I was responding to among others, make absurd threats that he and his butt buddies will attempt an insurrection (and in fact did in the specific instances I cited) if the results of laws, EO's, elections, etc., that pass judicial challenges and reviews according to processes laid out in the Constitution. The attempted violent overthrow of the US Govt. because you disagree with the results that Democracy and the application of processes specified in the Constitution is in fact the support of tyranny as opposed to Democracy. Therefore, the argument that he and other 2A fanatics try to make that they need their weapons to prevent tyranny is false, and the exact opposite is the case in that they wish to impose tyranny when things happen they don't like.

Q. fuckin' E.D.
>>
>>835427
Social contract says subsidising your retardation is.
>>
>>835436
>Attempts to defend out countries constitution against tyranny make us the tyrant
Ok, epistemological arguments aside one side is passing law against a foundational legal documents the other is not
>>
>>835436
A few thousand unarmed trump supporters rioted in the capitol building, disrupting a ceremonial part of the election. They are being arrested and charged. A handful of retarded michigan people caught in an FBI honeypot. They were arrested and charged. This somehow invalidates the second amendment? There can't ever be tyranny because some people that YOU don't like did stupid things?
>>
>>835271
Nigel posted the date correctly this time.
>>835275
Then stop posting in this thread, retard
>>835276
Because owning a gun doesn't harm anyone. Also no one is blocking access to healthcare. If you mean free healthcare, that is because you don't have a right to own slaves.
>>835308
Because those countries are pro slavery.
>>835351
Blacks don't vote GOP.
>>835348
It is a basic human right. Our rights don't come from the state. IDK what happens in your hell hole where you have a monarch.
>>835354
BLM murdered over half a dozen cops and a young mother and a small white kid.
>>835361
It was on webcam and the dude was black
>>835367
>>835436
Nigel, we know you aren't from Alabama due to the fact that you know how to read and that you can't name a single gun. We kicked you tyrants out of our country and we won't be giving you our guns now.
>>
>>835447
>one side is passing law against a foundational legal documents the other is not
Thanks for proving my point! You and your little merry band of lunatics don't get to make that decision! You see, there is a thing known as the judiciary whose function is outlined in the *gasp* Constitution that covers that issue! If the law passes judicial challenges, then it is Constitutional! Sure, you can have an opinion about it, but you work within the parameters of the Constitution to change that law while obeying that law or suffer the consequences. But if you refuse to accept the processes outlined in the Constitution to accomplish legal change, then get out of this country or become a goo spot. Protip: Overthrowing the US Govt. because a law or election result hurt your feefees is not a legal option provided in the Constitution.
>>
>>835474
>You and your little merry band of lunatics don't get to make that decision!
We do. We are the people. The government answers to us. Unlike in your country where the government answers to the queen
>>
>>835474
>You and your little merry band of lunatics don't get to make that decision
The right to self detemrination blocks your path.
You are caught flat-footed.
It's a critical hit.
You die.
>>
>>835474
Assblasted nigel rationalizing tyrannical rule.
How's that cable tv license treating you
>>
>>835474
Nigel posting about judicial review in a thread about judicial review about to overturn gun control. Poetry.
>>
>>835479
>>835482
>>835484
>we hate Democracy and the Constitution when it produces results that we disagree with so we'll just overthrow the govt. whenever that happens.
Again, thanks for proving by your own statements you support tyranny! When I can so easily win an argument simply by referencing my opponents own statements, I don't even work up a thirst. Oh well, I guess I'll stroll on down to ye olde pub for a a pint or 2 of a right fine cask conditioned bitter anyhoo. Tally ho, ol' chaps!
>>
>>835474
>You see, there is a thing known as the judiciary whose function is outlined in the *gasp* Constitution that covers that issue!
That's literally what they are doing you retard, they are striking down NYC's carry laws
>>
>>835496
the constitution didn't produce results we disagreed with, voter fraud and lawmakers making unconstitutional laws did.
We explicitly are against tyranny. That is why we are against the fascist who appointed a dude who burned 25 children to death to be the head of a Law Enforcement Agency
>>
>>835383
Yet you can still buy it. So stop with the bullshit argument that you are being denied healthcare. Just because it isn't free doesn't mean you cannot obtain it. Like everything else in this world, goods and services cost money.

If you want to argue that our healthcare is broken and more expensive than it should be then that is a valid but different subject involving government policy that belongs in another thread. But when we're talking about rights you don't get to throw out that people are being denied the "right" to healthcare because they cannot afford the healthcare they want. You do not have a right to healthcare, just like you do not have a right to education, just like you do not have a right to a home, just like you do not have a right to food and water. These are not freely given to you because THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS!
>>
>>835507
They are rights in the developed world. If the Americans had modern infrastructure, they could afford food and water too.
>>
>>835511
You don't have a right to own slaves. The poor chose to be poor
>>
The Biden nazi's are using the postal service to run a 'covert operations program' that monitors Americans' social media posts.


https://news.yahoo.com/the-postal-service-is-running-a-running-a-covert-operations-program-that-monitors-americans-social-media-posts-160022919.html
>>
>>835497
>they are striking down NYC's carry laws
You hope. There has been no ruling yet, kid. Are you going to stage a Crap-in-Court coup attempt if you don't get your way, lol!
>>
>>835529
>Biden Nazi Post Office
The head of the Postal Service is a Trump appointee, Louis DeJoy, moosebreath.
>>
>>835536
Ah yes, once again you people blame your shortcomings and errs on your opposition.
Take responsibility.
Start with californias massive homeless crisis and unlivable wages.
>>
>>835536
You people even blame Trump for Beijing Briben's policy of bombing Syria, shill
>>
>>835536
Obama started the covert op, Trump stopped it Biden has restarted it
>>
>>835536
And she takes orders from the fascist in the white house, who is a nazi.
>>835534
Dial 8 and seethe. We have a 6-3 advantage. Are you going to Murder Thomas like you Murdered Scalia?
>>
>>835600
>She

Who the fuck are you talking about?
>>
>>835603
I read it as Louise DeJoy
>>
>>835608
The fuck did you get the e from?
>>
>>835613
Im used to Luis being spelt without the O
>>
>>835511
You only have the money for such programs because you don't have to spend anything on a competent military with the US doing all the work. It's easy for places like Germany to have free healthcare when they can't be bothered to keep 1/3rd of their joke of an air force active, don't have even 100 ships to maintain that are bigger than a frigate, and have an army more concerned with recycling and gay pride than they are with logistics (seriously why the fuck can't krauts into supply chain).

In before I cherry-picked Germany. I can go on about the UK, Italy, France, pick whatever card you want.
>>
>>835538
>>835540
>>835543
>>835600
Biden does not have the authority to fire DeJoy and while DeJoy was Trump's lickspittle he does not answer to Biden. He answers to a Board of Governors which was packed with Republicans by Moscow Mitch just like the SC because he would not consider Obama's nominees.

>Biden himself once derided DeJoy as "the president's guy," and congressional Democrats have repeatedly called on DeJoy to resign or be removed, citing allegations of mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and possible campaign finance violations.

>But the postmaster general cannot be removed by a president. That power lies with the Postal Service's governing board -- whose six sitting members were all appointed by President Trump as a result of a Republican-controlled Senate blocking a slate of President Barack Obama's nominees.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-postal-chief-poised-remain-biden-administration/story?id=74469137
>>
>>835059
I don’t think you have literally anything to back that up
>>
>>835600
>Dial 8 and seethe. We have a 6-3 advantage
Why would I seethe? I argued in support of obeying laws and judicial rulings whether I agree with them or not since that's how Democracy works. There are legal Constitutional remedies that can be taken w/o throwing a bitchfit and attempting coups, assasinations of elected officials, seizing State Capitals and attempting to kidnap the MI Gov. like your ilk prefer.
>>
>>835600
>6-3 advantage
So? They have made some surprising rulings already that hurt rightwing Neanderthal feefees. It ain't over 'til the fat Dear Leader magat cultists sing ;)
>>
>>835626
Pretty sure we could literally cut military spending in half and it would have no affect on the world at large, because holy fuck we overspend on military.
>>
>>835629
>just like the SC because he would not consider Obama's nominees.
He considered Obongos nominees and said no because Garland was a far left anti gunner who has no place in government and should be rotting in a jail cell for human rights denial and breaking his oath to the constitution.
>>835631
>since that's how Democracy works
I'm sure you told that to Thurgood Marshall
>There are legal Constitutional remedies
Yes, Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, and Ammo box. Or Armilight, Ballots, and Courts.
the first amendment also says "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The capitol protest and protest about the Whitmer murdering olds we activities protected by the first amendment that occupying oligarchs are crying about when they have no purpose for being in the people's house.
>>835632
You and de Blasio wouldn't be crying if you were confident that this would go your way
>>
>>835633
Biden demanded an increase in defense spending and if we were to cut military spending dems would start crying about muh russia
>>
>>835436
I don't care where you are from, you are still a massive faggot.
>>
>>835633
Pretty sure Trump threatened to shut down bases and pull out of Germany. How did that go again?
>oh Trump is literally Hitler for leaving poor Germany defenseless
Nevermind the fact that the German population don't want us there anymore and the cold war is over with. The German government needs their gibs. It's what a million a year per base to their government?
>>
>>835630
Solid argument, dodge the topic and go right for the anonymous speaker based on your in-depth knowledge of their history.
>>
>>835674
Nice attempt at fucking bullshit instead of just posting your fucking source.

Eat shit and die.
>>
>>835634
>The capitol protest and protest about the Whitmer murdering olds we activities protected by the first amendment that occupying oligarchs are crying about when they have no purpose for being in the people's house.
Thanks for demonstrating once again why gun regulations, licensing, thorough background checks including social media activity, and tight redflag laws are imperative. Too many of you'all are an existential threat to Democracy. You make a better argument for gun grabbing just by existing than "Everytown for Gun Safety" ever could.
>>
>>835680
>we need to remove the entire bill of rights because people having rights are a threat to democracy reeee
cool one there Chang. Nice script
>>
>>835692
I can't think of a bigger threat to democracy then armed groups trying to intimidate elected officials into doing what they want.

Founding Fathers were pretty clear of what they thought of insurrectionists. See the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>
>>835679
We both know any source I give you, you'll call fake, so don't think this is a debate of genuinity, you're as bad faith as could ever be. Not calling you disenguines, but it's been like over 50 years, there's a massive body of evidence you doubt already. I am not sifting over the largest world war in human history to tell you "NAZI MAN BAD" if you don't agree, no one wonders why.
>>
>>835694
>can't think of a bigger threat to democracy then armed groups trying to intimidate elected officials into doing what they want.
What about wealthy groups paying off elected officials to do what they want.
Because I promise you that one of these things is a lot easier to discover and make public than the other
>>
>>835694
>I can't think of a bigger threat to democracy then armed groups trying to intimidate elected officials into doing what they want.
I can. Rich oligarchs using their power to spread propaganda through CNN and fascist tyrants appointing someone who helped murder 82 people including lighting 25 kids on fire to be head of law enforcement departments
>>
>>835703
...wouldn't political corruption and bribery be the harder one to discover? You know, because as you say the people in charge are being paid off?

Also that doesn't mean the other thing isn't a problem. Both are bad and should be stopped.
>>
>>835694
>I can't think of a bigger threat to democracy then armed groups trying to intimidate elected officials into doing what they want.
How about armed groups with the authority to intimidate, imprison or murder citizens for not toeing the line?
>>
>>835707
Literally what is wrong with people peacefully assembling at the capital and protesting using firearms as symbolic speech?
>>
>>835705
Ok so I keep hearing about the whole Waco Siege incident, so I decided to look into it a bit.

And lo and behold you're leaving a few things out:
>Target was effectively a goddamn cult, with the leader having a few "spiritual wives" who were literal children
>Said target was offered to stand down multiple times and kept refusing
>Government only used tear gas because it was 51 fucking days into the siege and the leader still refused to stand down
>Whole siege only happened because they killed 4 ATF agents in a firefight when they raided them with a legal warrant to investigate them for stockpiling weapons
>>
>>834827
This is how you spot an obvious shill. No one is unintentionally this fucking retarded
>>
>>835694
>Founding Fathers were pretty clear of what they thought of insurrectionists. See the Whiskey Rebellion.
By NOT hunting down and imprisoning anyone for being at the protest, no fly lists (lol they didn't have planes derp) for anyone who was there, and not charging at least 300 people for having the temerity to protest the government without shooting or burning anyone/anything like the left has been doing for a whole year? I'm pretty sure the people involved in the Whiskey Rebellion assaulted tax collectors and got into a shootout with the government with a few people killed, and I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't go on a witch hunt for the rebels after they fled.
>>
>>835425
Its an implicit agreement to give up some rights to authority to protect remaining rights. And guess what? That authority has determined that there is no right to free healthcare, so there is no basis in the social contract for which you may demand free healthcare.
>>
>>835721
>Target was effectively a goddamn cult, with the leader having a few "spiritual wives" who were literal children
No evidence of kiddy fucking despite all the accusations - which came out AFTER the ATF got their shit wrecked.

>Said target was offered to stand down multiple times and kept refusing
After the ATF fucked up and tried to kill everyone, fucked around and found out. You also have to consider this happened after Ruby Ridge when Vicky Weaver got sniped for being armed with an infant. Kinda hard to trust feds after that.
>Government only used tear gas because it was 51 fucking days into the siege and the leader still refused to stand down
Oh my fucking God. Read Gary Noesner's "Stalling For Time" and then come back here. Maybe then you'll have some insight into the rivalry and breakdown between the FBI teams who just wanted to go in there and kick ass instead of saving lives like the negotiators were doing.
>Whole siege only happened because they killed 4 ATF agents in a firefight when they raided them with a legal warrant to investigate them for stockpiling weapons
Which wouldn't of happened at all if they let the local sheriff, who knew Koresh and was on good terms with him, bring him in quietly. But instead ATF wanted to Kick Ass and Take Names and started the firefight while Koresh was outside his compound with his hands up.

God fucking educate yourself before you come here talking shit.
>>
>>835721
>>Target was effectively a goddamn cult,
Yup
> with the leader having a few "spiritual wives"
He fucked everyone's wife, it was a cuck cult
> who were literal children
yea he fucked his wife's sister. Not saying it was good, but that isn't under the ATF's jurisdiction and doesn't justify lighting 82 people on fire.
>Said target was offered to stand down multiple times and kept refusing
After the ATF came in and shot the place up. David jogged by himself all the time and went into town multiple times a week where he could have been vanned, but the ATF did a full on raid because they wanted it to be on TV. A fucking TV crew guy told the mailman he needed directions there and the mailman tipped off David. They could have done the whole thing without doing a raid on the compound and just bagged him when he was alone.
>Government only used tear gas because it was 51 fucking days into the siege and the leader still refused to stand down
Teargas mixed with a flammable gas for delivery, in a place they knew was full of kerosine lamps and that they were sleep depriving the people for weeks and the ATF/FBI used flammable munition
>Whole siege only happened because they killed 4 ATF agents in a firefight when they raided them with a legal warrant to investigate them for stockpiling weapons
The ATF agents were shot in self defense. The ATF shot first because they wanted to put it on the news when they could have bagged David in town no problem. The ATF also "Accidently" "Lost" the door and tapes showing they shot first but recovered the other door. There is no justification or cope for what the ATF and FBI did at Waco or Ruby Ridge. They could have done this nonviolently like they did with the Bundy Ranch. David fucking a 14 year old doesn't justify coming in guns blazing and shooting first and then lighting women and children on fire
>>
>>835738
>Ruby Ridge when Vicky Weaver got sniped for being armed with an infant.
To be fair, Vicky was an accident. The ATF sniper was trying to shoot the baby and missed
>>
>>835740
>and doesn't justify lighting 82 people on fire.
It is justification enough for democrats
>>
>>835743
When you look into the militia shit from the 90s and the OKC bombing as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge, it is real easy to see why 9/11 truthers exist. I wonder what would happen if there was no 9/11 to pause hostilities between Americans and Democrats
>>
>>835740
>>835738

>Done a 51 day siege non violently

What the fuck were they supposed to do, wait for the guy to get off his religious shit and come out peacefully?

Was the tear gas overkill? Definitely. Was the fire the ATF's fault? Likely, but also most likely unintentionally considering they only found out the gas they used was flammable in certain conditions 7 years later. The only reason the media knew about it was because of internal leaks to the press.

To quote an argument I see the same types of people saying this shit use: If they'd just complied with law enforcement no one would have died. You pick a fight with the federal government and drag family members into it, if they die that shits on your hands not theirs.
>>
>>835755
>>Done a 51 day siege non violently
They could have fucking bagged David tons of fucking times before the siege happened and chose to go in as cowboys with a news crew filming it because they wanted PR after the fuckup that was Ruby Ridge. The fact that there was ANY siege was 100% the ATF fucking up.
>What the fuck were they supposed to do, wait for the guy to get off his religious shit and come out peacefully?
Sure, they also could have negotiated more of the kids out as they had gotten other kids out.
>Was the tear gas overkill? Definitely. Was the fire the ATF's fault? Likely, but also most likely unintentionally considering they only found out the gas they used was flammable in certain conditions 7 years later. The only reason the media knew about it was because of internal leaks to the press.
They burned the place on purpose because they got ass fucked after Ruby Ridge where Weaver only got charged with not appearing in court and got off scott free in shooting ATF agents and the feds had to pay out him and his daughters. Burning down the compound ment no one to walk or sue.
>To quote an argument I see the same types of people saying this shit use: If they'd just complied with law enforcement no one would have died. You pick a fight with the federal government and drag family members into it, if they die that shits on your hands not theirs.
They didn't pick a fight. The ATF literally came in and started shooting at David when he had his hands up and no one was armed because they wanted to make good TV to help their budget. The cuck cultists only shot back because they got shot at first. The fucking ATF even had the sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver in a helicopter shooting down at the compound.
Plus no one was in their right mind, because again, the ATF literally torture the people by not letting them sleep and playing sounds of animals being slaughtered 24/7 really fucking loud.
>>
>>835695
You're a faggot.
Your argument skills are bullshit.
And you a retard.

Anybody who doesn't even participate in a discussion and preemptively says bullshit like this needs to go fuck themselves. You probably also say racist bullshit because is obvious you subscribe to every stereotype there is. You have absolutely no moral authority to say anybody is bad faith, you have literally demonstrated that not only do you argue in bad faith ad nauseum, but that you have long ago given up even pretending to argue in good faith. May God have mercy on your soul.
>>
>>835695
Not him but the burden of proof lies on you
>>
>>835769
>They could have fucking bagged David tons of fucking times before the siege happened

Yeah, because bagging a secretive sex cult leader who barely ever left his compound is the easiest thing.

Oh, and they didn't tell the news. The news found out because someone blabbed about it to them, as often happened back in the day before they realized how badly this fucks up operations. The only reason the ATF shot first was because they were already armed and ready for them when they arrived. What were they supposed to do, walk into an ambush? Calmly ask the fucking armed posse to let them inside and then promptly have the poor bastards they sent out gunned down?

They broke the law and refused to surrender at any point. They only let the kids who weren't from the cult leader out, which the leader straight up admitted. Even if there was unnecessary aggression from the ATF heads, no one would have died had they not mounted an armed resistance against a legal warrant.
>>
What the constitution or founding fathers meant is irrelevant at this time. The supreme court has already ruled that any individual can be a militia, whether they're in their own home or out in the public. Stop arguing semantics with libcucks. The law is already very clear about this.
>>
>>835781
>Yeah, because bagging a secretive sex cult leader who barely ever left his compound is the easiest thing.
He went into towns multiple times a week and jogged by himself daily. They had undercover agents watching him 24/7. This is well documented and not up for debate that they had multiple opportunities to bag him away from the compound and only chose to raid the compound because they wanted footage for the news and had a news truck show up and had the texas air national guard fly a helicopter with a dude with a camera to film because they wanted propaganda.
>Oh, and they didn't tell the news. The news found out because someone blabbed about it to them, as often happened back in the day before they realized how badly this fucks up operations.
They literally told a news station to send a van and told the national guard to film it from the air. The news van got lost and asked for directions and the guy he asked tipped off David. This is well documented and not up for debate.
> The only reason the ATF shot first was because they were already armed and ready for them when they arrived. What were they supposed to do, walk into an ambush? Calmly ask the fucking armed posse to let them inside and then promptly have the poor bastards they sent out gunned down?
They could have not fucking raided the place that day when they knew the raid was fucking compromised. Rather than shooting to murder Americans who did nothing wrong.
>They broke the law and refused to surrender at any point.
It isn't illegal to defend yourself from an unlawful raid done by cops. The ATF showed up and started shooting. They had a right to shoot back.
>They only let the kids who weren't from the cult leader out, which the leader straight up admitted.
Not all of the 25 kids left were David's. They could have gotten more out if they wated.
>>
>>835781
>Even if there was unnecessary aggression from the ATF heads, no one would have died had they not mounted an armed resistance against a legal warrant.
They only fucking resisted because the ATF showed up and started shooting them. If they bagged David any of the multiple times a week he was by himself or not told the fucking news to film them or not done the raid after their agent told them they were compromised (And they fucking blamed the shit on him and tried to ruin his life before he was exonerated) no one would have gotten shot.
There is no fucking justification for what the FBI did at Waco and Ruby Ridge and the fact that Biden specifically nominated Chipman is a direct threat. It is Biden saying, "Do what I tell you or I am going to fucking murder you and burn you children alive"
>>
>>835789
>>835790
They shot first because the Waco guys were already armed and waiting for them. Again, what is the alternative? Send a group in to try and peacefully resolve a situation when there's a pretty significant chance they'll be shot dead the moment they do anything? Why the fuck do you think the ATF was raiding them in the first place? They expected a shoot out because they were dealing with a religious group reported to them for stockpiling weapons and bombs.

Oh, and you're right. It is well documented that Koresh went into town multiple times a day. You know what else is well documented? The fact that the planners for the raid DIDN'T KNOW THIS. By the way, you think the goddamn cult he built up around himself was gonna take him being arrested laying down either way?

There's a goddamn reason they were raiding them in the first place. Even the unproven child abuse stuff had a justification for being suspect considering Koresh already was a statutory rapist.

Was it handled poorly? Fuck yes. But were they wrong to raid them in the first place? Fuck no.
>>
>>835802
>They shot first because the Waco guys were already armed and waiting for them.
Because they told the news to show up and because they chose to do a raid for the news instead of vanning David one of the multiple times a week they could have when he was alone.
>Again, what is the alternative?
Vanning him when he was alone, not having the news there, and calling off the raid once they were fucking made and the undercover agent fucking told them they were made.
> Send a group in to try and peacefully resolve a situation when there's a pretty significant chance they'll be shot dead the moment they do anything?
David allowed law enforcement into the compound multiple times before that to do search warrants. The cultists only shot because the ATF fired on them first.
>Why the fuck do you think the ATF was raiding them in the first place?
They were worried congress was going to cut their funding after Ruby Ridge and wanted a raid on the six o clock news to justify their jobs, hence having news crews there.
> They expected a shoot out because they were dealing with a religious group reported to them for stockpiling weapons and bombs.
Koresh had an FFL and was a legal gun sales man. Again, they raided because they said he was fucking a 14 year old and spanking his son.
>The fact that the planners for the raid DIDN'T KNOW THIS.
So basically they are fucking morons who should have been criminally charged for not knowing something when tailing the guy and murdering kids as a result?
>By the way, you think the goddamn cult he built up around himself was gonna take him being arrested laying down either way?
Literally what were they going to do about it? ATF could have blocaded the road and only had to fight armed men and all the women and children and men who didn't fight would be alive.
>>
>>835802
>There's a goddamn reason they were raiding them in the first place. Even the unproven child abuse stuff had a justification for being suspect considering Koresh already was a statutory rapist.
What part of Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives has to do with fucking a 14 year old? She wasn't their jurisdiction. It was child services.
>Was it handled poorly? Fuck yes.
Yes
>But were they wrong to raid them in the first place? Fuck no.
It was absolutely wrong for them to raid in the first place because child fucking isn't their jurisdiction and they could have gotten David alone and bagged him and no kids would have been killed, but instead they decided they wanted to go in like fucking John Wayne guns blazing so they could get a good clip for the news to justify their budget after they got in trouble for Ruby Ridge and murdering Vicki Weaver after Randy didn't fucking do anything wrong.
>>
>>834017
I think he doesn’t get to take his gun to prison?
>>
Hey OP, you literally don’t understand what the word “literally” means.

Get yo self some learning and maybe you won’t have such dumb ideas.
>>
>>835755
>What the fuck were they supposed to do, wait for the guy to get off his religious shit and come out peacefully?
Again, you dumb fucking nigger, read Stalling For Time. They WERE getting the members to come out bit by bit. When the negotiators were running shit, people were cooperating and leaving over time. But the HRT team wanted to have shows of force so badly they undermined the negotiators efforts and fucked everything up.

Had they let negotiators do their job they would've gotten everyone out peacefully, but that wasn't fast or badass enough so they fucked the whole compound and killed all those women and children they claim to care about - then posing for pictures at the ruins of the site once it burned down.

Fucking research this shit you useless fuck.
>>
>>835842
He works for the ATF. Legit post about waco in any capacity on /k/ or /pol/ or >leddit and ATF internet defense force will show up
>>
>>835781
>who barely ever left his compound
Not that anon, did you miss the part where he said Koresh left the compound multiple times? Were you always this retarded or did you have to work at it?
>>
>>835755
Y'know I just remembered they rushed to assault the compound AFTER Koresh's lawyers were allowed into the compound to discuss his legal defense after he surrenders.

>Part of this effort was allowing attorneys Dick DeGuerin and Jack Zimmerman to speak on the phone and later go inside the compound to meet with Koresh. Their objective was to convince him that he had a valid legal defense against the charges that would be brought. Allowing defense attorneys to walk into an active crime scene did not sit well with the tactical team. When Sage accompanied the attorneys forward he noticed one of the Porta-Johns on which the words "Sage is a Davidian" had been scrawled into the accumulated dust, presumably by an angry tactical team member - a sign of continuing discontent and misunderstanding.

>But the attorneys' forays seemed to offer some hope. Koresh told them he would surrender as soon as he wrote down his unique interpretation of the seven seals described in the book of Revelation.

Now here's where it gets interesting:

>Amid growing frustration, an FBI delegation flew to Washington to brief newly appointed Attorney General Janet Reno, but in fact it was more a sales pitch for one course of action than a complete presentation of all the information. Jamar brought Dick Rogers from the HRT but no one from the negotiation team...

>They also made much of the suspicion that Koresh was sexually abusing the underage girls in the compound. But even though this was alleged in past reports, and later confirmed by witnesses, we had no evidence that this was currently ongoing. And, if it was ongoing, why had it not been an issue over the preceding fifty days of the siege? Having provided a very one-sided picture of Waco as a crisis in need of immediate tactical intervention, Jamar requested authorization to use tear gas as a way to drive the Davidians out. Persuaded that children were indeed very much at risk, Attorney General Reno approved.

- Gary Noesner
>>
>>835893
>we gotta save the children!
>by killing all of them!
>>
>>835771
But you so mad? Because I think Nazi should all have their genitals mutilated and hung? That's what America stands for.
>>
>>835893
>>835900
Yea and the lawyer said he found an undetonated flash bang in the compound (which could have ignited a fire as it was flammable and at the time the ATF's stance was that they used nothing that could spark the flames, which was also later proven to be a lie)
When asked why he didn't take it out as evidence the attorney said he didn't want to pick up a live explosive and then Schumer said a bunch of retarded shit about flash bangs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaX8CiweU-E
https://www.c-span.org/video/?66439-1/waco-investigation-day-5-part-2
>>
>>835778
Of what? He didn't ask for any proof. He just said:
>I don’t think you have literally anything to back that up
I aint playing the adjective game all day. He's denying that Nazism is a political ideology, that it dehumanizes, that it's the only ideology that supports dehumanizing, fascism is not a political movement, fascism is a caste system, and that caste system inherently dehumanize.

It's a logical, reasonable, self-apparent truth that I don't needs justification either, with a coherent line of thought. When you talk the faggots on 4chan, most of them think Nazism is good, holocaust is fake but should of happened, and some people are not people.

All of that is utter bullshit, without any solid evidence to back up without exception. I aint proving a negative on that one either, because THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON YOU. YOU! THE ONE READING THIS! You can google this shit. It's a basic life skill.

I KNOW YOU GOT THE INTERNET, YOU CAN'T SAY YOU DON'T!
>>
>>835722
You didn't explain anything. You just made an obvious statement about nothing at all. Why not allow criminals to have guns, it's what the 2A says. "shall not be infringed" most of the original Amendments were about criminals rights.
>>
>>835909
What the hell are you rambling about? Dehumanizing people existed long before nazis did. Fascism is by definition a political movement. Whether fascism has a caste system or not depends on the goddamn type.
Do you not understand anything about the subject you're speaking of?
>>
>>835920
You must have missed the part where inalienable rights are considered inalienable without due process. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights have to do with the rights of citizens prior and during due process.
>>
>>835924
>What the hell are you rambling about?
He didn't ask for any proof. He just blanket statement denied 6 different statements. I am not going to drop a doctorate on a guy that first response was "EAT SHIT AND DIE"

I don't really care to drop a doctorate thesis.
>>
>>835937
Yeah, but when the amendment goes form "We need a Militia to protect the state, people can have guns" to the modern, 2008 interpretation of "people can have guns" it's no longer has any justification that limits it to citizens before. Obviously if it was talking about self-defence, prison is where you need self-defence. Everyone needs a gun for protection, no gun license, no background check, no waiting period, no limits. If anything 2A is the only amendment that would apply to convicted fellows without regulations like gun control, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is what is said "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND..." if registration is a limit set upon criminals outside of prison, then why have a limit inside of prison? Same arguments.

You need self-defence. You need a gun for self-defence. You need to have access to guns at all time. Anything else is a violation of the constitutional rights....

...according to modern interpretations, of course. The limit to sawed off shotgun should also removed too, because it's no longer about military standards. It's about personal self-defence freedom.
>>
>>835811
That's why they all join any of the paramilitary or military forces. They wanna shoot stuff.
>>
>>834000
Dem here. I'm shitting and pissing myself right now in anger over the shall issue case.
>>
>>835945
There's no due process for blanket laws that affect gun ownership for everyone. That's the difference between restricting firearm access for felons versus restricting it for everyone.
>>
>>835945
>prison is where you need self-defence
Are we seriously still doing this? Here and in other threads?
>>
>>835958
I don't think he understands the difference between law-abiding people and dangerous criminals. Because from his POV all gun owners are criminals because he's afraid of them.
>>
>>835945
>Yeah, but when the amendment goes form
The Amendment never changed you retard
>"We need a Militia to protect the state, people can have guns"
It isn't "people can have guns" it is people have a preexisting inalienable right to own guns. We don't get permission from the government.
>to the modern, 2008 interpretation of
In fucking dred scott in 1857 they refer to it as an individual right, stop this lying bullshit
>it's no longer has any justification that limits it to citizens before.
There was no justification to limit citizens before. People owned fucking warships
>no gun license, no background check, no waiting period, no limits.
where the fuck do you live that there is a licence or waiting period to own a gun?
> If anything 2A is the only amendment that would apply to convicted fellows without regulations like gun control,
SCOTUS ruled that criminals don't need to follow NFA registration laws.
>...according to modern interpretations, of course.
Again. Dred Scott was in 1857. Heller doesn't change anything or conflict with Miller.
> The limit to sawed off shotgun should also removed too, because it's no longer about military standards. It's about personal self-defence freedom.
It's about both. Based on Heller and McDonald guns are only protected if
A. They can be used for armed combat/militia purposes
or
B. They are commonly used for personal defense
basically durr rifles can be banned, ARs can't. Though I do agree, repeal the NFA.
>>835947
If you want to be a cowboy don't be a fucking cop where your job isn't to be a cowboy.
>>835950
kek
>>835958
Chang only gets so many scripts from his boss.
>>
>>835945
>Yeah, but when the amendment goes form "We need a Militia to protect the state, people can have guns" to the modern, 2008 interpretation of "people can have guns"
you retard.
the ammendment is there to protect the people from the state, or rather, to keep the state just and free of corruption
1775 the british ordered the colonists have their guns confiscated https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1422

this is what the democrats are trying to do. they are trying to be king george II. they are ruling unjustly and wish to safeguard it, and they fear a populace that can defend themselves against their unjust rule
>>
>>835962
>If you want to be a cowboy don't be a fucking cop where your job isn't to be a cowboy.
That's literally where the cowboy meme comes from. Sheriffs.
>>
>>835971
>the amendment is there to protect the people from the state
The only one that talks about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was protecting the people from the free State? I must be retarded. Sound like they were arming the state... not saying they were planning on waging a Civil War, but a Civil War did break out.


I am starting to think the those guys from 200 years ago might not have had the knowledge and information we do now. But, they shit the bed, guns are rampant, and they might as well just abolish all restrictions. Walk around every school with a AR for every child. How else will they learn about their human rights? Child abuse for a child to not learn about how harsh cruel world you live in.

If we were talking about Fortnite or Fallout, I'd understand, but there's a reason we have overly funded police. Cops have better gear then you can even buy on the market. So, isn't that a violation too?
>>
>>835987
>was protecting the people from the free State?
The state, not "the free state" as in would be tyrants and dictators like King George or Biden.
> I must be retarded.
you are
>Sound like they were arming the state...
Why the fuck would the bill of rights include a sentence saying the government can own guns? Especially when late in the same document they use "the people" as a separate entity from the state. See the 10th Amendment.
>I am starting to think the those guys from 200 years ago might not have had the knowledge and information we do now.
Try to Amend it and come and take it fuck face. We will kick your shit in just like we did when you tried it at the old north bridge, Gage.
>>
>>835971
>this is what the democrats are trying to do. they are trying to be king george II.
Tyrant doesn't mean 'unjust', it means 'absolute ruler'. They were not talking about "you can kill anyone unjust" they were saying "you can kill anyone that thinks they're above the law"

Trump is probably the finest example of what a Tyrant looks like. With out a doubt. There's never been an instance when Biden was called out for a crime and not exonerated.

Trump was named in Cohen felony charge, that he went to jail for, even after guilty plea. That's what tyrant is. It's not about how they are personally, they were not discussing the 'temperment' of the threats, domestic or foreign, you dumb shit.

I GET IT YOU HATE BIDEN BECAUSE HE'S A NAZI THAT ALL OTHER NAZI HATE.
>>
>>835990
>Why the fuck would the bill of rights include a sentence saying the government can own guns?
I don't know that, it just says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" I mean, everyone asks that question. Right?

But now that you mention it, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE? Were the states no longer free before they had arms? They went through an entire war before, seems like they got through it.
>>
>>835990
>Try to Amend it and come and take it fuck face. We will kick your shit in just like we did when you tried it at the old north bridge, Gage.
Probably, but that's maybe the only reason the "right" exists. Threat of damage it would cause.

You FAKE excuse of "self-defence" also follows the trail of some of the highest murder is fucking high, for a country that says guns save lives. Last I checked, guns didn't save lives, they only took them?

I know you think some lives don't count, but that's bullshit too. Due process.
>>
>>836000
>You FAKE excuse of "self-defence" also follows the trail of some of the highest murder is fucking high
Proof read your fucking shit.
>Last I checked, guns didn't save lives, they only took them?
You've never checked, or you would know that defensive use of guns prevents a lot of violent crime.
>>
>>835998
They were able to fight the revolutionary war because they had arms, hence why arms are necessary for a free state. They could not have freed themselves had they not had arms.
>>
>>835998
>HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE?
Because in 1775 the british tried to confiscate the colonists arms to bring them to heel In face of their tyrannical rule
>>
>>835342
Except for socialist shitstain countries like the USSR.

I can't wait until Biden builds a fucking wall to keep all the richfags in like they did in Berlin.
>>
>>836009
So why is violent crime so high in the USA?
>>
>>836012
Only if everyone is responsible, else they'd let criminals all have weapons so everyone would be protected.
>>
>>836021
So because some king's troops on the other side of the ocean took some guns, everyone is allowed military grade weapons with no background check ?

Gun control is not about taking some guns from all people, but taking all guns from some people. People that lack the responsibility.
>>
>>836046
>So why is violent crime so high in the USA?
I'd say the culture.
Looking at it objectively though, the two continents with the highest intentional homicide rate are South America and Africa.
And well...
People from those regions here make up over half of the intentional homicide rate in the entire country.
Hell, people from Africa alone are half of that rate

The guns are only incidental.
These people are doing it anyways it's the people we need to help
>>
>>836054
>People from Africa

Damn where'd we get all those African migrants from recently?
>>
>>836046
Because there are a lot of violent criminals. There would be even more violent crime if not for people defending themselves, as shown by the CDC study. Are you honestly trying to argue that having a bunch of guns in the hands of law-abiding people causes crime?
>>
>>836066
Where are they getting the guns from anon?
>>
>>836055
Got them from the damned dutch and the jews, like 250 years ago.
Should we pull an israel >>835777 and force them to leave the country?
>>
>>836069
Difference is they actually have citizenship. Also, I feel 250 years of difference kinda destroys any cultural relationship for the most part.

Who's culture raised them?
>>
>>836068
They get them illegally by skirting all of the gun control already in place. They don't get them from law-abiding gun owners.
>>
>>836070
>Also, I feel 250 years of difference kinda destroys any cultural relationship for the most part.
Must be something besides their culture then if the same trend is happening in two different hemispheres by the same people who have nothing in common culturally, only hereditary
>>
>>836070
There is no way to know where they came from even. Not like anyone kept records, they were not property. There's better origins of where people purchased goods from then with slaves. They were less than property, because most people like the property they own. It would be like if you called your car Nigger and told everyone about how terrible your car was, and that it was only good for limited capacity, and that it's smelly and you can't stand being around that car at all.
>>
>>834003
YEah, Hardly any mass shootings where no one lives.
>>
>>836074
You mean the gun control that's REMAINING from the past few decades by gun lobbyist? Before 2008 the 2A didn't mean "unrestricted gun ownership" this is why in 1934 sawed off were restricted, because of the 2A as justification.
>>
>>836074
They steal them from gun owners. Majority of illegally owned firearms in the US were stolen.
>>
>>836046
Third most populated country combined with areas of poverty (usually dem ran cities) where crime is much easier and pays better than a square 9 to 5 job and throw in a thug culture that encourages the behavior. Look at 50 cent and the environment he grew up in. His mother had to hustle to provide for her son, he had to sell drugs at 12 after she died, schools weren't providing options and if it wasn't for his breakthrough into hiphop he would still be selling drugs until he got shot again.
>>
>>836089
Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates
(SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal
prisoners reported that they had possessed or
carried a firearm when they committed the offense
for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1).
More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used
a firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging it
during the offense for which they were imprisoned.
Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had
obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,
carried, or used it during the offense for which they
were imprisoned.
An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.
>>
>>836170
>>836089
Sorry, but It took me a bit to actually understand this after.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

-either stolen it (6%)
-found it at the scene of the crime (7%)
-or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%)

Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift.

Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

> from the underground market (43%)
Is the majority, but I can understand the confusion about it being stolen which is only 6%, but the report groups the total percent of the 3 different categories into a single figure.

Theft is actually less than purchased from a licensed firearm dealer.
>>
>>836177
The thing is: Where'd the black market get it from?
>>
>>836114
>crime is much easier and pays better than a square 9 to 5 job

That seems like the root of it. When you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live, healthcare cost you money, and being arrested means you can't get a job, and the police target you, and you need a job for healthcare, and you need to live
>>
>>836183
In a country with more guns then people? Check under the seat of your car?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/?sh=45510042181e
The gun, of course, was sold to someone who doesn’t have a criminal record—a straw purchaser. The straw purchaser buys the gun for someone who can’t. Sometimes a straw purchaser will even learn that a gun has turned up in a crime and will quickly report it as being stolen; either way, this gives us a chance to open and possibly broaden an investigation into what might be a number of individuals involved in a gunrunning ring.

>strawman
>>
>>836188
>That seems like the root of it. When you need to live, healthcare cost you money
Stopped reading there. You mean to tell me 50 sold crack to afford health insurance?
>>
>>836200
Kek I have a mental image of joining a gang and then the gang leader explaining to me that I only qualify for dental after 18 months and that if I want a sick day I first have to speak to Deshawn in HR.
>>
>>836200
At least gives enough money to afford going to a hospital.
>>
>>836205
Yeah because all those homeless people in ER don't get any treatment, right? Oh wait, we're required by law to treat them even if they have literally no money.
>>
>>836203
Well if you're kid with an arrest record, where you going to work?
>>
>>836213
>Kid
>With a felony
>The problem is that he can't get a job with a felony
Really dude?
>>
>>836209
And then they charge you for it. Let's hope it's a one time treatment! Can't expect the hospitals to milk a patient for profit margins, that would be retard.
>>
>>836214
What jobs don't do background check?

McDonald's will request an applicant's consent to run a background check at the time of the job interview. An applicant must provide proof of identity such as a driver's license, passport, or other national ID card. A background check at McDonald's typically takes one to three days.

Any trade job need to be bondable, too.

So that leaves what? Running for Congress?
>>
>>836222
Your still not seeing it?
>Kid with a felony

The problem is that the kid got a felony not that the felonious kid can't get a job
>>
>>836220
Yeah except they don't. Or at least they didn't when I was doing my 10 hours of training in an ER and we had to patch up a homeless guy who got almost beat to death by some asshole with bolt-cutters. They patched him up and then let him walk out. Police took their report and that was pretty much it. How are they even going to charge him? He's homeless, where do you mail the bill to? Or were we supposed to keep him confined until he finds the money?

No. Treating people who can't pay is one reason why simple medical procedures that should only cost $50 end up costing $500.

[Disclaimer: this is not the only reason. A lot of it is battling with insurance, only being allowed to purchase supplies from vendors who overcharge, administrative waste, etc.]
>>
>>836046
The 11 States with the highest per capita firearm violence are all red States with extremely lax gun laws. Notably, 5 of them have a very small black population. AK OK, MT, NM, WY. This leads to the obvious conclusion that deeply Republican States with very lax gun control and primarily white population demographics leads to incteased firearm violence. The Republicans attempt to blame it on blacks and Democrat jurisdictions with tight gun control but in fact it's the opposite.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/359395002
>>
>>836224
Yeah. Kids make mistakes, that's kind of what makes them kids. I'd say their defining trait. I swear everyone has touched a stove element once because they were told not too. You're not suppose to tell you kids not put their fingers in light sockets for the same reason.
>>
>>836331
>kids committing felonies is what makes kids kids
>>
>>836335
Kids being stupid. Cops arresting kids, and judges charging them with felonies is what a racist system does.
>>
>>836338
>committing a F E L O N Y
>just kids being stupid
>>
>>834023
>>Mumford act
kek
>>
>>836338
if they are minors when the crime was committed 99% of the time it will be sealed or removed from the criminal record when they turn 18, so this whole "kids with felonies can't get jobs think of the children" is not a valid argument. Most crime guns come from straw purchasers. The ATF and local cops should investigate that, we don't need more laws that only infringe on regular citizens and do nothing for criminals.
>>
>>836338
>kids touching a stove
>17/18 year old "kids" robbing people at gun point
Is not potatoe/potato
>>
>>836409
>Most crime guns come from straw purchasers.
No, they don't. They're stolen, usually from close friends or family. The "straw purchases fuel crime" myth was debunked under Obama, thanks to Eric "what do you mean we lost the guns" Holder
>>
More guns = more gun deaths and gun crime.

All stats show it to be true.

Reality is a bitch.
>>
>>836411
so the DOJ crime stats are wrong? >>836177

>>836291
the states have a high white population, but is it the whites committing a majority of the crimes evenly distributed across the state or is it blacks concentrated in low-income urban areas?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chicago-sues-indiana-gun-shop-over-illegal-guns-11619469167
Chicago is suing one gun store in Indiana that has had tons of straw purchasers. Should we punish this one gun shop or should we fuck over all Americans because Chicago is a fucking shitshow?
>>
>>836416
>the states have a high white population, but is it the whites committing a majority of the crimes evenly distributed across the state or is it blacks concentrated in low-income urban areas?

Man, you will do whatever mental gymnastics are needed to not face the reality that white people are just as violent and criminal as any other race. All stats show the races are equally violent and criminal.

Stop with the bullshit cherry picking in order to justify your systemic racism.
>>
>>836416
>so the DOJ crime stats are wrong? >>836177
The manner in which they're being presented by /news/ shills is. Because for starters, gifting a firearm and a straw purchase are different things. The ATF says gifting a firearm is legal and not a straw purchase, they are legally distinct classifications.

>Chicago is suing one gun store in Indiana that has had tons of straw purchasers.
Chicago has been trying this nonsense for years because they refuse to admit their gun control policies simply don't work. There's zero evidence Indiana is responsible for all of the guns in Chicago, let alone one gun shop. You have to literally be insane to think that
> Should we punish this one gun shop or should we fuck over all Americans
We should start by not hiding the "proof" behind a paywall, shill.
>>
>>836420
>All stats show the races are equally violent and criminal.
Then why don't all the races commit violent crime like homicide at the same rate? Why is one minority race responsible for more than half of all homicides?
>>
>>836421
the article wasn't paywalled for me, but it is now.
https://abc7chicago.com/gary-gun-store-chicago-lawsuit-sues-westforth-sports/10550506/
>>
>>836421
>The manner in which they're being presented by /news/ shills is
Idk about you but I'm literally seeing paid advertisments at the top of this board that just say "/news/ is full of shills".
It's a mobile and I see it like 99% if the time.
I mean, it's right though.
There's some idiots from the right here, and about 20-30 "normal people" but there is def progressive shills working here day in and day out
>>
>>836421
"Gifting" a firearm to a prohibited person is a straw purchase. It's safe to assume the majority of guns under the obtained from friends and family category were straw purchases.
>>836177
>>836170
>>836183
Underground market means someone else stole it and is now selling it. That's why it is under the big stolen category. Private sales where they dont know each other is one of the things in other and obtained from friends or family are mostly if not all straw purchases.
>>
>>836340
selling more than one ounce if pot is a felony, equal use between almost all the races, and blacks 4 times to be arrests with it,

because of genetic reasons obviously.
>>
>>836232
So this is where the argument breaks down.
>not at this hospital
when talking about the healthcare coverage of the entire counter of 300 million.

There is no consistency. Healthcare is a human right, well it should be in the US.
>>
>>836411
No, they usually report it stolen if it's turns up at a crime. It's not like if buyers get caught they tell the FBI "oh ya I sold him that gun 2 weeks ago for about $200"
>>
>>836410
or having an ounce of pot on them, you know same as double homicide.

Both felonies.
>>
>>836504
Healthcare is not a human right, access to healthcare is and as such is already afforded to Americans - hence why an ER cant turn you away if you have been in an accident or whatever.

What you want is me to pay for your healthcare, that is not a right so fuck off.
>>
>>836497
>dealing drugs is a felony
>just kid things
You're only weakening your argument
>>
>>836517
You so poor you can't help other people?
You so rich you don't need other people's help?
>>
>>836518
Most people smoke weed as a kid. It's easier to get then booze, usually. Not like kids go around high school selling packs of beer.
>>
>>836528
>Doing X is a crime
>*does X*
>OMG THE SYSTEM!
>>
>>836536
Yeah, when X and Y both do a crime but Y gets 4x the arrest rate. It's not about crime, it's about overfunded police arrests.
>>
>>836542
>X and Y do the crime at the same rate
There is a difference between smoking pot and dealing pot.
>>
>>836544
From a legal standpoint, nope. Distribution charges are based on the amount found, not the intent.
>>
>>836547
And from a law enforcement standpoint?
>raiding corners v random finds on college kids
>>
>>836504
>Healthcare is a human right
No. We've been over this... and over this... and over this.

>>836525
Still not a right.
>>
>>836331
>Oh back in my day kids used to commit felonies all the time. It was a part of growing up before everyone got so sensitive today.
>>
>>836560
Law enforcement standpoint? 2 warning shots in the back. You think BLM is around because blacks ain't afraid of the cops, that's why they run or like that Lieutenant last year, disobey orders.

>"PUT YOUR HANDS OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND REMOVE YOUR SEATBELT!"
>>
>>836567
Sorry, talking about the rest of the world. US healthcare is a commodity, obviously. I keep talking from the perspective of humans, not Americans.
>>
>>836568
>>Oh back in my day kids used to commit felonies all the time. It was a part of growing up before wokeism snowflake sjw discord trannies.
>>
>>836628
lol
>>
>>836628
>talking about the rest of the world
>he says smugly
>relying on American defense to maintain his countries security
>>
>>836628
>Sorry, talking about the rest of the world.
Which ... AGAIN ... Could you please explain how you have a right to healthcare when your (assuming you're Europoor) government can decide you're no longer eligible for healthcare?

I guess the elderly don't qualify for rights in britbongistan, or wherever the fuck you're posting from.
>>
>>836645
Yeah, but USA is surrounded by water, cheap labor and maple syrup lovers. Who you fighting?

Your budget is going to other countries to wage your wars, and not all of it is NATO allies. Saddam was a American puppet.
>>
>>836677
I am having a hard time understanding your accent, do you think EU is the rest of the world? You know there's over 50 countries with healthcare, some of them more poor then Britain. No one said it had to be top of the line, but paying to not die is ransom money. You're paying your ransom, after you're released.
>>
>>836684
Oh my fucking god I hate you so much...

>Sorry, talking about the rest of the world.
>Could you please explain how you have a right to healthcare when your (assuming you're Europoor) government can decide you're no longer eligible for healthcare?
>do you think EU is the rest of the world?

I fucking can't even right now.
>>
>>836683
But anon we gotta stop the terrorist by finding equally radical opposing groups who- wait a minute...
>>
>>836677
Can you describe cases in which European governments have declared people "no longer eligible for healthcare" other than brain-death?
>>
>>836743
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/elderly-are-being-denied-vital-surgery-just-because-they-are-old-8211018.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26449081
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/elderly-covid-patients-denied-intensive-care-during-height-of-crisis/ar-BB1anht7
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805764/340-000-elderly-denied-care-new-cuts-Vital-help-restricted-need-assistance-two-tasks.html#:~:text=340%2C000%20elderly%20will%20be%20denied%20care%20in%20new,new%20rules%20are%20meant%20to%20mirror%20old%20ones

Wow look at all those 'rights' bongs have that Americans don't. I'm so jelly.
>>
>>836755
>They're underfunded and don't have enough materials

Fix seems simple. Give the damn health industry more of a budget instead of spending it on stupid shit.
>>
>>836758
You still don't get it. Goods and services are not rights. How many times do we need to go over this?
>>
>>836761
>?

First of all, this is the UK. Healthcare is a right there, this is indisputable. Its their laws, just like how Gun Ownership rights are part of US laws.

Secondly: They're funded by the public via General taxes so all they need to do is rework where those taxes are going and make sure they have more of them. They don't even need to increase them, just lessen the use of the tax budget on things they don't need and increase the amount the Nation Health Service is given.
>>
>>836764
>First of all, this is the UK. Healthcare is a right there, this is indisputable.
Haha except if you're old or the government can't afford it. Then you have no right to healthcare. Like we just didn't cover this.

>Secondly: They're funded by the public via General taxes
Okay great. I don't care. I don't give a flying fuck. Still not a right. It's a service, a privilege, something provided to the public that is funded by taxes - but it is not a RIGHT. This is what we've been arguing in this thread for about 300 posts now. You have free healthcare but free healthcare is not a RIGHT. It is a privilege which, using bongistan as an example, the government can take away from you when they choose. Therefore not a RIGHT. Privilege, not a right.
>>
>>836769
>It is a privilege which, using bongistan as an example, the government can take away from you when they choose

Doesn't that mean the ability to own a gun is a privilege as well? The US government can also take it away from individuals.

Anon I literally didn't come here to argue about this stupid "MUH GUN RIGHT!!!!!!" shit. I was just pointing out the fact that the reason the UK health system is having trouble is because they aren't getting enough money from the government. They're underfunded, that's not the fault of the whole idea of having health care, that's the fault of the government for not managing their funds well enough.
>>
>>836764
>>836769
>>836770
I feel I should mention I'm not the same anon you threw all the articles at.
>>
>>836770
>Doesn't that mean the ability to own a gun is a privilege as well? The US government can also take it away from individuals.
Hence the whole point of OP starting this thread and what we've been arguing about this whole time. What classifies as a right. Now I would argue that any gun control law is infringement, and I'm sure others in this thread disagree with me, but this is what we're here for.

>Anon I literally didn't come here to argue about this stupid "MUH GUN RIGHT!!!!!!" shit.
Then you're in the wrong thread. The only reason we're even talking about healthcare is because some people consider it to be a right and pulled the "hurr durr UN says free shit is a human right" card. You want to talk specifics about medical care and who has the better system, then that's another subject for another thread.
>>
>>835906
No because you're literally a faggot and are being proud of it.

You have no argument. What you are arguing is shit at best, and you're assuming shit that ain't nobody even fucking said. You're playing yourself before a conversation even took place. If you took classes on how to look like a dumb sack of hammers you aced it with flying colors.
You think you're so wise because you think you can predict so much shit but from what you've given me you're wrong just about every god damn time.

Sucks to suck, don't it?
>>
>>835351
>>ask blacks what thier party is?

Lol we already know
>>
>>835351
Convicted criminals are overwhelmingly blue heavy
>>
>>835354
>BLM killed nobody
Weewoo weewoo weewoo
Retard alert
>>
>>836694
Oh, that's not a thing that happens. At all. That's just the propaganda they tell you, like Death Panels and you cannot choose your doctor. No one in the free world worries about literally anything you have to complain about universal healthcare. Not a damn one.

There are four significant misconceptions about universal health care systems that should be addressed:

1. Most universal health care systems are not highly centralized

2. Most universal coverage systems offer narrow benefit packages and incorporate cost-sharing for patients

3. Private health insurance plays a major role in most developed countries with universal coverage

4. Countries with universal coverage have strict immigration policies to control health care expenditures
>>
>>836814
>Countries with universal coverage have strict immigration policies

Oh do go on.
>>
>>836695
Got to fight communism, remember once you get universal healthcare, the next step is necrophilia.

Slippery slope.
>>
>>836777
I think you just hate America. That's not quote. I am just assuming shit that ain't nobody even fucking said.
>>
>>836784
BLM sacrifices 1000 children everyday to sustain the Black Square.
>>
>>836814
>Oh, that's not a thing that happens. At all.
Except when it does. All the time. by design.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-obese-patients-non-urgent-surgery-lose-weight-healthcare-treatment-reaction-a8006896.html

>Countries with universal coverage have strict immigration policies to control health care expenditures
You know what they also have? Voter ID laws.
>>
>>836780
The party that gives them free shit. Republicans just don't want the votes, I guess. Winning so much you'll get sick of winning.
>>
>>836815
Universal healthcare is a right in every other country and the eligibility for healthcare, is not revoked by a Death Panel to kill off the old people.

That's what 'pre-existing condition' is for.
>>
>>836821
>non-urgent surgery
>>
>>836821
They really don't. Most people have figured out how to register, or pre-register voters, give an old lady a clipboard and a pencil and check your name off in your district.

I can even go to the wrong district and THEN I have to give my ID so they can contact my district.

I mean, some of them even use computers. It's really incredible the level of sophistication we've gone too.
>>
>>836821
Yeah except their voter id laws don't involve closing polling stations and making voting by mail harder.
>>
>>836821
>You know what they also have? Voter ID laws.
I'll have you know that I was a student at Harvard University studying sociology when I discovered (and proved) that non whites can not be expected to provide proof of voting eligibility in the same manner as white people racistly expect them to. I spent all semester researching why disadvantaged minorities don't vote in the same numbers as white people and I came to the irrefutable conclusion that there is mass voter suppression going on because these people can't be expected to provide proof of eligibility like the white population. It's eurocentric to want to validate eligibility to vote. Indeed, nearly every country in the EU requires some form of proof of voting eligibility before they let a citizen vote.
Horribly disenfranchised.
My PhD dissertation was on the topic of voting disenfranchisement. In it I argued successfully that egalitarian voting can only be done in models such as california. We must rely on an individuals self attestation that they are eligible to vote and we must keep these voting records secure with the state Secretary and have codified in law that the state Secretary may not under any circumstance transfer any voting records to outside departments for the purpose of eligibility verification, as this would open up the floodgates for racist ice policies to deport people.
So don't take the moral ground on me you fascist, I've worked my entire life to remove eligibility verification from voting so that the entire population is franchised and the racist expectation that minority populations prove the same eligibility that we expect from white people be shelved
>>
>>834000
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.

Wrong, stopped reading here.
>>
>>836291
>per capita
Reminding that using this method in areas with a low population is a statistical trick to make small towns look like crime ridden hellholes.
>>
>>836291
If you look at cities over 100,000 it's nearly all blue
>>
>>836883
There's no trick, anon. Sister/cow fucker trash like "Oathkeepers" and "Proud Boys" and "Aryan Nations" and all that originally comes from small town crime hell. Most of them don't even know that murder and rape are crimes.

Have a typical example of everyday life in a small-town environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcJ-0bAHB4&t=240s
>>
>>836845
3 things.
1. > that non whites can not be expected to provide proof of voting eligibility in the same manner as white people racistly expect them to.
How so? What are some key points (please provide proof) of your paper that show how this is a thing, and how modern voting laws (current or purposed) are actively surpassing votes to anywhere near the same extent as voter suppression laws from the 19th-20th century.
2. Voter suppression, assuming that is what is actually happening, has been used my a mirage of ideologies including democracies and socialists. It is however, almost never used in any authoritarian regime, including fascists ones, since, well obviously, the whole point of a dictatorship is nobody gets to vote you out. Nobody. Not the majority or a minority. So calling voter suppression "fascist" is as stupid as calling nazi germany a democracy.
>>
>>836849
>stopped reading here.
Then why post in a thread where you are purposely not contributing by reading the main discussion piece? This isn't a mark against you or your politics but rather a cringe against this site as a whole. Why do people do this? Why do you contribute to conversations by saying "I'm not contributing to this conversation." I just don't get it.
>>
>>836915
Looking at raw numbers reveals that yes it is a trick you disingenuous fuck.
But you know that. You aren't here for debate.
>>
>>836770
>Anon I literally didn't come here to argue about this stupid "MUH GUN RIGHT!!!!!!" shit.
Then why the fuck are you in this thread arguing that you should be allowed to own humans as slaves?
>>
>>836883
>when evidence BTFO of my false narrative i-it's a t-trick everybody!
>>
>>836934
You're replying to copypasta

>>837028
Looking at state level numbers is not a good indicator of where the crime is concentrated because of home rule. Cities, nearly all blue, are where the crime is concentrated. All the top 10 states have large blue cities, only one was red.
>>
>>834250
If you lived in on post housing you didnt need to put your weapon in the armory.

Only barracks soldiers.
>>
>>834826
The entire country.
>>
>>839943
Do you really think the rest of America is as far right as you are?
>>
>>837221
It’s also a small gated area with restrictive entrance and loads of people with guns dedicated to protecting the people inside that normal police are not. It’s as dumb as an example as saying “the president doesn’t carry a gun”
>>
>>839946
Dems have the most violent felons:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/firearms-related-homicides-democratic-vs-republican-affiliation/
>>
>>839973
>thetruthaboutguns.com
Gee i wonder who payed for that site.
>>
>>839976
>have an interest in something and research it = biased and discarded
>don't research it = never gets researched by people who don't have an interest in it
Sounds like a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation where you get to ignore any fact you don't like, because you write off the only people who would publish such a fact.
>>
>>839976
>brought to you and paid for by the NRA with the small change leftover in their treasury after the executives had emptied it for their personal use.
LMAO!
>>
>>839976
>>840006
>>840102
Source of his article
>https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Well lmao shills you should be blaming the cdc it looks like
>>
>>840132
And this
https://archive.is/StIkr

It looks like they took aggregate homicide numbers and then correlated it statistically to voter demographic
>>
>>840135
>It looks like they took aggregate homicide numbers and then correlated it statistically to voter demographic
Well not perfect, the single fact that black demographic is responsible for over 50% of violent crime coupled with the fact that 93% of the black demographic votes blue just that's one demographic is nearly enough to make the statement true that most violent crime is done by democrat voters
>>
>>840136
>2% of blacks responsible for black violent crime
>they vote Democrat
Dude, voting isn't particularly high up on the priority list of "things to do today" for ghetto gang bangers.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.