Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Telconi]

Thankfully, it's called the "The Bill of Rights" and not "The Bill of Needs".. Also, I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the world right now where something "extremely bad" hasn't happened in it's history. Human beings are horrible, and will continue to be so regardless if firearms are in the mix or not. Lastly, the argument that you are putting forth that the "establishment" has soldiers therefore rebellion is impossible has been debunked so many times already in not only this thread but several other US Firearm/2A threads that It's just not worth it to post links anymore as clearly, the lot of you who think this refuse to listen.

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

Because if you dont you end up life Australia.

[Frievolk]

Thankfully, it's called the "The Bill of Rights" and not "The Bill of Needs".. Also, I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the world right now where something "extremely bad" hasn't happened in it's history. Human beings are horrible, and will continue to be so regardless if firearms are in the mix or not. Lastly, the argument that you are putting forth that the "establishment" has soldiers therefore rebellion is impossible has been debunked so many times already in not only this thread but several other US Firearm/2A threads that It's just not worth it to post links anymore as clearly, the lot of you who think this refuse to listen.

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

You do realize Australia's model is the one in the wrong, right? The primary use of a constitution is to limit the powers of a government. Calling it a "Silly old paper" has no political basis (similar to calling an international treaty "A piece of paper")

[Paddy O Fernature]

Australia has no bill of rights at all...

We noticed, and apparently, it'snot very popular among the people.

Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime...

Ahem... That was beyond easy to prove false.

Facts. You should try them sometime.

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

Better than a mass shooting every single day.

We don't have mass shootings every single day in America.

Source on that daily mass shooting claim?

307 mass shootings in the US between 1 January 2018 and 16 February 2018.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-this-year-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

2018, Seriously?

*Does 5min of Google Research*

Yeah, holy shit, that source/claim is loaded to the gills with false narrative and deliberate padding and has been debunked a few times over. Going to join the others on this one and junk bin it where it belongs.

It wouldn't include a 12 year old shooting strangers with a BB gun as a "mass shooting".

It has. That site has included all sorts of hilariously stupid things to try and pad the numbers and make them higher.

Truth.

[Tobleste]

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

How does Australia dick it's people over in ways guns would stop? I am genuinely curious this time as this argument is a new one and not one of the usual half thought out talking points.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Thankfully, it's called the "The Bill of Rights" and not "The Bill of Needs".. Also, I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the world right now where something "extremely bad" hasn't happened in it's history. Human beings are horrible, and will continue to be so regardless if firearms are in the mix or not. Lastly, the argument that you are putting forth that the "establishment" has soldiers therefore rebellion is impossible has been debunked so many times already in not only this thread but several other US Firearm/2A threads that It's just not worth it to post links anymore as clearly, the lot of you who think this refuse to listen.

Australia has no bill of rights at all. Yet here, we live in peace and prosperity. No mass shootings or rampant crime.

The whole American obsession with their 'bill of rights' just seems crazy to me. Why limit your government in making laws with a silly old outdated bill?

The fact that we in Australia manage to have it pretty good freedom and rights-wise is because of luck, not because a bill of rights is a hinderance to preserving human rights.

[Telconi]

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

How does Australia dick it's people over in ways guns would stop? I am genuinely curious this time as this argument is a new one and not one of the usual half thought out talking points.

Gun confiscation.

[Tobleste]

How does Australia dick it's people over in ways guns would stop? I am genuinely curious this time as this argument is a new one and not one of the usual half thought out talking points.

Gun confiscation.

So if they had guns, they could stop their guns from being confiscated? Do you see the issue with that?

[Telconi]

Gun confiscation.

So if they had guns, they could stop their guns from being confiscated? Do you see the issue with that?

No.

[Torrocca]

For the simple reason that without restrictions on it’s power, a government is far more likely to dick it’s people over. Case in point, Australia.

How does Australia dick it's people over in ways guns would stop? I am genuinely curious this time as this argument is a new one and not one of the usual half thought out talking points.

IIRC, they do fuck over their indigenous population more than any other country on Earth, and besides that they're violating multiple international treaties on human rights by stuffing refugees into concentration camps.

[Tobleste]

So if they had guns, they could stop their guns from being confiscated? Do you see the issue with that?

No.

By definition, gun confiscation means they already had guns and it didn't prevent gun confiscation.

[Blueflarst]

I am a militarist crown not liberal and i fully support the people right to defend their live
My nation polices have tanks homever

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No.

By definition, gun confiscation means they already had guns and it didn't prevent gun confiscation.

Maybe they should've used their firearms more liberally and not drink the gun control Kool-Aid.

[Telconi]

No.

By definition, gun confiscation means they already had guns and it didn't prevent gun confiscation.

Just because a population cooperates with the Gestapo. Doesn't mean they didn't have a choice.

[Tobleste]

By definition, gun confiscation means they already had guns and it didn't prevent gun confiscation.

Just because a population cooperates with the Gestapo. Doesn't mean they didn't have a choice.

But you said guns would let them stop gun confiscation. Either guns don't prevent gun confiscation or they had a choice. It can't be both.

[Tobleste]

By definition, gun confiscation means they already had guns and it didn't prevent gun confiscation.

Maybe they should've used their firearms more liberally and not drink the gun control Kool-Aid.

You mean murder police officers?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe they should've used their firearms more liberally and not drink the gun control Kool-Aid.

You mean murder police officers?

That would be the implication, yes.

[The South Falls]

You mean murder police officers?

That would be the implication, yes.

Yea, maybe murdering people with AR's and the ability to call in the army is not a great idea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That would be the implication, yes.

Yea, maybe murdering people with AR's and the ability to call in the army is not a great idea.

Sometimes you gotta fight for what's right friendo.

[Tobleste]

You mean murder police officers?

That would be the implication, yes.

I thought so. Generally killing people is seen as "post Kool-aid" behaviour.

[Tobleste]

Yea, maybe murdering people with AR's and the ability to call in the army is not a great idea.

Sometimes you gotta fight for what's right friendo.

And gun ownership is worth killing for?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sometimes you gotta fight for what's right friendo.

And gun ownership is worth killing for?

Every part of the bill of rights is.

[Telconi]

That would be the implication, yes.

I thought so. Generally killing people is seen as "post Kool-aid" behaviour.

Not by reasonable people.

[Telconi]

Sometimes you gotta fight for what's right friendo.

And gun ownership is worth killing for?

I'm curious who thinks it isn't?

[Robosia]

So Antifa with guns? Aw, fuck no. If the rednecks get violent, then the government will take care of them, no need to give deadly weapons to the people who are out there beating up everyone slightly to their right.

[Tobleste]

And gun ownership is worth killing for?

I'm curious who thinks it isn't?

99% of the non-conservative and non-American human population.