Gun laws

So, I think we need to talk. Currently, gun laws state that the following people are excluded under current background check systems:

So that would exclude people like Larry Mitchell Hopkins (pic related), Dylann Roof, Hank Yoo and George Lincoln Rockwell. I know that reactionary conservative types and the LARPers at Zig Forums agree with this, but I’m wondering what Zig Forumss thoughts are. Should all of the above be banned or just niggers? Also, what is the libertarian position on this?

Attached: DF39AC3F-0FB5-4999-A537-1B50AF4E617B.jpeg (660x660, 51.46K)

Probably for the best, honestly. If you're too fucked in the head to at least pretend to be normal, then that's not my problem.
Niggers, spics, degenerates etc.
If you decided to go into the military and then acted in some way to get yourself kicked out then you should have known what you were getting yourself into.

fucking slide thread

Yeah, but I think Lance Cpl. Vasillios Pistolis received a court martial (or almost did) due to his involvement in Charlottesville. A lot of /ourguys/ get blanketed under these bans. I propose that we ban niggers from owning guns. If you’re white and American, it should be your right by default to own a gun to defend yourself from savages.

Under the current state of things, the "mentally ill" ban could easily be abused. Funny anecdote: some years ago, I and everyone I know who went to the hospital for any reason were beung screened for depression every time they went. Seriously, the first thing they'd do at a checkup was play a game of 20 questions in an attempt to diagnose people with the shit.

Incentivize them to go back to Africa by providing a free gun upon entering their new home country.

I get that it isn't a perfect system but you know that cartels and so on would just get low income whites to sell them weapons. Doing it along racial lines isn't a solution either.

All gun laws should be repealed starting with Hughes amendment

Who gives a shit what the Jews like (((Ayn Rand))) and (((Murray Rothbard))) and their intellectual progeny think? But their position usually is no restrictions, none what-so-ever.

I’m one dude but I’m overall ok with some level of restriction, very minor, but overall prefer the right to bear arms be uninfringed. You go all the way back to the Roman Senator Tacitus, who wrote about the primitive Germans, and even they had some level of restrictions before they even had civilizations:
That was in ~50 AD, the predecessors to England (Anglo-Saxons), German, the Nordic nations, Belgium, and holland. Our ancestors were not idiots and didn’t let any ole asshole carry weapons around, they requires you be trained and proficient. But they also carried 24/7, which I am a fan of.
But other than that I think full autos should be deregulated and more available and concealed carry/open carry should be shall issue if requirements are met. I’m not down with gun control overall. Big supporter of RTBA.

You thought wrong faggot.

This is a purely politically motivated pseudoscience. You can't possibly trust someone not to abuse the system and 51/50 anyone whose politics they consider distasteful. It's already commonplace for openly antisemitic people to be committed based on nothing more than their (100% factual) criticism of Jews

Niggers don't follow laws, therego all said gunlaws apply to whites only, so remove them.

Rockwell was honorably discharged and would not be precluded from owning guns. Make some more shitty threads nigger.

Attached: C355EB48-5E06-49F7-8111-7142A5EC3762.jpeg (228x210, 19.25K)

He was discharged for his beliefs. The only reason it was honorably discharged was because it was in 1960 instead of 2020. Dumb shit.

"shall not be infringed" - Ben Shapiro

Are you a illiterate sub-Saharan nigger? The OP states Rockwell would be prohibited from owning a weapon if he were alive today. Yet he doesn’t match any of the criteria listed, including discharge status. Go home Ngoboko

Under an ideal government the second amendment wouldn't need to exist, but instead citizens could apply for a gun license, take a test, and prove their ability or fail - just like driving. We don't live under an ideal government though, and ours would label anyone it wants to disarm 'a mentally ill person' or pass unconstitutional laws that can be used to disarm anyone they consider a potential threat.

Then you consider that anyone who wants a gun can obtain one and all our current gun laws start to look a whole lot like the government trying to restrict law abiding citizens, who always seem to be White.


i don't believe any government or organisation would be magically immune to kike subversion, so no i don't think they should have gun licenses or fucking driving licenses either. if you drive your car over someones kid then you should be executed. the only people that would dare to drive are ones that don't drive like a retard because those that do get executed.
you own a gun without restriction, if you shoot an innocent etc then you get executed. no need for government databases with your name in it. ever.

I stated that because he was. Ever watched the History Reviewed channel with Jan Lamprecht? He was literally a prohibited person.

If you have no guns as a civilian, then you are a slave of the government, period.

don't underestimate the bantz

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Right to bear arms is, surprise, a right.

Don’t care, kill yourself.


Zero fucking restrictions. Criminals and crazies will have their guns anyways. Adding tests and making all sorts of difficulties for normal people to buy guns just makes it less likely normal people will have guns.

You almost noticed race is not important

Why can't driving be a right

You should be allowed 100 guns before any checks

fuck off you cowardly scum that support the government.

Under an ideal government, we don't even need guns, because they will be sure to protect us, and certainly never exploit us! Under an ideal government, we can share all of our property, because we know the system will be fair and just and the overall happiness in the world will increase with more control. We wouldn't actually need a right to speech under an ideal government, because they would already have argued for (and implemented) anything we needed.

none should be banned, because if you allow nigger only ban eventually the law says you are nigger so to disarm you and shoot you while you are unarmed

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (255x120, 16.49K)

Because people are retarded, drink alcohol, go over speed limits and constantly kill each other.

That doesn't mean it's not a right. If you examine driving through the prism of natural rights philosophy, it is a right. In the absence of other people, you would be free to build and operate an automobile. It's status as a right is derived from the same philosophical school that claims there is a right to keep and bear arms.

The fact that there are people who are careless or do evil things with these items is irrelevant.

Last month was the most deadly June in Cincinnati's history. Local news keeps talking about "gun violence" and a curfew is being enforced to keep "teens" at home late at night.
Anybody with an eyeball can see it's NIGGERS doing all this killing
Asst police chief says if you get killed, it's your own fault for relaxing around blacks.
Meanwhile the mayor is working on several different ways to take guns from law abiding citizens.

Attached: SmartSelect_20190722-113311_Brave.jpg (1388x1223 322.83 KB, 444.69K)

You're forgetting anyone with a DV modifier on a charge as petty as misdemeanor ARGUING.

Everything with LAUTENBERG's name attached to it needs to be repealed

If you are allowed to walk freely you should be able to defend yourself with a gun.

Everyone should be allowed to defend themselves however they see fit.
No one should be banned from owning firearms.
Not even felons.
The problem is that this would work in an ethnostate. We however have given this country to savages who our politicians know full well cannot follow or comprehend the white mans laws.

just niggers.
Q: do you believe our federal govt is encroaching on personal liberties?
A: yes

i'll catch heat for this but "shall not be infringed"

ditto. in the good old days newly freed prisoners were given a $20 gold piece, a horse, and a rifle upon release. felon law was a slippery slope that has led to checking "yes" on the misdemeanor question on the yellow atf form denies you. now you can lose your god given inalienable right for grabbing your 14 year old daughter by the shoulders and shaking her because you just found out that L'Darion knocked her up. perhaps in a few years rights will be denied upon citation for a moving violation.

So, niggers?

If you are too dangerous to have access to guns then you are too dangerous to have access to knives, hammers, cars, gasoline, pesticides, etc. Anyone so dangerous should be institutionalized or executed.

There is no legitimate reason banning any individual from owning a gun.

Attached: jhNicER.jpg (1080x1080, 118.19K)

So that is literally everyone and anyone who gets redpilled, finds out that they have been lied to for years on end, and thus get depressed since virtually all they believed in was based on lies, and that if they try to speak about things they found out they would be ostracized.

Hey retard, did you know that calling people mentally ill was a standard operating tactic of the Soviets before they crushed their target with the weight of the state?


Mental illness is caused by living in America. I don’t know how you can live in this country without wanting to go Sam Hyde eventually.


Please don't come here and post bold out right lies as if they were true, that's called shilling and you know that.

Asking how things SHOULD be is kind of a waste of time. We will never be in a position to choose.

But yeah - some of the limits on the 2nd amendment are probably unconstitutional, once you accept the Heller decision that 2A is a fundamental right.

But seriously, forget all about how things SHOULD be in a perfect universe and focus on moving the needle.

Attached: 31614.png (658x435, 327.51K)

lol chad

depends, some people might think you're mentally unstable for simple shit, and I believe even people with down syndrome should be able to own firearms.
absolutely not, the military gives those out like candy for the stupidest shit(like getting caught smoking weed or having alcohol in your dorm during tech school) and the airforce had a chief master sergeant of the AF with a DUI so that right there tells you how fucked and biased their judgement is
depends on what for, if you murdered someone you should be dead and the right shouldn't be in question.
If you decide to get clean and remain clean why shouldn't you be able to own a firearm in the future?
depends on what kind of lolbertarians you ask. myself included.

Attached: efay.jpg (640x853, 46.75K)

I believe gun ownership should be for citizens only, and that access to citizenship should be limited to those who truly serve their country in some significant capacity (not just military). I made a thread on this a few days ago
but the TL;DR is

Giving guns to every civilian only works when your country has some kind of unifying factor, like everyone being white and not wanting the government to tread on them (as it was in 1776 in America). In The Current Year, it isn't the case - everyone is divided across like 20 different lines, and tension is guaranteed. Especially with huge population-dense cities, which are basically centralized crime factories.

When it comes down to it, though, I'd rather guns for all than guns for none as the marxist-globalist cunts obviously have wanted for decades.

Attached: 76c449748a29b154c1f3e98c9f45a3ff9ab30a08bf47d2da94628f11e19eee82.png (720x720 4.71 MB, 122.81K)