Philosophy behind guns

I understand the practical reasons for civilians having guns, just in case the Government decides to let in violent, brown savages who wants to murder you and take your country.

What I can’t grasp is the political science behind stuff like the 2nd amendment.

Isn’t the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? Is it not part of the social contract, that one trades the violent and anarchistic nature-state in exchange for security? How does the common mans ability to execute lethal force through guns correspond to this? Wouldn’t that destroy the state’s monopoly on violence and invalidate law and order, since the police can be challenged within the given territory?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692421
gunfacts.info
heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-364-gun-control-in-the-third-reich/
constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'm a Eurofag obviously

There is no "social contract" and philosophy has nothing at all to do with politics.

in the US, the state does not and has never had a monopoly on military action

in fact, our constitution states that everyone above the age of 16 is a member of the militia. this is why we own guns.

No…
our country was never founded with that principle.
stop meddling.

Monolopy on force is retarded. As if having a different job title makes you any more or less capable of judging when to use it

The whole point of it was to take away the state's monopoly on violence and create a nation of free men. A group of states made up of groups of people that cooperated out of common interest rather than threat of force from a higher power.

"Violence" is a deed of violating something. Self-defense happens after somebody else violated the right of defender.

This is retarded. Why would anyone want this? It will end in disaster 100% of the time.

The answer is personal responsibility.

You are responsible for your own defense.

The state by definition is a monopoly on force.
Our founding fathers built the 2nd amendment in to act as a check against that undeniable reality.

Here in the US the founding fathers said that the state shouldn't be the most powerful body, the people should be. The state exists because we allow it to. So we the people, should control the the violence.

Gun ownership and use by the common man levels the playing field for the most part. Most tools of war are only really good for fighting other tools of war. You can't police with them very well.

a state would have to be so fuckhuge that it would be inefficient if it was tasked with directly defending all citizens against threats. part of being a citizen is the right to defend yourself.

You can say that again.

No you dumbass. Sage for obvious slide thread.

no wonder Europe is so screwed.
People walk around under that belief and think that it's OKAY.

reminder that hitler loosened gun laws for aryan citizens.

'Murricans need guns because they have many niggers among them. Cops are not enough, just look at the statistics.
Overthrowing the government was a possibility way back, but a few pea shooters would do nothing against a modern army.

Go home, Ivan. We have guns so the government can't force us to do shit.

Please kill yourself for propagating this shit.

Keep buying the bullshit. There's a reason the US government is so afraid of private militias and other organized groups. Not to mention at least half the military would defect in that scenario.

If it were already impossible to fight the government, then they wouldn't still be trying so hard to ban guns and make it difficult for citizens to arm themselves. A revolution wouldn't be fought like a traditional war, just like Vietnam or all this Middle East bullshit.

If that army had the will and desire to just eradicate the population with carpet bombing, sure, that might be true. That's not what would happen, though. The army would be trying to control, not destroy, and that requires men with rifles on the ground. With IEDs and rifles alone an insurgency can inflict a lot of damage on an occupying army.

We are losing to goat farmers.

If you had a gun, what would you do with it?

Would you really decide that the law no longer applies to you because you could shoot back at police officers?

Ok OP, you've come to the right shitposter.

I've studied this subject for years and it's a real rabbit hole of bullshit. But I think I've finally figured it out.

In a nutshell, the Founding Fathers were afraid of standing armies. They believed that a tyrant could take over much more easily if he had a standing army to work with, therefore, fuck the standing army.

Ok, how do you not have standing armies? A "well regulated militia". But you can't have a permanent militia. You need a militia that can be called upon when needed and dissolved when crisis is over. How do you have that? You allow private citizens to accumulate their own arms.

This information is really really hard to research because it's practically been forgotten in the mists of history. Today, we have a standing army so the entire 2nd is obsolete. If we followed the philosophy of the 2nd today, private citizens should have nukes, tanks, bombers, etc. and they obviously don't. The 2nd has been completely obsoleted by history. Technology has made standing armies necessary.

By the way, It's really hard to research this, but I think the US had standing armies not too long after the revolution. It just wasn't practical to do otherwise.

No. But it has one.


Yes. And that's the point. The monopoly of violence can be abused. The government can get away with anything because they are the only ones that are armed.
Unless the people can arm themselves too.
Obviously you have the risk of a certain kind of people shooting a cop to get out of a ticket. A manhunt ensues and most likely we'll have one welfare recipient less in the morning.

And it's completely natural and normal to defend yourself. It was normal for millenia to bear arms. Literally every revolution in the world was won using weapons. Sadly in many cases the very first thing the revolutionairies did was to disarm the people.

That is why The US got their asses kicked by Rice farmers and then again by Cave Arabs? Because the Modern army is good against some dudes with guns?


Also, you can bet your ass Ivan and maybe Zhang are going to help out in a second American civil war.

Heard a great one on a BBC documentary of all places, an American gun owner:

"The difference between a free man and a slave is one is able to own a gun".

The State is not the government. The State is the people.

According to who/what?
This is a meme created by govts, no nation ever said this.


This.
Look at Italy. Every white household has a gun, but niggers don't as they will never get the license.
So we never have school shooting or anything, but if nigs chimpout they are getting shot.
I'm not sure this would work in the US tho as police is not 100% white fascists like here, so your black cops would give licenses away to niggers (or niggers would just cry racism until they get affirmative action licenses).

sorry to say, you got memed on fam. the only poli-sci you need to know is "who, whom?"

No. The state is contracted or constituted (established) by the people to fulfill specific contractual or constitutional obligations. If it fails to fulfill the defined obligations its contractual/constitutional validity becomes void and is open to replacement at the whim of the people. Governments tend to dislike the getting fired part. The people do not lose their rights to self defense or the enforcement of law. They have merely 'subcontracted' the job until the 'contractor's' performance is no longer satisfactory.

The price of freedom is that niggers get to own guns as well. Doesn't stop them from being shot when the chimpout starts.

...

That is the lolberg way of handling guns. Do it the right way and Niggers would be still in their segregations withholding their "rights" to firearm ownership.

Lolberg way is the American way famalam. Just shoot niggers whenever they get uppity.

Who told you that?


hmmmmmmmm

its not only about warfare. its about the right of a citizen to defend himself. if you cant trust your citizens with that ability, they shouldnt be citizens in the first place. youre talking about america but in a national socialist state, the state exists for the good of the people. externalizing the responsibility of basic self-defense is what slaves and cowards do.

First of all the army is made out of people. Some will be loyal to the government, others will be loyal to the constitution.
Secondly, the US military, one of the strongest armed forces in the world has been fighting insurgency for more than a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the second they leave the insurgents come back. Goat Farmers with a few month training and a (t)rusty AK.

And this happens in a country where the US can bomb and fight indiscriminately. They don't because it's not PC. But they could.

In this case the US armed forces would fight US citizens on US soil. Every bit of collateral damage - be it property or human . would create hostility towards the government.

In my opinion, this is a completely modern interpretation that's been used to retcon the 2nd.

Look at the tech back then. It took forever to load a rifle or pistol and they didn't fire reliably. Using a firearm for self-defense was stupid. You'd use a knife or sword. If people used firearms for self-defense back then, like when walking around, it wasn't nearly as often as knives or swords. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see evidence. So far, I see none.

Problem solved. Now fuck off.

Reported.

In no way, shape, or form is that accurate.

I don't have much experience with guns (because Europe) but I'm somewhat of a car enthusiast and I see /k/ sperging out over fire arms in a similar way that I would over a certain car mod. Gadgets are fun.

Fuck no. If your only answer to extremism is different extremism, you have no solution.

That bimmer is absolutely disgusting. kys

The American military is one of the most blatantly corrupt and bluepilled organs of ZOG in existence. Where the fuck do you retards come from and how soon can you go back?

The US has the 2nd amendement to make sure it stays a free country. So when the government turns authoritarian, they can revolt.

As an enthusiast of both I can assure you the passions are very similar. They both have stats and specs to geek over. There are antiques / classics. There are platforms that allow infinite personalization and upgrades. Upgrade paths can be sloppy shadetree / bubba or top tier professional. Upgrade paths offer pros and cons that must be weighed against the purpose of the machine. Both afford you a degree of freedom you didn't have before.

That 1M is pretty gross fam, tbh smh

It's an AC Schnitzer mod, they never disappoint.

To support my points, here's a good article about weaponry of the period.

nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

As others have said, only slaves and plebs rely on an external entity for all their security. White people are not a slave race, and their biggest mistake was ever lowering themselves to that level with voluntary disarmament.

That's exactly what it is. I don't like cars and I see that as simply a means of getting from point A to point B. But I love the shit out of guns and own many guns that I absolutely don't need. I hate the whole liberal "you don't need a military style weapon!" You're damn right I don't need it, I just want it.

Wow you're an idiot. That would be the legislative and judicial branches you fucking twat. WHO do you think MAKES the military and our government ZOG?

are you implying swords and knives were not considered arms? you have to be for your opinion to make any sense. technology progresses and the arms that are most effective for self-defense today are firearms.

explain how getting rid of citizen arms will make a stronger society, with todays technology and situation.

disarming a people turns their men into beta cucks
just look at western europe

Everything you just wrote has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I don't give a shit about the modern debate. All I'm saying is that the REAL philosophy behind the 2nd is to find a way to NOT have standing armies. That is all. Nothing more.

THOSE COLORS

btw this book has been thoroughly discredited

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692421

THIS SITE IS ALL YOU NEED TO DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT ANY LEFTIST HAS EVER SAID ABOUT WEAPONS.
gunfacts.info

The simple answer is, the founding fathers saw this mess we're in coming, and they cared about us.

God rest their souls.

Fuck no, thats kike-tier logic.

But thats just the thing, YOU DO NEED a military style weapon. No you don't need nukes but a standard full auto assault rifle is what SHOULD be available to law abiding citizens. What did Switzerland give out to it's fighting age males? Hunting rifles?

Oh, EVERYTHING in the book has been discredited? So there was no US revolution? Wow, I've been so delusional…

BTW, if you bothered to read anything I wrote, you'd see my argument has almost nothing to do with that book. I was merely looking for accounts of self-defense from that era. You don't have any links about that, do you? Wait, here's another one:

heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense


Holy shit, the fucking Heritage foundation. Is that right wing enough for you Trump fans?

I'm not interested in the excuses, ZOGbot.
Fuck off, nigger lover.

thanks, just downloaded their pdf report

No it is not and never should be, for good reason. Governments always go against the freedom of their own people. We are in such an era right now, were freedom of speech is squashed, civil rights and liberties are being dismantled, entire people are being forced to accept diversity and all the negative consequences that come with it.

This happens because the government rules supreme over its dependants. If you are not playing ball they will revoke your rights. Rights they consider privileges.

This is why you are armed, why everyone should be armed.


No. The social contract says nothing about that. Security is not gotten by given up freedom. A government is created in the interest of a people for whatever it is they desire. Once a government starts to steer the desire of the people or leads the people toward a goal only a small group has set and agreed on, it becomes utterly corrupt, it betrays whatever contract was there in the first place. This is why people need to be able to dispose of their government at any given time. Otherwise we end up in a state like we are currently in. We have decided that we dont want that system anymore, that the government and the elites do more harm than good, but we are unable to get rid of them.

Freedom and change was always fought for. It never came without the use of violence. Taking away the ability to execute lethal force leaves the people as inequals to the government which never had any problem doing the same to its own people.


No. Because law and order are upheld by the people, by society, not by the government.

Clearly. Steel casings was enough to show they were a nogunzfag

you sound like a leftist.


Most people agree that one part of the 2nd amendment was to avoid having a standing army, however you made this claim.


and proceed to cite a nytimes article based off a discredited book "Arming America". The point being the 2nd amendment was one part to avoid standing armies but the main function was to allow people the means of self defense against any threat, be it criminal or tyrannical.

I guess that confirms my first point.

Our 2nd is only there so we the people have the legal right to oppose tyrants. It has nothing to do with sport or hunting. It has everything to do with defense of the self and against a runaway gov

...

THe 2nd is a fig leaf extended so the populace feels they can take the country back at any moment.
It works great for that, seeing as how the only time somebody tried going against a tyrant was half the states using a professional standing army over their right to property as a few Jews saw fit.

we will always have the obligation to defend ourselves and those we love.

it is not an issue in a state of peace.

it is an issue when we are in a state of war.
the origin of war is conflict of interest.
understand the basics of fascism and realize its implications.

when the left and right become more and more different, all you will see is dysfunction, gridlock, shitflinging…

the causes of conflict of interest are based on mutually exclusive physical and spiritual properties of man.

...

I supported no such thing. I want guns to point at muds.

Because when Tyreese and Friedchickeneeshua and the other urban youth scholars decide to hold a prayer meeting in my garage at 3am, I'm going to be ready.

Sounds like a personal problem. Sage for 4chan-tier bait thread.

So because i'm a Eurofag who has been brought up in a tyranically no-funz culture, and as a kid being tought over and over again in school, that violence is ALWAYS inherently wrong, I am at fault for not understanding the american way of thinking concerning guns.

And when I ask fellow aryans about the nature of civilian owned firearms, I get dismissed.

Yes its a personal problem, but it also spans the entire continent/civilisation of the Motherland.

Fuck you.

I think you're getting a lot of shit but the clause that they can be used against the government pretty much means that. If you rise against a tyrannical government, as pure as your intentions may be, you're declaring their laws void, so getting their permission doesn't actually matter that much. Another topic is that it thanks to that that a lof of gun rights haven't been challenged.

Basically its individual rights, the government and military are made up of individuals. So give the power to each individual and through COLLECTIVE ACTION and consent they form the government and military (through the states).

The gun is the great equalizer of man. If you wish for women, children, and the feeble to be abused you will remove guns from your society. Oh look Europe has such a thing going on today. At least here our shitskins are mostly raping and killing each other, in Europe you Europeans are the targets.

Completely 100% wrong. The 2nd had nothing to do with self-defense whatsoever and there's absolutely no evidence it did. Self defense is never mentioned and instead militias are mentioned.

If the 2nd has anything to do with self defense, where is the proof?

Again, firearms of that era were not suitable for self defense. That is a fact of the technology.

Now, did the people of that era accept the carrying of knives and swords for self defense? Yes. Stopping people from carrying that stuff wasn't even a thought in the Founders' minds.

So does the Constitution give a shit about self defense? No. Did the people of that era even consider banning self-defense weapons? No. Is the 2nd about self defense whatsoever? No.

What do I believe? I don't give a shit. But the truth is the truth. The 2nd is about militias, not self defense. To say otherwise is a retcon and every argument that tries is a tortured mess with little in the way of facts.

Practically speaking that stuff hits like .30-30, great for deer, hog and elk if you can get close enough.

You have a welfare slave's mentality, if you don't understand that the government exists to serve the populace and not the other way around, you're beyond hope.

Even if that's the case, the absence of a militia does not preclude an individual's right to retain arms for that purpose, so it really is a pointless argument to make.

It is necessary for the security of a free state regardless of who poses a threat to that security.

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp

No. And there is no social contract, as contracts are voluntary. You cannot choose society or opt out from it in current system.

the complexity of the world is so beautiful.
the differences of everything is so beautiful.
everyone needs a home.
i hate the taste of lamb.
the light burns those who reject it.
we must use our strength to reach the stars.

It's not a pointless argument. In fact, the courts have pretty much agreed with this interpretation over the years. You can't have an atomic bomb. You can have a pistol. You can have a self-defense oriented firearm. You can't have a fully automatic rifle with a huge magazine. You can't have a tank. You can buy a bulletproof vest.

The right to self defense and self defense weapons has been recognized by US courts and it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd because the 2nd isn't about self-defense.

Anyone who talks about self-defense and self-defense weapons as being granted by the 2nd just doesn't understand the 2nd. The 2nd doesn't give a shit.

Now that the US has a standing army, and the states have their National Guards and well-armed police forces, the 2nd is as irrelevant as the 3rd Amendment which no one gives a shit about anymore either because it's also obsolete.

So I guess I'm saying that if you want to make an argument for keeping possession of a certain weapon legal, the smartest thing to do would be to leave the 2nd out of your argument because it's completely useless and obsolete.

You went full retard.

I don't see where he mentions the 2nd in that essay.

Nice argument.

are you even trying?

...

No.
The bigger issue here is that one of man's natural rights is the right to defend oneself.
When a criminal can attack you with an illegally acquired gun, and as a law abiding citizen you cannot acquire a gun yourself, then one cannot reasonably defend oneself.
The only duty of government in this respect is to not impede this natural right.

No argument is being made. The quote has the term "self defense" but I'm not sure if Hamilton is using it the way we're using it here. Instead, I believe he's saying the people have the right to defend themselves from a malicious government.

Again, this goes back to what I'm saying about the tech. In that era, the government couldn't completely overwhelm the mob with high-tech weaponry like they can today. By merely convincing people to fight, even with knives and bare hands, you could create a mob that was really dangerous to the government. Hamilton's argument in that essay has nothing to do with weaponry because in that era it was an irrelevant point.

It's called guerilla warfare.
The US army is very effective at fighting conventional wars. But all you need to do is look at vietnam and the clusterfuck that is the middle east to know that the US can't fight a guerilla war worth shit.

JKM

"Isn’t the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?"

If this were the case and it became corrupt, there would be no safety net. This country was built on checks and balances to avoid corruption, and the second amendment is one of those.

It also makes America a lot harder to conquer. What's the point of defeating an army when, once you occupy an area. patriots with assault rifles keep crawling out of the woodwork every couple days?
That's a more minor part of it than having the state accountable to the people, but it's a cool perk none-the-less.

Then why not take the time to read why Americas founding fathers were so gung-ho about everyone being armed. You are on the internet I don't understand why this is a difficult thing for you to do.

No retard the State is literally the government. The nation is the people. Sometimes these are in line with each other, in our times they're anything but

Sage for anti 4chan posting

first off… do you even constitution?
when seconds count and help is only minutes away…
guns protect me and mine against those who would do us harm, and that includes (((authority))) when it oversteps its powers.

the federal government isn't supposed to maintain a standing army, let alone army, navy, airforce, marines, coast guard & national guard. ALL defense of the nation is supposed to be volunteer militia.

this user gets it

(ch kek ed)


not really hard, just not spoon fed to the last few generations

I'll teach you all a thing, if you're willing to follow the rabbit.
>mfw some small parts of the sovereign citizen stuff isn't bullshit and the conspiracy theory & tinfoil labels are to obfuscate the truth of the matter
check out James Traficant

The USA was founded partly against the idea of a monopoly on violence.

So um. Yeah. It mostly relies on not being niggers.

Done and done.

Let us suppose that, yes, the state does have a monopoly on violence. Do they also have a monopoly on the tools of violence? Does a monopoly on violent behavior imply a monopoly on that which aids violent behavior? Or, are free men allowed to own the implements of violence and war so long as they do not use them for those ends? If you are not being violent, has the state lost that monopoly on violence just because you own a weapon?

Even if the state has a monopoly on violence, that does not invalidate the right to bear arms: an individual right of free people to own things that they want to own.

It's simple: Slaves are disarmed by masters. Free citizens are armed, because they have governments, not masters.

Or, as the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence put it: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

We, the people, have the right to revoke that monopoly at will because we, the people are, collectively, the sovereign. That means that the government gets its rights and powers from us, not the other way around. They serve at our pleasure, not the other way around. We reserve the right to revoke their privileges, not the other way around.

well put user

That is your problem.

Op sounds like a collectivist.

Does civilian gun ownership undermine the State's capability to enforce law and order? Frankly, from a little common sense you could've seen the answer from the mile away: no.

Gun owners aren't pining for a world where life is nasty, brutish and short, as in Hobbes' "state of nature". They're just seeking to improve their safety against a possible attacker. Sure, they could try to face the police and go guns blazing. But, if they didn't have firearms, they could also fill a pressure cooker with a bunch of explosives, or just start stabbing random policemen. What I mean is that state forces can always be challenged. They aren't because the majority of people aren't looking forward to a civil war.

Furthermore, the Weberian usage of the term is "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force". If you shoot a random person, that sure as hell ain't legitimate. But shooting an atacker in self-defense is already covered by self-defense laws, and it's completely legit.

The only thing I could conceive as "undermining the state's power" would be something like raising an army against it. But if anyone manages to pull that off, the government wasn't legitimate to start with.

Anyway, you shouldn't take this "social contract" thing much too seriously. The social contract is mostly a thought experiment concocted by Hobbes in order to produce a theory of government, but it's not a serious account of how states actually form. Hobbes says that men gave up on their wolf-like nature in exchange for safety. First, it takes real trust between all to enforce such an agreement. Second, he doesn't explain how come the sovereign could ever offer them that in the first place.

In reality, what most likely happened is that, after a lifetime of gobbling up one another, one the wolves just happened to get big enough that other wolves started joining in his pack (can't beat them, join them). Packs more or less always existed due to kin selection, but they eventually started adopting non-kin members and grew in size as their strength also grew. Rome started from a city, but the more it conquered, the more it could conquer (until it reached it's apex).

This should be more obvious to you, as an European, since the history of the Old World is filled with power-hungry warlords attempting to out do one another and to attain supremacy. Alexander, Julius Ceasar, Atilla, Ghenghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte being the most famous among them. The "social contract" is usually no more than a fable meant to justify the existence of the state, and to couch it in classical liberal terms as the collective decision of free individuals facing the sovereign as an equal partner in a contract.

First of all, the concept of a social contract is a collectivist concept.
The USA was not, from the time of its inception to today, a collectivist nation.
Sure, the (((parentheticals))) will never stop trying to reshape it into their ideal.
But the USA was a nation founded on the concept of individual rights.
And it worked, for as long as the country stayed White and western European.
The people who revolted against the Crown of England would have been hung to death for their insurrection.
They would have hardly placed the ultimate power over life and death solely in the hands of those who would rule over them.
Every cop takes an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states.
That kind of put everyone on the same page and they're respecting the constitution gets them the benefit of doubt and submission from the populace.

Wow someone else who fucking gets it. You should have also hammered that faggot for saying the 2a has been obsoleted which is fucking nonsense. Just because Kikes have taken over this country and bastardized it doesn't make the 2a obsolete, it necessitates it.

Do you have any ideas how AFRAID of guns they are? All media is portraing people with arms who aren't employees of the state to be terrorists of sorts. They unironically believe nations who have civilian gun laws will "sooner or later shoot themselves to death" and genuinely think killing intruders and potential rapists is a bad thing.

I can teach you some German or other European swear words and how they're pronounced if you want.

Amendments are things the government can't infringe on, not rights allotted to citizens. Kind of the same thing but in the negative.

The idea is that the government should be able to be overthrown if it was infringing on the social contract or their natural rights, and that citizen militias can be raised quickly and easily.

In a constitutional republic we the people are ceasar

give to ceasar what is ceasar's

...

...

Violance isn't based on weapons but on people. Also the State are the people, and the rules in said State are made by People who agree on these rules, and based on the agreed rules, the monopoly on violence is somewhat shared between all people in the State. Since a lot of people in said State have jobs and other stuff do to, which means they have no time to go after criminals, they agree to pay taxes to have people like the police, whose job it is to do that, while people can defend themselves with their own weapons, in case the criminal goes after them.

Citizens with weapons defend themselves from criminals in case they are attacked, people like the Police go after criminals. You are the shield, the police is the sword. A simple agreement and rule to deal with criminals.

THERE IS NO PHILOSOPHY

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

JUST TRY AND TAKE IT

KILLIN COONS WITH MY NINE ILL BLOW THIS NIGGER ACROSS THE BLOCK WITH MY GLOCK

...

The Founding Fathers were redpilled and knew the jews were coming, the jews have destroyed every nation in the past 2,000 years, the destroyed rome and the destroyed england, and the Founding Fathers knew they were coming.

If you're a cuck beta mangina who can't handle your business, then sure.

If you're a man and can handle the responsibility of your own affairs then no that's retarded.

Wat

The entire idea of a state monopoly on violence is a very recent idea created in the past century by (((globalists))) and (((elites))).

All Yankees that hate guns can go fuck off to Europe and be with your philosophical brethren. America is beyond Europe. We don't want it, that's why we left it.

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe what you just said

individual sovereignty is the recent idea and the (((globalists))) hate the very concept with a passion denied most mortal men because it undermines (((their))) monopoly on force and state violence

Contract my ass. I never signed shit. It's a free for all. If I'm threatened, murder the menace with a lawn-chair and bury him what can the state do? Call in a fucking physic?

I only fight with virtue and honor against those that abide by those rules. who are probably already on my side and have shared interests in a society

(Maybe if we accidentally hit one anothers kid with a car and we have to fight to the death okay let's have rules.)

But if someone is going to kill me make my offspring into sex freaks erase my legacy from history and sue me for bullshit while making a speech about the nobility of law while winking at me.

I guess it's now okay to hack their fucking phone and shoot them out of a canon.

Monopoly of violence is needed only wherein a collectivist population exists or in order to achieve it; its like herding cattle. You can't trust cattle to walk back to the ranch by themselves, so you take the guns away walk them back yourself. America was founded not as a collective but as an individualist nation wherein the nation is made up of individuals and these individuals make up the government. America was supposed to behave a bit like a family, wherein there is an implicit trust and role to each member of the family, they are not cattle. The man of the house, the state, is the head) benevolent leader of the family, but by virtue of being the man, will work for the benefit of the family, and his decisions can and will be influenced by the opinions of the household.

However, a house divided cannot stand, and so if the family is not working together for a singular goal, then it's doomed to fail. This is what is wrong with America today. Half of the country thinks X is evil, but the other half thinks X is good and we should welcome X. We lost our Christian identity which bonded us together.

Leave useless philosophy to ivory tower college professors and their students that work at McDonald's.


No. In America, the government is suppose to serve the people.


No such thing. In America we have a Constitution. Not a "contract" with Karl Marx.

this

someone steps far outside the law with me expecting fair-play will disappear, pure and simple.

...

The situations individual citizens are allowed to use lethal force are still regulated by law so this is not an example of a failed monopoly on violence.

I think the state underestimates the amount of people that have dungeons. Just a thought I've been having lately. I bet a lot of people who are afraid of getting caught by the police break into houses and wind up as a fucking gimp; see they weren't worried enough about that shit. kek.

That's heavy. The power of propaganda narrative etc is more powerful than guns. Fucking conan riddle of steel tier.

Basically you could destroy the government by having a cult that breeds fast if you can control imagination.

wew lad

kek

The first line of law enforcement is the self-defense of law-abiding citizens.

FUCKING KEK
can't double post so have it here:

kek

Oh boy, here we go…

FTFY

Sounds about right.

No.

Nope.

Your assumptions were incorrect to begin with, thus negating this quandry.

Which it shouldn't and doesn't have.


THE STATE DOES NOT ORDER US, WE ORDER THE STATE

The United States military vehemently disagrees with you, by all accounts.

The last several decades of guerilla warfare likewise lend little credence to your claims.

Only if your state is a tyrant.

Europeans.

why is he spinning that babushka around

People need meaning in their life, they need progress to age with them.

You clearly did not understand it.


If you took from that whole ordeal that Thulsa was right, you weren't paying close enough attention to how the film played out.

Checked.

Because he's an asshole. She's screaming like crazy, theres a longer webm with audio somerhere out there

Okay Eurofag, in the USA our government is supposed to work for us and represent us.
We even wrote in a failsafe "if the government ever becomes tyrannical and stops representing the people, abolish it"
And just how exactly do you think you abolish a tyrannical government?

I dont know. Since I havent seen you do anything worthwhile.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

"The true strength of steel is in the hand that wields it."

I have no clue why Thulsa didn't order his followers to smother him to death and let conan get so close, but Conan was stronger, more motivated and killed him with a sword. I'd say this confirms the riddle of steel.

(kek I'm not sure if I'm derailing. It's sort of on the edge.)

U-u vote it out… R-r-right???

Sort of.

You cast your vote in blood, on a ballot of iron.

THE PEOPLE
ARE
THE GOVERNMENT

...

something along those lines, you got the out part right at least.

Its more than that.

Remember what Conan's father said at the outset, about trust.

There is great power in flesh, clearly, as Thulsa demonstrates - but only your own can you ever truly trust, and when bereft of the flesh of others to gird you, you must stand alone.

With steel in your hand, you can make your stand.

Lots of 7.62x54R is steel, which is what is pictured if I'm not mistaken

Think of it has your safety net against the state. We give the state monopoly on violence provided certain criteria are meet, if they are not you have a way to retaliate. Fellow eurofag here, this is where we fucked up. We also should have murded all the commies during WW2, including the women

Oops I took a closer look and it's obviously 7.62x39

Well, you're right of course. Would have been easier though, if the commies hadn't won.

Flesh gives way to steel….as does the earth.
The man who masters his flesh has great power under his control, but a man who masters both has great power and is a great leader.

Thulsa was obsessed with power and only master the steel….his flesh was always weak.

yes but the Weimar gun registry was used by the Nazis to disarm the enemies of the state:

tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-364-gun-control-in-the-third-reich/

so the 'Nazis' argument against gun control is at least half-true

We'll use it as long as this word caries the negative meaning it had up to today. We'll also bring up the death statistics.

Burn the state-heary "authoritarian" no-funz.

I (and he) am using it in both ways, because its really the same thing in a relative way; an aggressor against you and your property. It does focus on defense against government because they believed that was the greater danger but it is self defense all the same.

again


He specifically says arms, and they were definitely talking about all manner of arms and weapons. Talking tech, there were all manner of different types of guns past muskets that were made in making that were highly relevant in the daily lives of americans. Cannons were the most powerful weapon back in the day and they were allowed by privateer.

constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

the fact that they were adamant about allowing private citizens the highest tech for arms, even past the establishment of the regular army proves the 2nd amendment was far more than just to avoid having a standing army.

I'm on the wrong computer but I had a bookmark with a weapon during the time the Second Amendment was written and the rifle displayed was a fully automatic machine shot gun with characteristic of a pump gun with a sawed of tip. Why are these anti-Christians so anti-fun? Our Lord said, "rather be poor with arms than without arms". Praise Jesus.

The second amendment is a deterrent against other states.

The Swiss have created a defensive deterrent that works: Defense structure embedded in the very infrastructure of the nation, reservists receiving training in reasonable intervals, shortening the delay between a muster command to troop readiness by placing gear near the troops.

Ours is simply an earlier version of the same idea. Is there a problem with that?

There are 4 universal human right:
Liberty
Property
Safety
Security

Liberty is obviously the first and in it's strict application, it's liberty from ownership (slavery) but also liberty of consciousness (the right to think whatever the fuck you want and say it)

The second is property, linked to the first, you own what you own and nobody can seize it without reason, by extension with the first one you're able to contract with whoever you want too.

The third is safety and linked to the 2nd and 1st. Safety is not what you think. Safety is safety from injustice and unlawful prosecution. IE there are very strict limits to what the any gov' can and can't do. Combine with the first and second it means that everything NOT FORBIDDEN is allowed.

The 4th is security. Which is self explanatory and once linked with the 3 others, the Humans of a territory will create a social contract with a state to protect them from external threats (army/diplomacy) and internal threats (police/justice).

And that's it.
Everything else come from those 4 core concepts.

Adding to that there is a very basic principle of law.
That a right is not a right unless people have a way to exercise it.

If you say "it is the right of the people of X-country to have afro haircuts" but you have forbidden people to use everything related to hairdressing and outlawed hair salons then that right doesn't exist. It's the logical offspring of the Safety concept (and is something that is older, pretty much since we have laws, it's really just logic).

The 1st, 2nd are therefore linked to the 4th by the 3rd are very easy to understand and very easy for people to use them and protect them. Somebody enslaved you? Well you've got cops/soldiers for that. Somebody stole/scammed from you? Well we have judges.

But how do you exercise the right to safety? Who are you supposed to complain to if the gov' is bypassing his limits? The cops are corrupts, etc…
Well in civilized states we have internal affairs, military justice, appeal courts, etc… (all of those come from the safety concept), but it's easy to see that those are also part of the system and can very well be abused (China and the USSR have/had all that… Hell even Nazi Germany if you want to go with the evil nazi meme for normies) and are very weak safeguards.

Therefore there is only one logical answer to the ageless question "How will we watch the guardians?":
WEAPONS
E
A
P
O
N
S

The people themselves will watch the guardians.

Weapon ownership (and I mean weapons and I mean all of them) is a human right, for it is ultimately the only way for humans to exercise their right to safety.

Last I checked…. we are still in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a failed state sectioned off into three distinct nations, one of which is wholly supported by our government (hint, rhymes with ISIS.)

Now, maybe you have a point, in that not ALL of them are goat 'farmers'. But they are ALL goat fuckers. So it is kinda true.

That's true nobody farms goat.

We're losing to goat herders.

Hey retard.

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.

Who's right shall not be infringed? The peoples'.

...

Do you all see what I have to deal with? They genuinely believe nations with civil gun rights are going to fail. What an irony!

I hope "not PC" is code for "not furthering Israel's agenda. If our goal was to stop terrorism, that whole situation would have been wrapped up a long time ago.

Creat chaos. Strengthen Israel's positioning in the region. Create a migrant crisis that floods into white countries. Unarm Iran to have a nuclear monopoly in the region. Expand Israel's borders as chaos ensues. Destabilize Europe. Reap the benefits of all the natural oil and gas wealth that comes with expansion. U mad goyim?

No
Yes
It's for when things go wrong.
A social contract would be perfect if everyone agreed to and abided by it (except for the fact that you can't choose where you're born and therefor can't voice a disagreement). The problem comes when the contract and the people are at odds. If it restricts behavior or demands from a segment of the population to an extent that is deemed unacceptable by that population, it can reasonably be said a tyranny is being committed. If you are born in the disaffected population, you have three choices:
You can move. But really, can you? If your country voted for a law that completely fucked your life up, could you really just pick up and move elsewhere? I get the open borders thing in the EU, but could you really settle in those places, free from fear of a similar law being passed in your new country?
You could try to change the contract via the vote, but what if the people fucked over are a minority (not necessarily racial or religious, but a minority in the literal, demographic sense) and those not affected don't give a shit? Or what if your democracy is corrupted?
Or you could change the contract through violence. This is a last resort of course, but there have been times where there were simply no better solutions, and those times will come and pass again in the future. That's what guns are for.

5x20 = 99 ? DUFUCK

nog blower kek

Even if there were no guns, shitlibs and Jews would be telling us that we don't need our swords, hatchets, or bows, and that only the warriors and governments need weapons.

The whole point is that the state ISN'T supposed to have a monopoly on violence. The way the US constitution is written, citizens are supposed to have the monopoly, some of which is granted to the state in order to defend common interests. That's why the only military force authorized by the constitution is the Navy.

called small arms for a reason, go back to being stupid.

the state derives its authority from the people, and in this case if there are enough people willing to rebel against the state that they might actually win against those loyal to it then undermines the state's legitimacy

...

Swiss don't have any niggers

Doxing an entire political class is how modern battles are fought.

Your thinking is outmoded if you believe people are going to duke it out with the military…they'll be going to the 'burbs in NoVA.

user. Brass casing master race. Pls. Try again.

The weak must fear the strong

Ever wonder if your child falls into the pool and drowns you made a dumb child and the world would be better off?

Yes! I want government funded pools in every household in the West as a eugenic measure.