>>1712 When the vultures come to rend the flesh from the whore of babylon they'll be the first ones to pillage ammo and guns from.

>>1712 >lgbtqptkvr+++ community? L+ typing anything more is cuckery

>>1721 But the you miss out on LGTBBQ and similar fun ones. The only redeemable letter is B because you can still fulfill your duties on this earth even if fooling around when young and restless.

>>1720 >troons say christcuck unironically larpagans btfo

>>1717 it's always tragic to see people drop one faith for another that makes them look even dumber >>1719 Ian's content is ok, at least he is not flashing a troon on his channel like Karl >>1720 if you replace the pink t-shirt and replace it with a camo one, you get your average tactical-fag. Fortunately this one will shoot itself first >>1722 >even if fooling around when young and restless slippery slope, strelok

>>1716 Pretty sure those guys are all very, very dead.

>>1716 I advocate for everyone to have guns and to take wins wherever you can get them. There's talks that SCOTUS might be forced to allow drug users to legally own firearms because of the Hunter Biden dumpster handgun scandal. Sodomites are less likely to go around raping and pillaging when they understand their own mortality.

>>1716 >quoting the Torah unironically

>>1727 >being a fedora unironically

The Heckle & Cock community?

>>1716 The most based thing the OG american governement did was allow anything breathing to own a gun since A. if you start banning certain people from banning guns since they are "criminals" or "crazy" then look at 2023 where everyone is doing some punishable federal crime everyday unknowingly and the feds can just arrest/disarm anyone they please. Same with the crazies, we are rapidly reaching commie era "capitalism is a mental illness" phase of the plan right after all the phobia and ism bullshit. Any label used to stop gun ownership can be used against you, the sodomite of today is the cis of tommorow. B. Who is going to stop them from owning guns? How? Its the same bullshit like with abortions, everyone is so caught up with how great the idea of just stopping a bunch of people from doing something the don't like without any effort or cost, they forget its all "fixed" by the same people who caused the problem in the first place. Giving more power to the governement for whatever problem (especially bullshit social ones) will always bit you in the ass 10X because the gov only ever cares about their own power and sees you as the enemy. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows this, don't ever trust anyone in power to do something for you for no reason it is always a scam, they most likely caused the issue in the first, are only "fixing" it as an excuse to get more power, and if they get more power they will never actually fix it and just get a "second party" to repeal it while also getting more power so that when you repeal that back they get even more power until you get 1984/commieland.

>>1730 While I would more or less otherwise agree with your premise, you should have stuck to dudeweedlmao or something similar as an example. Not that those are perfect but they are "victimless crimes." >Its the same bullshit like with abortions The two aren't even similar or within the same framework. Guns are a great equalizer that ensures that the government doesn't come after you unless they REALLY think you deserve to be locked in a cage. The act of owning a firearm does not influence anything else in society (minus the industry itself), but rather the act of using it changes one's fate and whether they are in-line or out-of-line with the moral, ethical, and/or legal framework of society. That is to say, a gun is an extension of self-defense doctrines which is why banning it is opposed, not because "people will have them." People will also commit theft, rape, murder, fraud, tax evasion, etc. Point being, laws don't stop [bad thing] either, they just set up a rules-based framework that everyone in a given area agrees to abide by whether because they see those things as "wrong" or because they would rather not have those things done to them or spread around them for pragmatic reasons. To this end, while a gun is an extension of self-defense, no such "extension" claim can be made of an abortion. A gun owner is still morally/ethically/legally liable for the consequences of his actions, s/he just "gets his day in court" (if it even needs to go to court). In the act of an abortion, all the actions that lead up to conception and all the acts after conception have been the responsibility of the two who did the deed. For a woman to be able to divest herself of the baby in "self defense" would be as if to claim that a man can divest himself of supporting that baby and its mother as an act of "self defense." That is, it would be a ludicrous claim and would get you laughed out of any rational court room. To not lay into the argument of when life begins since the only rational and emotional argument is that life begins at conception; any other claims are simply trying to avoid having to call it killing and rationalize from that point onward when killing is "ok" or "not ok" on generally arbitrary grounds, it is not a question of whether a crime has been committed but whether or not you are "guilty" of a crime in relation to ones' peers. People who are anti-abortion are willing to compromise to avoid unnecessary health risks to society at large (hence where "safe, legal, and rare" came from) much in the way a sandwich shop owner might feel bad about hungry people and donate old/expired product to a food bank/homeless shelter instead of throwing it away to avoid dumpster divers or someone may pardon a murder based on circumstantial evidence that the guy killed was a menace to society, however it doesn't change the fact that a crime has been committed. The anti-abortion camp doesn't want to go after a woman who takes too much oregano oil or trips down the stairs, but more specifically the doctors who are state-sanctioned actors acting as a middleman for criminal activities much as one might go after a crime syndicate's accountant to prevent money laundering. >BuT wHaT aBoUt MuH wOmEn'S rIgHtS? Yeah and what about the man's right to not pay child support and take care of the bitch for 18 years? All things being equal pro-abortionists must argue for an end to child support as well under the same ethical basis for allowing abortions. Clearly that would be moronic and irresponsible if the entire argument in favor of abortion is that of a public service to prevent unnecessary suffering. The "compromise" was always the first couple of weeks before the baby could survive outside of the womb, and that definition has been continuously expanded over time. The baby has to come out one way or another so why kill it? Abortion is murder. Murder is a crime. Criminals will always exist, but we still have laws making it illegal to commit crimes for a reason. Gun ownership does not fit into whatever moral/ethical framework that guides you because ownership of something is not the same as utilizing something in a criminal or harmful act. There's a whole litany of arguments for why ownership of contraband (something that can only be used in the committance of a crime) may be an illegal/immoral act (arguments I do not personally entertain but understand their substance), but firearm ownership has far too many non-criminal purposes to pull that card. Finally to clap my burgerstani asscheeks... >Firearms are protected by the 2nd amendment >Contraband and paraphernalia are semi-protected by the 5th and 10th amendment >Killing babies is not and hasn't even been processed by congress for a legal framework at the federal level; it's a privilege Check your privilege you bigot.

>>1731 pedo

>>1732 You boos don't matter because I know what you cheer for.

>>1731 Abortion isn't murder because you're not killing anyone with legal protections, retard. >The two aren't even similar or within the same framework Sure, abortion laws are closer to systematic blackabagging and silent indefinite detention and state sanctioned torture and other attacks on bodily autonomy. >Killing babies is not and hasn't even been processed by congress for a legal framework at the federal level; it's a privilege It's protected by the 5th. The only gun law with any intrinsic relation to self defense is the 2nd amendment and maybe some of the corsica-like anecdotal consequences (which are more practical states of affairs than actually defended by the law).

Are all these replies bait or are anons really this retarded? >>1733 This shit is literally from rick and morty >>1731 >victimless crime I don't care if 10s of millions of kids get killed by unrestricted firearm ownership, its an objective necessary human right that is undeniable regardless of potential cost, trying to moralfag about it is hilarious. >muh moralfagging Completely missed the point dumbass by focusing on the philosophical why child murder is bad (wow who knew?) rather than the very real HOW to stop it, this is why the right (or more accurately boomers) gave up so many rights in order to built up the patriot act statist bullshit we live in today, they can't correlate idealistic social issues tactics used on leftists being the same as those used on the right. The only reason abortion/anti-natalist culture exists in NA is because it was constructed by the same people you are begging to give power to "stop" it. "Making abortion illegal" will never stop dumb bitches from acting like dumb bitches, even in some fictional ideal world where the gov wasn't completely corrupt (/started this shit in the first place/wasn't going to abuse this issue ad infinitum without solving it to gain power like it does with everything else), the fact is the best police state in the world can't stop bitches from getting knocked up and hangering their kids into the trash. If you want actual real changes to social issues you need to tackle them like social issues, no more atheistic anti-natalism bullshit culture, no more discrimination and rather support towards pregnant women 25 and below, massive changes towards the adoption process/system to make it as convenient/accepted in society as possible, massive support towards non-governement community programs that support struggling bitches, and more importantly than ANYTHING else: Massive charity funded research towards birth control in order to make a pill that is 100% reliable, cheap enough to be bought by anyone, and preferably doesn't have rampant xenoestrogen contamination, seriously big pharma monopoly has essentially killed drug r&d for at least the last 40 years. Tldr Abortion is a social issue, and if you remove the reasons that cause it, there isn't enough governement subsidisation in the world to keep plannedparenthood from going bankrupt.

Does anyone know if CZ is woke? I'm hearing really great things about their Bren 2 being a good budget rifle. Would be a shame if one of the best civilian companies turned out to be cucked. >>1735 >governement Damnit, so much for not being retarded.

>>1734 >you're not killing anyone with legal protections If your life is only guaranteed by legal protections and not rights, then you have already forfeited it to the state's whims no matter how illegitimate. >and other attacks on bodily autonomy. Did two people fuck? Then they (both) consented to the reasonable risk of the most important reason to be fucking. The second being pair-bonding chemical releases, and the third being for "fun." Just as you don't go shooting a firearm in an enclosed space even if it's fun (and if you do you use proper protections while still understanding the risks), all parties implicitly consented to the possibility of conception even if they took "all measures" to prevent one. That's basic biology. Should have sterilized themselves if they didn't want to risk pregnancy or just not have fucked. That goes for both parties involved not just the woman. Are we dealing with adults or children? There is a place for emotional arguments but your description of "black-bagging" to describe banning abortions are closer to that of hysterics than any actual semblance of logic, ethics, or emotional appeal. >It's protected by the 5th. I don't think that means what you think it means. The 5th amendment can be broken down into three parts: >You have a right to not self-incriminate >You have a right to due process (you can be deprived of your rights under the framework of the constitution if you have gone through due process to be stripped of your rights) >All rules are governed by the state or local legislative body (and by extension, all rules NOT governed by the state or legislative body are subject to federal law) Abortion is not a "right" and banning it would cover both due process and rules regarding the extent of local legislative bodies. That is, unless the local government both forms their own laws AND declares intent to defy Federal mandate, they forfeit their right to intervene in federal proceedings on the matter. The removal of Roe v Wade restored 5th amendment rights of the states. >>1735 >[firearms ownership is] an objective necessary human right that is undeniable regardless of potential cost Where did I disagree with that sentiment? It wasn't moralfagging it was laying out why the argument that the right for a woman to kill a child is not a right and is not on the same level as firearms ownership, and how even if it was on the same level it is intrinsically different. >rather than the very real HOW to stop it My point was moreso putting it on the same level as theft, murder, getting into a crash under the influence, fraud, etc. That isn't to say there isn't a place to discuss the merits of how to stop theft, how to stop murder, how to stop drunk driving, how to stop fraud, etc. But that focusing on the "how to" of abortions misses the point and puts the issue on a pedestal where it doesn't belong. It's a crime. Would you discuss how it's impossible to stop shoplifting while a police officer watches a shoplifter roll into a store and rob the aisles bare or would you yell at your police officer to do his job and at your legislature to make shoplifting illegal if it wasn't? >The government put you in this position! Abortions were near-universally illegal outside of special circumstance before the Supreme Court greenlit (nay, forced) their legality at the federal level. >"Making abortion illegal" will never stop dumb bitches from acting like dumb bitches There will always be dumb bitches. The point isn't to try and eliminate dumb bitches, it's to create a culture where dumb bitches are mocked and scorned in such a way that they take responsibility for their actions and where men keep it in their pants unless they are willing to take that risk as well. The pill isn't going away, but that doesn't mean you need doctors prescribing it like candy, telling girls it's a cure-all, and creating a culture of sexual vultures preying on innocent women. >the fact is the best police state in the world can't stop bitches from getting knocked up and hangering their kids into the trash. But it shouldn't condone it. People like to yell at conservatives about slippery slopes but leaving an open-doors policy on these things is like intentionally lubing up the slope to get people to drop off the side of the cliff into completely new realms of satanic degeneracy. It's grooming in the most literal sense. >If you want actual real changes to social issues you need to tackle them like social issues Sure, but a crime is being committed and its permissiveness exacerbates and promotes the societal ills you lament in your words below. There is a world of difference between wielding the law like a cudgel for personal gain as our authoritarian trash government currently does and wielding the law like a cudgel to sternly reprimand bad behavior. As early back as the 1950s it would have been considered "disturbing the peace" (a legal matter) for a man to not be dressed in either a suit or work uniform while out in public, but oh have we forgotten that our forefathers were LESS permissive of social ills than we are today. >and if you remove the reasons that cause it, there isn't enough governement subsidisation in the world to keep plannedparenthood from going bankrupt. >Whynotbothmexicangirl.jpg I think you're putting the cart before the horse in thinking the social ills cause abortions rather than easy-access abortions and no-fault divorce causing social ills. Despite my personal blend of anti-authority that would see every cop, politician, judge, and lawyer hung from lamp posts, I am all for logical, sensible laws that have clear-cut goals even if they expand the powers of the state. I just think that there needs to be a framework and that the laws must take into consideration any existing laws and try to apply those frameworks first. Hence, abortion is murder so there doesn't need to be new laws on abortions just treat the entire medical industries dedicated to them as either murderers or murder accomplices. They can even extend a grace/pardon for people already in the industry so long as they treat future abortions as murder.

>>1735 >and if you remove the reasons that cause it Soon enough strelok, the prophecies regarding all these (((reasons))) running around will come to pass. The professional baby-killer's days are just as surely numbered, as the earth is to run it's circuit about the sun.

>>1737 >If your life is only guaranteed by legal protections and not rights, then you have already forfeited it to the state's whims no matter how illegitimate. The legal protection of your life is the legal protection of your life. Are you actually retarded? Yes, you should do illegal things to protect your life (generally). Am I being trolled? >Despite my personal blend of anti-authority You don't have an anti-authoritarian bone in your body, faggot. >Did two people fuck? Then they (both) consented to the reasonable risk of the most important reason to be fucking. The second being pair-bonding chemical releases, and the third being for "fun." None of these have any relation to state interference in bodily autonomy. Actually, none of them have anything to do with anything sofar discussed. >your description of "black-bagging" to describe banning abortions are closer to that of hysterics than any actual semblance of logic, ethics, or emotional appeal It isn't an ethical or emotional appeal retard. Legal interference into medication/healthcare is literally the basis of infinite detention without due process. >I don't think that means what you think it means That's because you're retarded. And what the fuck do you mean >Abortion is not a "right" Are you trying to say you don't have a right to perform an abortion? Do you just not understand the situation at all? >>1735 Female contraceptives are literally abortives. What the fuck is your problem with some imaginary concept that you call "abortion" if you're also fine with the (inevitable and unpreventable even with the grossest of medical interventions with full compliance in an ideal case) casual slaughter of countless nameless infants?

>>1739 >Bodily autonomy Does not extend to ending the life of another. The baby has to come out either way so why kill it?

>>1740 Outside of self-defense. Abortion is virtually never self-defense.* It's just whores and boy toys trying to get out of responsibility.

>>1741 Sounds like the sort of people that shouldn't be passing on their genes, let alone raising children. If only there was some way of accomplishing that.

>>1742 I would see half the population sterilized before a single innocent child be killed for his/her mother's poor decisions, but so long as they don't sterilize they must take responsibility no matter how shitty of a parent they are.

>>1743 So in other words you're more interested in virtue signalling than results.

>>1739 >some imaginary concept that you call "abortion" Objectively worthless retards like you are the reason women will never be treated like humans in proper society. If there wasn't feminism mindfucking females into worthless femcels that will gladly act worse than children for muh benefits, muh "gibs rights", muh lack of responsibility, then maybe there might be a possibility for the few rational women to be able to gradually escape the cultural and genetic conditioning to join men as real individuals. Yet as always the eternal feminist just fucks itself out of real rights, a real future, real power, all for more benefits as an even more enslaved "protected" class with less responsibility than ever before, but don't worry about daddy gov/corp, if they rape you, transition you, use you up as a puppet "girlboss" until you catlady out its only because they love you. Fucking retarded femchildren like you can't stop fucking and dumping their kids without authoritarian laws, massive misogynist cuture removing all rights, or huge amounts of early abortion birth control (which I still naively think as the least worst option). I wish I was dumb or callous enough to just be a full on misogynist and ignore the dwindling few women free of your bullshit that have had to pay for your self-destructive idiotic dogshit since the beginning of the very phrase "feminism". FUCK YOU

Fucking forgot to sage.

>>1743 >saving niglets

>>1744 I'd say having to raise a kid instead of sleep around and devalue women is a result via trial by fire. They are already a met negative on society their experience as a parent can only be net neutral or net positive. Why do you think these useless eaters I hate that phrase are going to somehow contribute to society by continuing to laze around fucking and devaluing virginity and family morals?

>>1746 >using sage as a downvote

>>1748 Why are you so adamant that we breed more of these "useless eaters" you claim to hate so much? You're more concerned with the ego of your ideals and vindication against those heretics who do not hold them than you are with the actual survival of the ideals? >their experience as a parent can only be net neutral or net positive You are either lying or hopelessly naive. >>1749 >being stupid

>>1750 Why are you so adamant that busy hands are somehow 100x worse than empty ones? Why does free time make someone less likely to commit crime when all indicators point to the opposite? >>1749 >He doesn't even know the origin of sage

>marketing to women is.. le bad! it's an underserved section of the market

>>1752 >implying Mae is not marketing for men

>>1753 >implying Reminds me too much of those cum dumps who listened to too much flyleaf and evanesence in high school. Or those cracked out whores that like to beg near stop signs. Definitely not the camp follower i'ld like to do missionary with for the sole purpose of procreation.

I'm curious if the Butt Light effect had any bearing on the guns industry?