Should SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED apply to all weapons? Artillery? Tanks? Grenades? RPGs? Nukes?
I mean "they are arms, and the government has them so you need them to protect yourself from tyrannical government" right?
What if the guy in pulse club massacre had a tank? There would be more bodies, how do you defend this? Where do you draw the line then?
Fuck off and check my odd digit
yes
cehcked
...
It does. If the guy in pulse had a tank, it would have worked out a lot better, since the ATF and FBI would have caught onto him before he went fucking schizo on everyone.
If you want to kill a lot of people, get either a rifle or a truck. Those two things have been used for insane amounts of deaths in terrorist spree killings this year. From Bataclan, to Pulse, to Nice, to Germany... A tank wouldn't be nearly as effective.
Yes.
Considering you have to be stronger than entire US military you're supposed to have private tanks and really rich people should have aircraft carriers.
Because the whole point is people holding more power than the state
>Should SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED apply to all weapons? Artillery? Tanks? Grenades? RPGs? Nukes?
yes
(((You))) miss the point. The 2nd amendment is there to give one the right to hold firearms to protect himself from criminals and tyranny. Tanks and rpg should and are legal to hold in some states, and for a good reason, however, nuked on the other hand cannot be used to fight, but can only be detonated, thus are not firearms.
Also kek agrees that you are gay
>What if the guy in pulse club massacre had a tank?
Club's bouncer wouldnt RPG him
Banning niggers would be more effective than banning guns.
Frogs are very close to kek
MFGA
Bullshit
You can fire nukes outta legal cannons or launch them on missiles
/thread
Thank you based Russbro.
It already does. When it was written the government had the same weaponry civilians had. For the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government they need the same kinds of weapons the government has.
Its not as ridiculous as it seems. Back then people owned cannons, and some rich people even owned small warships (privateers). Arms applies to all military technology
And a tank takes multiple men to use. So no, the tank would be too slow and all of the queers would just run away.
>t. Never seen a tank or a rifle in his entire life
Neal Blue, the owner of General Atomics, owns some private nuclear weapons for company purposes. So yes, nukes are privately owned in the US.
warships owned by civilians during constitutions passing so.....
But he didn't go schizo, he was just doing what any upstanding member of the Religion of Pieces would do.
>Should SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED apply to all weapons? Artillery? Tanks? Grenades? RPGs? Nukes?
It does. You can privately own all of those things except for nukes because fissile material is a controlled substance.
>I mean "they are arms, and the government has them so you need them to protect yourself from tyrannical government" right?
Correct.
>What if the guy in pulse club massacre had a tank? There would be more bodies, how do you defend this? Where do you draw the line then?
Notice that he didn't have a tank, despite tanks being totally legally to purchase and own. Flamethrowers are also commercially available and cheap but he didn't have one of those either. How do you explain this?
Perhaps small versions of it. I remember in the US there was one a little cannon that did that with nuclear bombs in the size of an average fist. I am certain he meant a little boy or a fat man, or even a tsar bomba when he meant a nuke.
The Davy Crockett, yeah. They still have a few of them sitting around but they were deemed impractical because the blast radius was almost as big as its effective range.
The answer is yes. We should be able to own all these things . And fuck you for trying to take it away you goddamn nigger kike faggot.
LeFrog.based
Kek, yea. Perhaps in the future there will be a weapon with the same service and ammunition but with more launching power.
this
Shall not be infriged seems pretty clear to me. Now gimme my fully automatic M4 with an m203.
And throw in a UH-1 Iriqouis for good measure.
The Right to bear arms. Arms, as was commonly understood at the time, means shit you can carry. e.g. pistols, rifles, swords, etc. Your stupid ass is referring to ordnance. e.g. cannons, artillery, etc.
Learn what the fuck you're talking about, before you try to talk about it, faggot.
Can one still purchase it's ammunition?
>hurr durr ban weapons guise
>I swear, police will care of you
>Criminals will totally give up their weapons guise.
>Just trust me
Fuck off faggot piece of shit.
Mexico has banned weapons and look at us, hundreds horribly murdered and the cartels run the streets.
pic related
>Artillery? Tanks? Grenades? RPGs? Nukes?
Yes. There is literally no reason why private citizens should not be allowed to own those weapons.
checked
Fist-bomb doesnt exist because Callifornium is nearly impossible to obtain in large amounts.
An actual fusion bomb capable cruise missile that may be losses with normal or nuclear fusion warhead is about 25-30cm thick.
Nuclear devices can't get as small as a hand grenade but they can fit in a cannon/mortar shell or be dropped off even a small private aircraft or transported in a small car.
i'm going to continue to report these.
Yes, now kindly go fuck yourself.
This is the fourth or fifth brainless statist disarmament thread today.
But without black people, white women won't be pleasured :(
And we all know that tiny, white cock won't pleasure them!
See
>when a gay guy came from a night club drunk and puked in your lawn so you use your rpg to blow him up and declare war on the pulse nightclub. It's a couple blocks away so you want to drive there but there's no roads so you take your all terrain tank over there and blast a couple shells into the club.
And you are probably correct. The size was just an assumption.
Well it isnt first sized, it looks about the size of a watermelon.
Well maybe its American first sized.
Kek
>this photo was saved
Nobody takes shitposting that seriously...
Yes
Nice one Oldest Ally
Based kike
...
Yeah it's pretty big, there's a launching mechanism in there too. Still very impressive. I hear the Russians have smaller devices for infiltration though. The so-called "suitcase nukes."
...
How about letting the people form militias where such items as RPGs and tanks are legal.
The militias are under oversight federally and the weapons are only allowed on militia property (except in special cases such as parades or meetups)
That way while not totally free as a bird, the militias are a force to be reckoned with, by any would be dictator
Sandnigger terrorist* is what you meant to say. Also if the terrorists would have had a tank then he would have been caught sooner. Actually if the dumbass would have used a knife instead of a gun he could have killed more people but because he was political pawn he chose a gun and we all know guns attract more attention than a knife. To answer your question though in Switzerland you are (or at least use to) allowed to own a howitzer if you have a licenses for a howitzer.... so your argument is invalid
Also fucken sage
...
>What if the guy in pulse club massacre had a tank?
That would be so badass. He should have made a tank.
The Privateer Navy was civilians who owned frigates with arrays of cannons that could level a port city.
They were the scourge of the British.
Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says, you filthy kike.
Kill yourself.
Yes indeed every Arizona redneck owning a small nuclear device would be a good idea.
If you can use it as a weapon it's covered.
I'm not sure if it would cover biological agents, but it clearly covers the delivery methods.
It covers nuclear weapons as well. However it is reasonable that they are limited to private property in all effect. So likely at best underground detonations.
If you could use a nuclear weapon without damage to the land or property then as it is clearly an arm, citizens of the USA have a right to bear it.
Beeing allowed to have weapons even if you dont like it, is very important in the united states
because of that, kikes have to influence the people with propaganda and such, tho because of our technical capabilities, we are connected at all time
freedom of speech, and sites like Sup Forums are the second most important thing
right now, we uncover more and more kike propaganda and tricks, day by day
if usa has weapons and the knowledge of what is going on, everything will be fine
dont let them take away your guns, or censor your freedom of speech, even on the internet
Arms should be available to adult non-criminals, and anything that is not specifically a personal armament, such as vehicles, are restricted to the possession of regulated county militias.
But what if you lived in one of those ports. Would roaming private frigates not concern you?
Imagine all the filthy rich in Monaco harbor had gunboats with AA, Gatlins and Fully armed Hind 24 on their heli deck.
They couldn't do shit against a large navy but most small countries could be annihilated or extorted
>Should SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED apply to all weapons?
Yes. Quit being a faggot.
Also
>muh tanks
You can make your own tank with a tractor and concrete slabs. Again, quit being such a faggot.
Checked bagueked
If a weapon is too dangerous for a civilian to hold, it is most definitely too dangerous for a powerful, infighting cabal of politicians to hold.
Don't ask if a citizen should have a nuke. Ask yourself why the fuck you're okay with governments having them.
I want a recreational nuke brah.
Yeah let CLetus and his militia of the sons of his daughters have access to biological and nuclear weapons.
WHAT COULD FUCKING GO WRONG?
I swear to god you people get more retarded every day.
>Ask yourself why the fuck you're okay with governments having them.
Uh because they need them to defend against (or rather stalemate) other nations who might not be so concerned with the balance of their citizenry's power?
Yah dumbass.
Yes, it should.
>weekends spent shelling refugee boats
Europe's Muslim problem wouldn't exist.