Gun "Rights"

Here's the thing: Yes, you have the right to buy certain guns. But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today, so the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily apply to anything beyond a rifle that American infantrymen had during the revolution.

Let me put it another way: Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes it does

Is this just another badly written bait thread or what.

The founding fathers already knew about automatic weaponry, it wasn't just muskets and shit for thousands of years.
The founding fathers never intended the second ammendment to have any sort of limitations, it's not "you can have what you need to hunt" it's "you can have what you need in case of government tyranny."

So they knew about machine guns?

Yes.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

For fucks sake. Are you fucking 13. One cannot bear a nuke. And anyone that could afford one certainly wouldn't need to rely on the 2nd.

Does the 1st amendment apply to the internet?

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about rifles or guns of any kind? Show me. I'll wait. Also, the colonists (they weren't American's quite yet) didn't have rifles, retard. They had black powder muskets. Don't post about shit you don't understand.

What part of

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

don't you understand?

the "mah guns" thing is a straw man to keep already stupid people from thinking about more important things.
do you really believe having 40+ automatic weapons will keep the cops at bay if they're really after you?
if yes, please try it.

op btfo

the founding fathers were ancaps so yes

Fuck off.

No, because a nuke is not targeted. A lot of innocent people are stuck in the blast. This is not the case with guns.

ah, the voice of reason. have a good day, gentleman.

Why would the police be at my door, and honestly if they were id just hire a good lawyer to defend me in court.

I like guns, i collect them. I wont vote for someone that wants to take my $50,000+ collection away.

Blown the absolute fuck out.

Cool. You're not entitled to free speech on the internet or a telephone because they only had written and printed communication back then.

Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs

Don't talk about reason to me you cucked faggot. Kill your commie leaders and get back to me.

OP cannot into scholarship.
> pic related

Oh no you're retarded.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
>Caliber .46
>Magazine size 20 ROUNDS.
>Date of invention 1779.
OP BTFO.

when the 2nd Amendment was written a private citizen could own a ship of the line with as many cannons as they could fit

Eat shit, CTR.

As long as good people are armed, not too many bad things can happen. There is no way you can explain that away.

Your opinion is not shared by any of us, congress, or President Trump.

Go home

>citizens should only have muskets
>oh, and privately owned warships (i.e. Congressional authority to issue Letters of Marque)

>you have the right to own and bear arms that shall not be infringed
fact
>you have the right to buy certain guns
opinion
>But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today
opinion
>the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily apply to anything beyond a rifle that American infantrymen had during the revolution
unconstitutional opinion
>Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes
Nukes are a destructive device, you do not necessarily have the right to own destructive devices. The type of Uranium used in nukes is also a controlled substance.

The first amendment gives rights to speech and the press, but our founding fathers never predicted the internet or social media. You should cut your tongue out and fingers off because times have changed.

Great points, OP. Are you personally going to attempt to take my AR-15 if you feel so strongly about this?

>made the point that the Constitution could be amended so it could evolve as society evolved
>somehow believe this can't apply to technology, ever

Yeah, no.

What an excellent argument.

Thanks!

you know, psychologically guns ain't penis surrogates that much but rather tools to convince oneself that you're still in control of your life and how its gonna be in the future.
but in reality you never were in control and you never will be.
plus, guns are about the only thing americans still manufacture in their home country. for the lobbyists its about that money. and for the proud gun owners its a about a illusion of freedom.

>buy nuke
>need $200 tax stamp
Fucking ATF

You must know by now when liberals and democrats talk about defending the constitution, they only mean the parts that benefit them like the 1st amendment.

SHALL

Nukes are weapons of mass destruction.

2A is to defend your life and property from tyranny.

Thus it implies that the citizen has a right to arms comparable to that of which a tyrannical force would employ.

Missile capable drones when?

I'd give up my AR-15 for a 75mm cannon in a heartbeat.

RECREATIONAL NUKES™

>trying to regulate mechanical devices firing small metal bullets via igniting chemical fuel in metallic casing fed from box with a spring

Anti-guns people. Everybody.

That one nigger in Dallas killed six cops with only weapons he could carry and was out in the open and not holed up in some self made fort. I don't know where this mythos about the police being invincible supermen comes from, but its irrelevant anyway because the point of the amendment isn't to enable one person to defeat the entire police force but to enable the people as a whole to defeat a tyrannical government.

They let people own cannons though.

>tfw you're unconstitutionally hassled by the petty tyrants in government from owning modest artillery let alone a personal nuclear deterrent.

Why were citizens allowed to own canons, mortars, and howitzers?

>be German
>think about long black cocks
>suck on them
>let them fuck your women

Did the first amendment account for the internet? There's no good reason to host your opinion to people around the world.

Even if they didn't why does it matter? They didn't know about the internet or radio, so should freedom of speech and the press be limited too?

Besides, giving someone an automatic weapon to shoot up a school or something would be counter productive. They'd be out of ammo and have to reload in seconds, and by that point someone could take them out, or they'd be out of ammo.

And the 2nd amendment does grant us the right to bear nuclear arms.

What's so bad about that?

>pic related

holy shit britcuck btfo

>Missile capable drones when
You just need some tax stamps and some home engineering and you could actually do that, and it would be kinda legal.

fuckin gubmint wont let me own a howitzer. how tf can i enforce the NAP?

Keeping the cops at bay is not what I own firearms for you stupid fucking kraut

You're right, it should be amended so that everyone can have nukes good thinking user.

Does the 1st amendment give you the right to post your garbage opinions on the internet? The founding fathers never intended this type of shit speech.

The founding fathers literally ok'd owning cannons.

We aren't talking about the 1st Amendment and you are a fucking retard for bringing it up.

cops ain't "invincible supermen", they just outnumber you. sure, you can get away with killing people, nobody really gives a crap about that, people are like weeds. but try challenging the state and its power on a more fundamental level and you'll see where you end up.

Is that robin williams?

Um, yes you can. When I was in the Navy (SSN-784), we did fake SADM drop-offs, complete with SEAL divers carrying them. They had the bags, the straps, etc. Just no bomb.

I'll be damned, you learn something new everyday.

thats all you got? boy, you bore me.

Not like I could afford to keep, maintain, or arm it anyway. Anti-drone weaponry should be included under 2a though.

In theory, all you would need is a tax stamp and a citizen could own them.

>not allowed cannons
What about the Privateer Navy?

>not understanding precedents and how they're applied.

"arms" are things you can literally carry with your arms. If the government gets better weapons, so should the people

I bore you? Like to drill a hole in you? Like your boyfriend does?

what I was thinking

just think, he probably could of killed himself faster if he owned a gun.

Here's the thing: Yes, you have the right to print certain opinions. But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of methods of communication we'd have today, so the 1st amendment doesn't necessarily apply to anything beyond a printing press that American media had during the revolution.

Let me put it another way: Does the 1st amendment give you the right to build websites?

>cops ain't "invincible supermen", they just outnumber you
Depends entirely on who 'you' refers to.

you sound jealous. just bend over, i'll give ya something of my delicious manmeat. you might even be allowed to swallow, lets see.

>Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes?

>bear
>/ber/
>verb
>1.
>(of a person) carry.

No.

Cannons are actually allowed. Blackpowder ones are not a weapon by definition and for smokeless powder - typical cannons used by civilians(somebody posted early 1900's french catalogue with various stuff available for mail order, among others a cannon, together with user review which praised it saying that it did wonders against polar bears during his Arctic expedition), used to go up to 37mm/1,5 inch, and surprise surprise, the limit is 40mm. In the USA at least, here in Poland everything above 12mm is available only through very special means.

Are you serious?

Actually, they did have rifles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

Almost all cannons used in the war were privately owned.

Suddenly, an AK doesn't seem too dangerous when compared to artillery, does it?

kek using this against retards

Well, I would invite you over but your country might get a travel ban soon.

Sure, if he had an extra 30 million and a round-the-clock team to maintain the fissionable and the high explosive. Supervillain Soros when?

>Here's the thing: Yes, you have the right to buy certain guns

"certain" guns?

The right is to "bear arms" not "bear [certain] arms"

>But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today

>except...
>Girardoni Rifle - 20 round, magazine fed, semi-automatic. Lewis and Clarke used it.
>or
>Belton flintlock - 20 rounds in under 10 seconds. Used in the revolutionary war
>or
>Puckle gun, the machine-guns great-granddad. Allready 60 years old by the time the 2nd Amendment was written. Such a brutal weapon it was considered un-gentlemanly to use against Europeans.
>or
>Pepper-box pistol, 20 rounds with one trigger pull.

>the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily apply to anything beyond a rifle that American infantrymen had during the revolution.

At the time of writing the Musket was a weapon of war.
Thus, they gave citizens the right to bear and own weapons of war.

>Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes?
Dont obfuscate the discussion with nonsensical absurdities.

Hell we have several private citizens that own tanks and fighter jets.

>Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes?

Yes. Although we have many other laws in place which preclude their sell, the ownership of nuclear weapons in and of itself is not illegal.

Isn't it only $5 if you make it yourself?

libs will never win this issue

>pic related
my fucking sides

please. your way of thinking is way too literal. if 10,000 organized gun owners marched towards DC they'd be put down by plane. and don't count on the illusion that americans won't drop bombs on americans.

The founding fathers didn't have any idea about the internet existing or that islam would become common. The first amendment was never meant to apply to anonymous internet forums nor extreme religions like islam.

So my AR-15 is an artillery piece now?

They de-activate them first

Normally they cut the barrels.

In some red-pilled states you can get feild guns though.

Mainly anti-tank because of the non-explosive warhead.

I know it's reversed for AOW (5 for transfer, 200 for making yourself).

Damn leaf. You proved me wrong and provided a source. Altho, most of them did carry muskets.

And that's /thread

>But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today

yeah i'm sure the guys that wrote the constitution didn't have a clue what the future could hold

How much would it cost to own an operate a nuclear weapon?

It's like comparing your asshole to a hole in the ground.

Grow up.

Can the local police department bear nukes? No but they can and do carry the full range of rifles and handguns for defense just like private citizens do.

now i'm sad. Trump single-handedly crushed our blossoming affaire de coeur :(

>But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today
I'm calling bullshit on that one. It doesn't take that much imagination to imagine guns that can shoot lots of bulltets quickly and/or make big explosions.

came here to post this but based burger beat me to it. the founding fathers were the old timey equivalent of gun nuts. they'd cream their pantaloons if someone handed them an AR15

I see communists still dont know what shall not be infringed means.

>Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to bear nukes?

you do realize its not illegal by any means to own a nuclear weapon right?

there are zero rules inplace regarding a a citizen owning a nuclear weapon.

as long as they get permission from the world Nuclear Regulatory Commission (not going to happen) you could legally own a titan-2. (well maybe not an actual titan2, but you could build one)

pic related, or like, said, SADMS

>But the founding fathers didn't have any idea the sort of weaponry we'd have today

Oh, look at that, someone that doesn't know shit about history trying to use history as an argument.

Here's the high capacity rapid fire rifle that got Lewis and Clark through hundreds of miles of indian territory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

Not to mention that there was precedent for ideas about cased ammunition going back to the fucking 15th century. This whole "Founding Daddies only intended for muskets" is really insulting because it assumes that they were fucking retarded