So... are you for or against?

So... are you for or against?

SHALL

NOT

Sup Forums has always been pro gun control

Just bought one last Wednesday...missed the rush

Every American citizen should have nuclear weapons

BE

INFRINGED

INFRINGED

Imagine what Mr. Paddock was thinking when he saw this video: youtu.be/8rn6EVXdg7U
I guess that’s why they call it TV “Programming.”

DPMS?
Meh, I'm neither for not against that company.
They make some good barrels

For, now more than ever. Every citizen should be armed.

Against, get some glass or atleast some irons on that underprivileged firearm!

20 inch barrel is a bit much

I prefer 14'

Mines sitting 4" in front of me. Brand name armalite lower.

With a clear condition: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

In other words,

"We will guarantee this right insofar as it effects the security of a free state, because a militia is necessary to that."

Or again,

1) "Our goal in making this amendment is to effect the security of a free state."

2) "A well-regulated militia is necessary in order to secure that freedom."

3) "Therefore and only therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the ownership of certain weapons in private hands violates that security then the condition would appear to make the right to own it in a Lockean state of nature null and void.

Even Scalia admits there are limits of some sort. He says, "I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."

Why do Yanks arbitrarily draw the line at such a dangerous level of weaponry as if it were gospel, then shout to the heavens "shall not be infringed"? How can it be necessary for the security of a free state for a private citizen to own a machine gun, for example?

Fuck any bastard that thinks they can tell me what to do.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, unironicaly

If america wants to stop shootings and shit like it, america needs to solve its core issues that lead to it, not restrict the tools, its like someone wanting to get cured of a disease and only getting medicine that slightly alleviates symptoms, never curing the real illness, its still there, just repressed, but who knows how itl mutate, how itl spread, if the new "medicine" will work, if at all.

>How can it be necessary for the security of a free state for a private citizen to own a machine gun, for example?

To provide suppressing fire.

Ban all assault chimps!

Am I against what? A Black rifle? No. Why would I be?

Against. DPMS are poverty guns. Tons of better brands.

It can be used to wreak carnage on massive numbers of people with impunity, as the recent shooting demonstrates. Therefore it violates "the security of a free state."

come and take it motherfuckers, also, DPMS sucks

For:
>Stamps on silencers and SBRs
>Import ban (buy American you unpatriotic fucks)

Against:
>Bump stocks
>922r

So can trucks and acid, you bootlicking paki cunt.

A lorry is a necessity, a machine gun is not.

Against, need a bigger gun

>a lorry is a necessity
hah. You're a funny guy.

molon labe faggots

Moan labia

>a machine gun is not

Have you ever seen a nigger flash mob before? fucking gas yourself you faggot.

Clearly you've never been to Oakland, Vallejo or Stockton after dark.

It can just as easily wreak havoc on the home of a tyrannical office holder, which is the ultimate intent of the 2nd Amendment. The security of a free state comes from the barrel of a gun, whether it's pointed at leaders who wish to rule as monarchs or at those attempting to invade your home.

A machine gun is absolutely necessary. Is it the most practical in every situation? No, but that's why you should have a gun locker with a wide variety of firearms.

For whom?
The 2nd amendment was only intended to ensure the fed didn't have total control over public security. That's why there's a dual system of federal and state security such the National Guard and law enforcement. The royal forces didn't do well in providing good security to the colonies and were the only force to be relied upon in times of great threat as the colonists were restricted in what arms they could have. "well-regulated" militia meant top of the line arms for the militia, they wanted the best security for the people possible. Not everyone was militia as that is defined by statute, originally it was white males 18-45 who weren't crippled and they were required to have guns at public expense. Obviously that's changed as the National Guard is now the organized militia while others 17-45 are unorganized militia but that still means militia and not necessarily everyone.

Eat

Oh fuck that's an anti tank rifle...

A sack of potatoes can be carried by hand to the ends of the earth if one wishes to. The same can be done by truck. It is not necessary for the job. but it damn well makes it easier. A mans life can be taken with nothing more than your hands but a machine gun certainly makes the task quicker. Machine guns are as much a necessity as trucks, which is to say not at all, but we'd be idiots to give up either one.

Not enough... we need nukes, cannons, etc...

In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:
>...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty ... The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.
They didn't intend for more freedom to have guns, they wanted more efficient organized forces and the colonies were limited by the Crown in that regard. It's not less gun control, it's more gun control.

I come to these threads just to see the constitutional posting.
>I will never know this feel

Why should I have to pay $200 and wait over a year to have a barrel that’s two inches shorter than the one I have now

People like to meme about DPMS rifles being crap but I've put over a 1000 rounds of 7.62x51 through mine and the only malfunction ever was a FTE in the first magazine. Dey is preddy gud

PART AND PARCEL

It is all relative. Do Yanks say that they need machine guns in order effectively to overthrow their government? If so, why don't they start at the root cause of the trouble, and reduce the power of their government and army, rather than all this duplicitous nonsense about "shall not be infringed" as to every method of destruction in the world, which evidently is not inherently guaranteed in their Second Amendment? Why can't they be honest and say they only need their guns because the Federal Government is so powerful; rather than maintain this Janus-faced attitude where they yelp about the necessity of having the deadliest kind of weapons in all hands on the one hand; but worship their enormous military and maintain the position that States which attempt to secede from the Union must be punished by force on the other?

I would allow their arguments if they qualified them, but they don't. They want to have their cake and eat it. What I hate most in this world is intellectual dishonesty. Let the mask slip from their faces and let them boldly declare to the world: "We don't mind having an enormous Federal Government and military so long as we keep our powerful weapons to overthrow them; and if that means we get a mass shooting every other week, so be it. That's the price we'll pay for them."

They are necessary because the 2nd amendment is for tyrannical government not just foreign invasion. The "well regulated" means orderly, not government oversight.

If I lived in the land of the free and home of the brave, I would be all-in for 2nd amendment without any objections. A citizen who can't rightfully protect himself from his government's armed forces or niggers isn't a citizen, he's a slave that can be easily put down.
pic unrelated

The only concession I'll make is that the bolt carrier on the early gen base LR308 wasn't serrated for a forward assist, and it's an ugly 308 carbine. But build quality? Nothing to nitpick unless you are the type who thinks that brand names make a weapon more powerful or accurate

What I love is people who don't understand hillary was the most corrupt piece of shit ever. The gun rule was put into place for cunts like her to who could possibly get into office. For all we know, this entire event is a cover up for another fast and furious style fuck up. If this program was put into play during obama, I hope he burns for it.

You are being intentionally dishonest. The amendment always also entailed an armed people to resist opression.

>The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

We will know the CIA killed Kennedy before we know the truth about this event.

If this new statistic shows anything it's that we need more guns.

pro
i should be allowed to own nukes

Shit dude, if bucket heads and sand niggers can buy them why not you?

Korea and Pakistan both bought nukes because they are too stupid and irresponsible to make them. You can be the next 3rd world super power!

Against that's what police are for.

You are mentioning "duplicity" "Janus-faced" and "intellectual dishonesty" while carrying forth with a huge strawman argument, its astounding hypocrisy. Any casual perusal of a website with a vaguely libertarian user-base is highly critical of big government.

>be able to buy a bazooka for 20 bucks
Who needs a car when you can buy one of those

Against because there’s no reason to have them.
Pic related is coming for your guns.

DPMS is trash, so no. Get something halfway respectable like a Colt.

Pussy.

You can bump fire without a special stock.

>for import ban
>against the law that makes it harder to import rifles in their original configuration
What did he mean by this?

I respect Libertarians, but they are in the minority. The overwhelming bulk of Republicans and of Americans generally worship their enormous military with an unyielding ardour. I remember the talk-show host Levin would always challenge "the Liberals" to call in and phone in to tell him "what they think they could cut from the budget, in order to fund their social programs---WITHOUT cutting military spending." If anybody suggested the cutting of spending, he would immediately stop talking to them. That was too unthinkable to conceive for him. He is supposed to be a Libertarian-leaning conservative; God knows the attitude of the average one.

>would always challenge "the Liberals" to call in and phone in to tell him

remove "phone in"

SHALL