Modern weapons are very different to the weapons that existed when the second amendment became law, so perhaps it is time to reconsider or at least rejustify this three century old document.
>BUT DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT CANNONS WERE LEGAL IN 1799 AND CANNONS AND AN AR-15 ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING?
"American intellectuals."
...
Let's just start with the basics. For the Straya cuck.
>No room to talk
>Been cucked ever since the invention of the modern firearms.
>Speaks from a place of no real understanding of firearms
>Doesn't know how to fathom a way to control guns in places with 10x the amount of their total population in gun owners.
>BTFO cucked straya cunt
Why do you think it makes you a "cuck" for your country to have sensible gun regulations? Do you think it a mark of liberty and manhood to get shot in the head?
>Do you think it a mark of liberty and manhood to get shot in the head?
its called FREEDOM you pansy ass faggot
Definitions of "sensible" vary. Your definitions are cuck. "Save me big brother"
Does it make manhood to screech "save me" helplessly while you get plowed by a truck of peace or idiot with a knife running around stabbing people?
how are those sensible acid regulations going?
rt.com
If you want to go and get yourself shot in the head, that's your prerogative, but I feel sorry for the poor souls in your country who ever died in a massacre and did want to effect sensible gun regulations.
I never said I agreed with the weapons and defence laws in this country. They are disgusting and unjust. That has no bearing on the question whether all comers should be able to purchase cheap and freely-available engines of mass destruction. Obviously there is a balance to be struck; the question of how much gun regulation is too much or too little is a delicate question which is not to be answered by the violence of partisans and ideologues.
Sensible gun regulations would not have stopped this. Look at Brazil where guns are essentially illegal.
pic related
Brazil has more murders than all countries marked in blue combined.
there‘s too many free dumbs loose in the US. why do you bring „freedom“ and „democracy“ when you don‘t even have a democracy? what kind of freedom are you sending out to the world?
I don't usually correct things that aren't super relavant, but you're off by several decades when linking the 2nd amendment and the civil war. (A more apropriate comparison would be the revolutionary war) To your point, my counter point is that the weapons are not the issue, the humans are the issue. Humans have not changed / evolved since the late 1700. Because of this the humans in power today are capable of evil just as the humans that were in power in the late 1700s, late 1600s, late NNNNs. Get it? Same problems different weapon technology.
The Fed wasn’t even part of the Constitution, but let’s just leave that alone so when enough information is given to and awakens the normies, the gen pop won’t have means to do anything about it. Fuck off
I said nothing of democracy. A democracy is really just mob rule. The SCOTUS has ruled on this, many many times. The right of gun ownership in this country is as important if not more so than the right to free speech as the former is intended to protect the latter.
In the case of Brazil the principle has been carried too far. As I say, a balance ought to be struck between too much and too little regulation of weaponry. I can imagine masses of ordinary citizens banding together to fight off criminals by means of rifles; but I don't see how legalizing automatic weapons could ever be justified.
"Cheap and easy engines of mass destruction" do you even know the difference between terminology. Is the UK as cucked like Straya to the point people are just hidden from knowledge.
Yeah I've said it a lot lately.
The only change or logical discussion that will be had at this point.
>Should slide fire stocks and similar devices be legal?
In my opinion they will probably be banned. It's the only bright side to me buying those stupid pieces of novel garbage. They will be worth 5x as much.
Mark my words, binary triggers will be the next discussion. I have two so far. Can't wait to cash them in.
>tfw people possessed privately owned warships capable of leveling an entire coastal town and the government paid them to work for them.
...
It depends on what you intend by "gun ownership." The Amendment is intended to provide for "the security of a free State." In the context of that the good has to be weighed against the bad in assessing how stringent the limitations ought to be. Even Scalia says that John Bull should not be able to blow up an aeroplane. One thing that's certain: the Amendment was NOT devised for the purpose of "overthrowing a tyrannical government" as is often claimed; that is a mid-19th-century myth. On the contrary it was devised for the purpose of suppressing rebellions, and fighting against enemies, by means of State militias.
People rarely have automatic weapons in the US. Transferable machine guns (is the term your looking for) are insanely priced and limited.
I have a suggestion OP. Do something productive instead of post, like confiscate a gun from an American. As a foreign citizen doing something that Democrats like, you will never be punished for reclaiming civilian arms. No Republican would dare precipitate an international incident by resisting global norms. Just do it. Make your dream real. If you snatched away a gun every time you felt the urge to make this post it'd only take you what, 137,000 years to get all those evil American guns into responsible hands. Do it for the children Leaf poster. You don't hate the children, do you?
Spoken like the true British cuck.
The entire premise of the 2nd amendment is not for hunting or only the army have weapons. The entire premise is that governments end up fucking the people if there is no way to prevent them from becoming tyrannical.
For reference see WW2 Germany see United Kuckdom, see anywhere people can't do fuck all about their government apart from scream a little.
the UK is such a fucked country and you are typical of it. Decrying a patriarchal society to instead replace it with an overbearing, over protective matriarchal one.
Everyone has to tell you what to do, how to do, make everything safe, no personal responsibility as you are all too fucking retarded and special little snow flakes. Want to buy acid? No, too dangerous you might be throw it over a 12 year old girls face because she doesn't want to marry that 60 year old.
Drive a car? Oh too dangerous, lets make it automatic, lets mash up your food for you, lets stop your ability to understand and use the world around you and create great leaps for mankind, instead let the cleverer people do it for you, you little fucking child.
Then wonder why the government pull a fast one on you, when you can't drive anywhere as the car's don't work, you can't get access to food as you don't know basic chemistry, you can't engineer anything as they banned all those books and all you can do is look at your new genitals given to you by the doctors that helped you to fit in and read you fucking diversity books.
you fucking KEK.
Post Civil war photo (1861). Calls Constitution 300 years old (1776), Then refers to 1799 (1776 but at least it is the same century).
And No, it is not time to rethink this. There are too many illegal guns with criminals to start taking them away from law abiding citizens.
AR15? I tell you what. You puck the AR and I will take a hunting rifle. Lets see how that AR Stacks up against a .308.
You are being mislead. AR15s are a small .228 semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip. Assault rifle =/= more deadly.
A parallel with the false analogy inherent in this picture would be the people in this country who opposed the Reform Act of 1832 on the basis that "the wisdom of our ancestors" had so fixed the voting boundaries that empty rotten boroughs could send MPs to parliament but large towns and cities could not; when those boroughs were actually drawn when the large towns and cities did not yet exist, and the rotten boroughs were still well populated. One always has to consider the principle behind a thing. The principle behind the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State by means of well-regulated militias." A common man's alleged right to possess an engine of mass destruction is not encompassed in that end.
If you want to become a free, independent country like Germany you should give up your weapons now.
sounds like your political system is rotten. why not abolish the federation and give the states sovreignity, democratic reforms to enable the people to keep the state govt in check?
The second amendment was implemented for the purpose of allowing Americans to resist a malevolent state infiltrated by foreign interests. Since the state now has greater firepower, in order to stay true to the constitution, the citizenry must also have greater firepower.
Germany as it is today is just as rotten as the US
Why don't you fuck your mother? Nanny statist cuck?
Legit question, can Brits and Aussies even get books that regard the uses and synthesis of chemicals like this?
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
He didn't use a automatic weapon. Bumpfire is not automatic and can be done without the "bumpstock". Bumpfire only makes the gun fire faster than normal, you still have to pull the trigger more than once. The bumpstock just makes that process more comfortable. They're overpriced peices of shit you don't actually need. I laugh at all the idiots that are buying them now.
SHALL
No don't laugh, all those idiots buying them now will make a huge profit when they are banned.
Your experience can differ a lot depending on where you live in Germany. There are towns with a wealth of jobs, there are post-communist shit holes were all young people flee from. You have rural cities with tons of families and house-owners. Living in Germany can be hell or paradise in my experience.
Cannons were state of the art battlefield weapons, would actually be equivalent to tanks, armed drones, and anti aircraft missiles in civilian hands today
>The entire premise is that governments end up fucking the people if there is no way to prevent them from becoming tyrannical.
I'm sorry to have to tell you that you have been deceived. It was intended to effect a quite contrary end. See . You are repeating a mid-19th-century myth.
Britain has lost its liberties not because it is without firearms, but because it is so much easier to destroy them in this country than it is in America. Adventitious circumstances protect you and expose us. A single parliament elected by a mere 30% of the vote under the wretched First Past the Post system has absolute power to do whatever they like; but America was founded as an enormous confederation of States, and so the Constitution has been made incredibly hard to change as a consequence; otherwise, the States could never have been induced to sign it. If a mere 30% of the people could change your laws your liberties would have perished long ago.
As proof your guns are worthless against tyranny, look at everything voting has managed to effect, like the mass immigration which has taken place since 1965. What good did your guns ever avail you there? Again, what good have they done you against your militarized police state---which is a direct consequence of and response to the enormous proliferation of firearms in your country?
Founding fathers never saw a tv, does that mean free speech doesn't apply to stations broadcasting on tv?
People also forget those cannonballs weren't just projectiles. They were fucking bombs. They exploded.
They're still overpriced.
300$ for a piece of plastic that you could probably make at home.
This is a falsehood, see . The Founding Fathers were vehemently against Standing Armies (which are contrarily the adoration of Neo-Conservatives). In their conception of the world there was never a central government to resist. The militia was intended to suppress rebellions and defend the country, nothing more.
Most American warships in the Revolution and War of 1812 were privately owned.
But will sell for close to a grand when they ban them.
yes this all true but I‘m ranting about the political system. you vote for a party, not for people. if the politician is useless he/she gets sent to Strassbourg or Brussels, no need to tale responsibility. fuck that, I‘d put in an empty ballot or vote for Die Partei.
Mentions >1799, posts a photograph of the American Civil War so most likely early 1860s.
Gun control in this country began to take away the guns of black people. Even gun nut CA became the gun-enemy nanny state in the 70s because whites were afraid of black panthers n shit.
You're not convincing anyone of anything, FAGGOT. Shall not be infringed. End of story.
Maybe you could have beaten those damn birds with some cannons, Steve.
Straya and Britain really went hard on banning modern guns in the 30s because threat of communist uprisings. Modern guns wouldn't begin to take shape until 1920s. Banned them before they were ever fully developed and perfected.
BAIT THREAD 5000
Considering how all of our crime is committed by niggers, as is yours Kiwi, you're argument is invalid because niggers don't follow laws. "Kangaroo Intellectuals", please.
By your reasoning, the current existence of a powerful American state dominated by a hostile foreign elite, creates an even more urgent impetus to arm the populace. ZOG is a rebellion against America led by foreign infiltrators, and only an armed populace can crush this rebellion and return America to its founding principles.
>Again, what good have they done you against your militarized police state
The militarized police state started because segregation ended. Before whites could ignore black neighborhoods but then blacks moved into white neighborhoods and brought along their crimes. This is actually the exact reason some knives like switchblades are banned in America. After civil rights black gangs flooded into white neighborhoods and people panicked by trying to ban the weapons they often used while ignoring the real problem.
>As proof your guns are worthless against tyranny, look at everything voting has managed to effect, like the mass immigration which has taken place since 1965.
We voluntarily give up our rights and beliefs over time thanks to the media. I don't think the founding fathers predicted the media and their agenda. There would have been a war over the 1965 immigration act years before it happened but the media propaganda weakened people's stances on the issue.
The founding fathers believed an elected official would go power crazy and quickly takeover and that is where guns would be important to have for civilians. But they never predicted a slow and progressive takeover like this. I don't even think such a thing would have been possible back then.
Here's the problem....they are my guns....its my ammo.....1000s of rounds of ammo.....who do you think is stupid enough to take it from me? The police and American military would have so many defectors and traitors from all sorts of ranks and in massive numbers .....they can never enforce a gun ban in America.....ever.
You are a terrorist, you will be removed
even with modern weapons you cant rule people who have arms. Look at the Iraq war: they got there with blazing fire and than they had to retreat because of constant attacks
shills are really trying to hammer this tonight
They wanted civilians to have military shit. That's just the way it is.
The US at the very left. Guns don't kill people, people do.
...
ole Zyklon Ben at it again
Girandoni
Puckle
Cookson
Kalthoff
SAGE AND KYS SHILL
You're entirely full of shit. We had a regular army before the War of 1812 which was supported by state militias and it was incredibly ineffective because the militias refused to fight outside of their territory. The founders weren't "against" a standing army.