Canadian here...I can't believe that you would have access to these types of weapons...

Canadian here...I can't believe that you would have access to these types of weapons. There is no guarantee of access here, you take courses and pass exams and must comply to strict rules to keep them and I'm only talking about hunting weapons, not handguns which is another thing all together. Only our military could have something like that. Funny I don't worry about being shot, ever. Hows that freedom working out for you guys??

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/7tT9y
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If they had modern firearms back than they would still put the same thing down you fucking idiot.

I fully agree! I think we need to revisit freedom of speech and the press as well. Clearly these relics of days gone by were never meant to control the damage that can be done with modern tools.

1st amendment, internet
7th amendment, 20 dollars

Whatever I'm tired

Assault-style modifications need to be banned.

The problem is that your picture is clearly AGAINST gun control acts - specifically laws that restrict ownership of high powered fully automatic weaponary.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow you to resist tyranny. A tyrannical government is obviously not going to be coming at you with muskets. They'll be coming at you with Drones.

Yet there are many, many regulations guarding against private drone warfare.

Next time make sure your image matches up to your post.

The 2nd amendment was written so that the people would have the same weaponry as the government. Instead of banning rifles what we really need to be doing is legalizing F-16s.

its not the right to keep and bear muskets, its ARMS that means machine guns, plasma blasters, and FUCKIN ANTIMATTER DEATH BEAMS. deal with it leaf.

It says the right to bare arms not muskets. Fuck off retarded shill.

When they wrote the 2nd amendment civilians had access to the exact same weapons as the government.

If you think that Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson couldn't envision a world where guns shot faster you're a fucking idiot

It's great. The government can never step on our balls to the level of what's happened in Venezuela or Catalonia because they know we will start shooting at them.

>"Canadian here..."
>Posts picture about U.S. law that that says "we"

Americans can't buy an M249 SAW you dumb mapplenigger.

Those Catalan bitches fully deserved it.

this. only this. OP = faggot.

sage

False analogy. Freedom of speech is an end in itself and its enlargement does not do any harm, but even the most fervent of gun-fanatics admit (for example) that a private citizen should not be able to blow up an aeroplane; the "right" to bear arms is intrinsically bound to limitations, because it is merely a means to an end. The Constitution correctly defines that end as "the security of a free state." It is not "necessary to the security of a free state" that every Uncle Sam should be able to possess cheap and freely-available engines of mass destruction which are capable of slaughtering 60 people in moments from the impunity of a high-storey window. Such things were not available in the 18th century (it is no good to bring up extraordinarily rare and expensive things like cannons and battleships) and therefore to bring up this or that Founder's statement as to the legitimacy of every person having a musket is null and void.

By the way if anybody here claims that the end or principle of the Amendment is actually "resisting government tyranny" he is repeating a mid-19th-century falsehood. The actual end which was had in mind was quite the opposite: namely, _suppressing_ rebellions in the absence of a Standing Army, which is a thing which the Founders never wanted and yet which Neoconservatives (who claim to reverence them) adore to a fanatical extreme unparalleled in history.

TL;DR
This person is a liberal, so just hide their post

Yes.
Gun control totally stops people who are willing to spend months preparing a terrorist attack. I mean, look at Breivik. It's not like he managed to legally get his hands on semi-automatic rifles in Norway.

Oh wait...

2nd amendment is for resisting a tyrannical government. Don't listen to shills that claim otherwise.

>his face when the Brown Bess Musket, the most common used in the US War of Independence could fire 3-4 rounds per min
>his face when the lmg on the bottom isn't legal in the US anyway

You do know that our Founders approved the ownership of warships and artillery by private citizens right?
>freedom of speech
>not harmful
Send out a Islamphobic tweet, I FUCKING DARE you.

I don't suck the cock of my government so there's that. Enjoy living on your knees like the useless pussy faggot you will always be.
Why are leftists such fucking sheeplike big brother dicklickers?
Saged.

Semi automatic weapon death count: 80~
Multiple fully automatic rifles dead count: 50~
Really makes me think.

"Anybody who disagrees with me is a priori a liberal. I'm too dull-witted to read anything more than a few sentences long; but thank goodness I have my lists of short quotations taken out of context to justify me in my position. " -- You and countless others.

>it is no good to bring up extraordinarily rare and expensive things like cannons and battleships

Also, I know leftists are historically illiterate, and mentally retarded, but the Girandoni air rifle was invented in 1780 and could fire like 22 rounds a minute. Muskets could be fired around 4, but more realistically about 2 for most people.

Leftists are so fucking dumb. Maybe you should all try studying something other than sucking cock.

First amendment most not apply to niggers and Islam thenbcommie cock sucker.

It's bizarre that he spent so much time killing people that he had to call up the police and ask them if they were coming.

So when was the last time that americunts took armed action towards a tyrannical government after the civil war?

When the 2nd Amendment was created American citizens armed themselves with the best weapons tech of the day. Therefore, to this day and beyond, we will be armed with the best weapons technology. This is our right. Americans won't give this right up. The moment they try to dissolve the 2nd Amendment is when you will see militias formed. I guarantee it.

When the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment, English was spoken very different and with class.

Today's English language consists of hate speech and vulgar language.

Maybe it's time we stopped using 18th century laws to regulate 21st century speech.

The 2nd Amendment literally exists to preserve the spirit of rebellion as a threat against tyrannical government.

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson

Keep being useless and dumb you retarded faggot.

fuck off leaf, you don't even have freedom of speech.

No one cares about your feels fucking moron. Rights > Feels
Price of freedom bitch, we need Boomer control, not more gun control

Hey look it's Piers Morgan! The fuckin British gun grabbing Twat!

I'm getting really sleepy, how about you guys? We should probably all just go to bed.

Any discussions can wait until later when we aren't so tired. It isn't important anyway.

Let's get some rest.

They very specifically allowed people to obtain gataling guns and for.ahip owners to outfit their ships with cannons. On both cases this was indicrimiatly and in both cases it was very litteraly to protect from niggers and news.

TL;DR fuck off nigger jew

Ben franklin owned a semi auto you retsrds

if freedom of speech doesn't do any harm then why harm others expressing their right to it?

you’re right there he goes, bending over again! haha what a nut. good ol piers.

>you shouldn’t be able to blow up a plane

That’s where you’re wrong kiddo. If someone enters my airspace my McChild soldiers are ordered to shoot them down

As another Canadian this guy is what I like to call fucking retarded, you absolutely can own many weapons including the AR platform, you simply cant own it in full auto. Handguns are more prohibitive which imo is reasonable as CC is illegal everywhere. Most Canadians have no problem with weapons or weapon ownership so long as it doesnt endanger the public health to an unwarranted extent.
If you actually think the US federal gov wouldnt stop an illegal vote for succession in one of the states with force bc they are afraid of a citizen militia you are beyond hope.

It's because gun nutters are paranoid schizophrenics!

...

this
if said aircraft is threatening me i have a right to defend myself thank you very much

Oregon

They never opened fire tho

archive.is/7tT9y
If the left thinks Trump is the second coming of Hitler why would they want to take guns away?

Fellow Canadian here. You are ignorant about the gun laws in your own country. Anyone with a Restricted firearms license can buy handguns, and there are millions of Canadians with semi automatic shotguns and rifles.

1. Mass shootings represent less than 5% of firearm homicides in the US.

2. "Assault weapons" represent less than 2% of firearm homicides in the US.

3. Saying the Second Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms is like saying the First Amendment doesn't apply to typewriters and keyboards.

Funny, I live in america and have never worried about being shot either, Crazy how that works.

Youre more likely to be robbed by a black man

You're one dumb nigger: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

ok, C IA later

I think we need to think outside the square. Make it a requirement that everyone carry a gun. Imagine that mother fuckers face when 200 people return fire and shred the hotel. Well okay maybe 100 of them would shoot someone close by.. but that's the price you pay for security.. they dies righteous!

way way more likely even

Private citizens owned cannons back then. You're an idiot.

OK, I'll play your little game.

The Founding Fathers were both wealthy and educated men, they were aware of the existence of these weapons,
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
And by the wording "Arms" is ment as a equivalence to the arms that the Army uses, as both civilian rifles were equil to the ones carried by the military.

Now as for any "updates" to the Second Amendment would mean a RELAXATION of current laws as they are unconstitutional, meaning that a citizen could prove that they are not a felon they could own a M1A2 with a full load, a F-15 or even nuclear weapons.

It's working out good.

your not a canadian
your just a fuckin faggot

fuck off faggot

Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building after Waco and Ruby Ridge. Has little to do with guns, but he really blew the Murrah building the fuck out.

way way more likely even

based

It is not a false analogy.

youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

pic related was in production before the Constitution was signed.

Repeating firearms existed prior to, or developed/produced, during the American Revolution.


Puckle Gun-1718

Giradoni Air Rifle-1779 (famously carried during the Lewis and Clark Expedition)

Kalthoff Repeater-Late 17th Centurt

Cookson Repeater-Late 17th Century

Belton Flintlock-circa 1777: This one was demonstrated to members of the Continental Congress.


So, this tired, old argument of the Founding Fathers crafted the Second with only single shot, muzzle loading flintlock muskets in mind doesn't hold water.

In France, not only do we have regular shootings, including the worst one in history out of any country, that have been made with illegal weapons, on which gun control has proven to have no effect whatsoever. But better yet, lately it has been revealed that sandniggers routinely acquire weapons LEGALLY as well. One of them had gone through all the administrative bullshit to get semi-auto firearms, and the adminstration renewed his authorizations to own said firearms even though he was on a terrorist watch list, because "we didn't want him to realize he was being watched".
Since then, it has been revealed that at least 100 sandniggers on watch list own category B firearms, the best guns a civilian can own in France.
Gun control is a fucking joke, it only affects white people, who by definition, aren't a population with a large probability to use guns to commit any crime or terrorist attacks.
Yet, sandniggers are not only given weapons by the state, they are allowed to do whatever they fuck they want, and the police will just look the other way.
Only a few days ago, a couple of sandniggers have been found out with an AK and a rocket launcher in their car. And this is daily news here, our politicians are telling us that's just part and parcel of living in a multicultural society and we better deal with it.

Yeah, I should accept those absurd dictatorship tier security laws that ban everything for me while shitskins can do whatever the fuck they want with the blessing of the state, sure.

Gun control has never worked, and never will.

>Mfw I dream of a society with such high trust we all have our own nuclear reactors.

We we're on our way... Thanks Ted Kennedy.

People make a big deal out of guns, but you can do a lot more damage with vehicles and homemade explosives.

Nothing in the quotation you provide has a direct bearing upon the Second Amendment. When Jefferson says "let them take arms" he is talking not about every Uncle Sam in America but the participants in Shay's Rebellion, whom he thought of as spirited but also ignorant and misinformed. The Second Amendment concerns only well-regulated State militias; militias which were intended to suppress resistance to government, not overthrow it. Hence why those very militias were used to crush the very rebellion which Jefferson makes mention of here. See for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

The purpose of being armed is being able to defend yourself when necessary. If parties that form a threat to you are heavily armed, then so should you. Or at least have the right to do so.
These days governments have unthinkably powerful weaponry, an assault rifle isn't even going to cut it. Banning those would only serve to consolidate government control And since the US government is in turn controlled by all kinds of shady parties, that is something you absolutely do not want.
If anything citizens should be allowed to own even heavier weaponry.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they authorized a private sea vessel to arm itself with cannons and capture other vessels on the high seas. Shut the fuck up you faggot. They literally let you own weapons of mass destruction back in 1776. I'd love to go back to that. I'd turn your entire genepool into a crater.

>resistance to {the american} government,
what is marxism?

>I'm only talking about hunting weapons, not handguns which is another thing all together. Only our military could have something like that.
And you are not capable of fighting your government if they become tyrannical either
>Funny I don't worry about being shot, ever.
Neither do most americans

Civilians can own handguns you fucking retard, jesus fucking christ. Stop worshipping at your trudeau shrine and open fucking google. God fucking damn day of the rake now please

Governments forces should continue to use 18 century weapons then OP because conflict and the ways which we wage conflict doesn't evolve does it.

KYS

Man you sure are fucking stupid

It's posts like this that demonstrate that there is some hope for Canada yet.

He's talking quite literally about all people within every state using Shay's rebellion as a reference. I know Paki's gauged your ass a full foot wider but take your head on out it, Americans genuinely don't give a FUCK about UKUCK opinions toward bending our Constitutional liberties.

I know leftards are brainwashed retarded but we had duels for the longest and it had absolutely nothing to do with militias at all you dimwitted deepthroating stupid faggot son of a whore.

>And by the wording "Arms" is ment as a equivalence to the arms that the Army uses, as both civilian rifles were equil to the ones carried by the military.

That's a falsehood. As the Amendment strictly concerns militiamen, and militiamen in the ancient sense of the term no longer exist, but instead are practically represented today in the U. S. Army, you cannot then infer that the principle is that every Tom Dick and Harry should have access to deadly military-grade weaponry. The end in mind is very clear from a grammatical point of view, "the security of a free state." It is not "all guns for all men." That could only be justified if it were "necessary to the security of a free state," and it is not.

Only 14% of Americans owned a gun in the 18th century and half of those guns were broken, nor were they generally of the sort of calibre as the ones you posit. Nowadays there are more guns than people and ones which are capable of wreaking mass carnage are cheaply and freely available for anybody to purchase.

You ain't seen nothing yet, nigger.

He says,

"let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."

What are you contending? That the first "them" refers to every Tom Dick and Harry in America, but that Jefferson then turns to referring to the Shay rebels exclusively in the next two? You do not comprehend the English language if you will not admit that you blunder here.

>Americans genuinely don't give a FUCK about UKUCK opinions toward bending our Constitutional liberties.


This. American abroad. My boss tried to go off on me today, lol. Hard to hide that power level

...

I worry about being shot because I have no accses to firearms.

Ben Franklin owned a volcanic pistol, which was basically semi-automatic with 40 rounds, but very low power, so it was easy to imagine a world with high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles

Typical leaf cuck. Why the fuck should cops and government agents be allowed to defend themselves but not a normal run of the mill citizen. The US feds know there place as subservient to the people and guns are the only thing keeping it that way.

> The Second Amendment concerns only well-regulated State militias

So you think the 2nd amendment is basically the government giving itself the right to have guns? Fascinating.

This is also a universal rule of wisdom for a just and good government that can be applied centuries later.

You know what came directly BEFORE the quote I posted?
>God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.

He quite generally says he is not surprised to see a rebellion and that he isn't even worried for it. That occasionally there should be one.

For a people that invented English you are sure are fucking illiterate. For having so many opinions about how America should govern itself, you sure know nothing about it.

Just kill yourself and get the fuck out of my thread.

>Canadian here

>meme flag

shut the fuck up you fake faggot.

you cant legislate away violence. WHY ARE LIBERALS FUCKING STUPID?

correction: he owned a repeating rifle

>He doesn't know that thee puckle gun (gatling-type gun that shot square bullets), .75 cal rifles, and FUCKING CANNONS were all knowingly covered by the second amendment.

The point of the second amendment is for american citizens to be a well armed militia to defend the country (the founding fathers wanted this specifically because they were so adamantly against standing armies), and to defend themselves against the US government should it go rogue.

They wrote it with the explicit expectation that US citizens would be so well-armed, that themselves would be the de-facto US army.

They wrote it with the explicit intention that the US citizenry would be so well armed that governments would be too afraid to attack us or curtail our rights — they specifically mention the US government itself.

The whole point of the second amendment was for US citizens to be AT LEAST as well armed as the US government. (And for self defense as an obvious extension of natural rights a la John Locke.)

/thread

Found the jackass that doesn't know anything about guns, but still thinks they have a valid opinion.

"Assault-style" was a term invented by California democrats, and is functionally meaningless beyond "makes it look like rifles in the military."

These include:
- Retractable stock
- Flash hider (does nothing unless you're fighting a night battle against trained marksmen)
- Magazine release

This is a fucking moronic argument. Learn about guns, then make a better one.

No; the central government was never supposed to have an army in the first place. That's the amusing fact about all this. The Founders of America hated standing armies, and yet America now has the most colossal one in history and the people who most fervently claim to worship them are the most fanatical supporters of it. Then those same people go on to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment and say that they need access to deadly weaponry in order to resist the very government army which, contrary to the intention of the founders, they so ardently uphold. The neo-Conservative Yankee ideology is a heap of contradictions.

yeah you're right bro the 2nd amendment was written to prevent the government from making any laws that infringe on its own military to possess arms.

Truck of peace death count: 86

When the 2nd was written people were allowed to own ships armed with cannons, which was the equivalent of a destroyer today.

>historically illiterate britcuck doesn't even know when US Army was founded while saying US isn't supposed to have one
you literally cannot stop sucking cocks can you?

The Rebellion in question he calls "honourably conducted" and goes on to say, "What signify A FEW LIVES LOST in A CENTURY OR TWO." Hardly the sort of devastating carnage which people like you envisage wreaking on the United States by a direct and bloody war with the Army and Federal Government.

Actually Prussian infantrymen could do something insane like firing a shot every fifteen or twenty seconds.

No one can argue in favor of gun control without sounding like an absolute dick-taking limp-wristed sissyboy cuck

/thread.

This is the goddamn reason we beat your ass before, Dad. You're twisting up the language you invented just to try and keep us under control.

Here's an example of the word regulated, used in context around the time the bill of rights was written. 200 years ago it meant well trained and well equipped. An unregulated militia was farmers with pitchforks.

Founding fathers probably would have let individual people own nuclear weapons if they were around today and saw the power of the state, and it's corruptness. That is the point right, to be able to overthrow the government.