Let's say technology advances so much that there's now a gun capable of firing 300 bullets a minute...

Let's say technology advances so much that there's now a gun capable of firing 300 bullets a minute, with each bullet programmed so meticulously that they correct their trajectory to always hit its victim's head.

In other words, let's say there's a gun that guarantees the loss of 300 human lives a minute; and let's say through some novel ammunitions vest, you can carry enough to guarantee the loss of 2,000 lives.

In this theoretical scenario, should people have the right to own that gun? Can they decide one day to kill that many people and so so that easily?

inb4 some idiot says the scenario isn't possible. it's a hypothetical question aimed to clarify our philosophical positions.

the good guy can kill the bad guy in 1 second with your new gun retard.

SHALL

Let's say op isn't a faggot


Now do you see how silly hypothetical questions are?

You sure went through alot of work to ask such a stupid question.
The 2nd amendment puts no limit on what a citizen can or cant own. People have owned deadlier weapons than your fantasy gun in the past.

kys

Look in the event of a government uprising, if they send the military door to door with that gun, I want to have that gun to defend myself and my family.

The fire storm gun fires a million round a minute. no bullshit

Sure, if he is also walking around with a $10,000 next gen weapon. But there are clearly areas where no one will be doing that. Whether a nightclub or a concert or a church.

But there WILL be cases where the murderer gets away with it, and the loss of life would be staggerring. Do you think there's a technology sufficiently advanced to be excluded from our right to bear arms?

Depends on how easy to produce the technology is.

Is it only capable of being manufactured by coordinated industry effort? Ban it. Can a guy with a CNC mill and a little bit of programming experience make one? Legalize it, as it is easily brought into common use.

>there's now a gun capable of firing 300 bullets a minute
just thought i'd let you know.

>should people have the right to own that gun?

will government agencies issue that gun to their people? if so, then yes. citizens should always have the capacity to replace those in power if need be. isn't that the basic principle upon which our country was founded?

Have no fear of weapons! Even the mightiest of them will bring us only to a brand new clear day!
More seriously, weapons raise the cost of aggression, and turn pragmatic minds to other methods. A ferocious gun is not only a tool for the aggressor.

Why not program the smrt rounds to go to specific cellular ids. Use WiFi for die die. Shoot smrt rounds into sky shrug and sigh hit a baddie in the eye bye bye

but... where is the fun in that?
it would remove all the joy of the hunt, the kill, the despair in the eyes of your prey , that moment you see it in it's eyes it's life will end when that sweet hard cold steel goes deeper and deeper in it's soft warm helpless warm flesh?

Wouldn't it be easier to ban its usage at large and make ownership of it death, than to allow our feral democratic population to own that weapon?

Today, if someone's in a bad mood they kill 2-12 people, RARELY 50 like we saw in Vegas. But imagine if someone who truly loses it decides to use that gun in a political crowd or a Joel Olsteen church.

There were a lot of accidental restrictions on gun ownership that were useful in the 18th century. Only White property-owners -- citizens -- had the right to own them, certainly not slaves, meaning the class of low iq retards with low impulse control wouldn't own a gun. And the nature of the gun was such that you could take out a public official or two, but not a whole building of 2,000 people in less than an hour.

>self-correcting bullets that can calculate the most efficient pathway

let's say marxism advances so much that there's now propaganda capable of deceiving people while they're still young, with each child programmed so meticulously that they correct their mental trajectory by dissociating from reality.

In other words, let's say there's a person that guarantees that intelligent, honest discourse becomes impossible; and let's say through some novel methods of connectivity, this person could guarantee their participation and destruction of over 2,000 conversations.

In this theoretical scenario, should people have the right to spread such intellectual dishonesty? can they decide one day to destroy that many conversations and exchanges, and do so that easily?

inb4 some marxist says that it isn't a fair comparison. It's a hypothetical question aimed to clarify our philosophical positions.

Well since it's hypothetical, then hypothetically, I could be the inventor and builder of that technology. If that is the case, then what right does anybody, including any government have to try and limit my right to own it? Yes I should be allowed to own it. Yes I should be allowed to sell it. No I don't have the right to use it in an illegal manner, and neither does anybody that I might sell it to. If I, or a buyer decides to commit an illegal act with that weapon, then prosecution should occur upon the individual should occur. That doesn't mean that I should also be punished for another individual's actions. If my buyer uses it illegally, mine should not be confiscated out of fear that I might also.

Conversely, if it is a government invented and built weapon, the question now becomes, how do civilians defend themselves from it? Not all governments are created equal. Imagine if it were a North Korean invention. Or one that Isis came up with. The real threat lies with the conglomerate, not the individual. The individual has the ability to kill 2000 in your scenario. The conglomerate has the ability to kill orders of magnitude greater than that. Does the fact that it's a governmental body make the deaths that the weapons produce somehow more legal or moral? What is an enemy combatant? Who decides the very ambiguous and fluid definition of that concept?

Property rights are an important part of freedom. Almost as important as the right to free speech and assembly. Both property rights and free speech are under attack, and those who oppose that attack can very easily be interpreted as enemy combatants by those who wish to strip those freedoms. I can go on and on, but this should suffice considering this thread will probably be 404'd by the time I press "post".

You made it!

Let's raise in up a notch. Let's say the bullets are miniature nuclear explosions that immediately destroy the vicinity of 5 square miles, rendering the soil barren and habitation impossible.

Should someone have the right to own a gun that can cause a 5 mile nuclear explosions? Why or why not?

If the state has it the people should have it.

>300 bullets a minute
That's really fucking slow by current standards.

i guess that depends on whether that person is a competent individual. unfortunately, the definition of competence will vary greatly depending on who you ask and their various interests. do you see the conflict of interest here?

Yes because without such a gun, the government could go full dictatorship with only a handful of troops/police

Nuclear weapons are currently illegal to own by civilians. So no, in your new iteration of an already ridiculous scenario, nuclear weapons should remain banned for civilian use. Hillary.

NOT

and if you're so concerned about getting weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, go do a weapons sweep in baltimore, detroit, or wherever

don't punish the general population

Pass a law that infringes upon the rights permitted by the second amendment.

yes that would be included

constitutionally the entire point is to maintain the people as the ultimate check against state power, not to save a few thousand lives every so often

Gun is only for State and soldier. This is all.

Lets say they invent a pill that can cure all diseases, let you live for 500 years and it only costs them $1 to make.
Do you have a right to such a pill or can the government say only the few they decide can have it and no one else

Fuck off.

Based NK. I hope you all the best in the coming war with the united states of israel. May your soldiers devastate the filthy burgers. Shit, I might join your fun, if possible.

So muricans are now able to buy 10 000$ next-gen weapons by just walking to wall-mart and forking out the bucks?

Also, hypothetically, let's say I'm a Wizard that can't be killed and can kill with a glance. Should light be outlawed since vision is impossible in the absence of light? Makes ya think.

Wow Arabs really do hate Jews

But they love bacon.

Why are nuclear weapons illegal for citizens then, nigger? Is it because we agree that it causes too much loss of life? Are you starting to see a pattern?

We should be allowed firearms that (1) allow us to defend ourselves, and (2) allow for targetted assassinations in the case of a tyrannical Hitler government.

Automatic fire should be in the hands of practically flawless individuals only: gainfully employed, no criminal record, property owner, have children.

Everyone else can go fuck themselves

Because they cause environmental damage

Ok, good post, what about non nuclear bombs, dip? Do Bill and Fred own car bombs? No? Why not?

Nuclear weapons SHOULD be outlawed in entirety. But the fact is, if they are ever used, it's game over for all. No ammount of civilian owned firearms can protect against the total devastation that a nuclear attack will cause. Once one is released, eventually all will be released. Civilians should not own a weapon of creating global destruction. That is not a weapon of self defense, that is solely a weapon of destruction. Apples and oranges.

Your argument is fucking retarded beyond redemption, because the nut jobs will just get their guns illegally. The legal guns are the ones used to keep the government in check.

Explosives are not illegal to own.

Or guns that can blow up a building, I'm sure the gun faggots will be defending that right?

>North Korea can't get nukes
>but 340 million dumbfaggotass Americans can get guns

>the good guy

Yes 22,000 good guys took out that one bad guy in Las Vegas, OH WAIT

Dafuq you talking about faggot?

No!

Gun is only for soldiers and state police. Not citizen

You have our gratitude.

>burgers sperg out calling op a faggot/retard because they're afraid of answering his question
Sad!

>Dafuq you talking about faggot?
Americans are subhuman and shouldn't be granted the access to guns

Gunfaggots have no problem with the patriot act or NDAA or FISA spying.

I couldn't GIVE A FUCK about their "rights" when they shill for that shit.

Double fuck off.

You're a fucking moron. "Gunfaggots" absolutely despise the patriot act, FISA, the NDAA and almost every other government enacted "law" that is put in place to limit personal freedoms for the sake of "safety". Holy shit you're dumb.

Every white adult male with children who can pass mental health screenings (as in not having perception altering disorders or retardation) should have the right to the weapons of war.

Of course not.

Might as well allow everyone to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard. It's just a hobby bro.

Any man that doesn't like guns is a fag. How else are we defend ourselves from the dindu hoards?

>Why are nuclear weapons illegal for citizens then, nigger? Is it because we agree that it causes too much loss of life? Are you starting to see a pattern?
You're gonna feel very embarrassed when you find out that isn't the case

White kids too. Just not the girls.

No!

Rights are determined by force, so naturally a person with such a weapon would have the right to own it.

While we are at it this gun solves world hunger and farts gold coins. It Jim's Beethoven during reloads and sings the national anthem accurate to the nationality of the person holding it. Comes equipped with beard trimmers and calorie counters

Why not just make a gun tat selfdetonates at 9 kills

In this hypothetical situatin, your gun kicks your dick if you have a violent though.

Your idea exists already in another way. Drive Fuel trunks. You can easily blow up a city block with blowing one up. You don't even need explosives. However, you don't see that many people looking to kill people. It is a morality problem not a tech/device problem.

Your idea on paper seems good when you are looking to prevent problem by banning things. However it never stops at that. Look at gay marriage and "bake my cake fucker" and how the law will change too less and less dangerous things. For example, banning knives. This will always be an endless cycle of never enough, no child hurt or left behind.

>"Gunfaggots" absolutely despise the patriot act,

Bush and Trump are pro-Patriot Act, pro-NSA spying, pro-NDAA

I want you to fuck right off you fucking faggot

MUH GUNS while everything else is gone.

People like that user never feel embarrassed for being proven incorrect. They just role on ignoring reality and screeching out their baby killing, tree hugging retoric.

NRA = JEW PUPPETS

stop saying that it wont happen, this is all hypothetical.

Yes faggot. Fuck the mother fucking fuck off, you slants eyed fuck wit!!!

If a society is so sick that things like that happen, that society needs to be reformed. We can't let the restrictions of our society define our level of technology, rather we must structure society so that technology is adequately used to the betterment of our people's survival and expansion.

>hurr durr factories will put cottage industry out of business
>better ban them!
>hurt durr weapons are too powerful
>better ban them
That is how you lose to someone who is willing to take those risks and ascend to power.

Well said!

No. Children are retarded. They will be trained to use them in a controlled environment but they should not have free access to it.

Research destructive device.

We have a solution for this already.

>there's now a gun capable of firing 300 bullets a minute

Bloody expensive

Bush and Trump are fake ass politicians, not real people you fucking ass bandit.

I'm a real person. As are the other people in this country whose rights are continually being infringed upon by fake ass politicians. You're a fucking idiot if you believe any politician actually represents the ideals of the people. Politicians are hand picked and delivered to satisfy the concept of a democratic process, but millionaires and billionaires are not a representation of the common man.

Remember your "freedom" gun faggots when you are being fingered at the TSA like my mother who was sexually assaulted. That's the "brice" of freedom.

Autonomous weapon/sniper systems have been around for at least ten years, and they are becoming more precise.

We just do not talk about this in public. I worked on this way back in the late 1980's

Is your mom hot or gross? Cause I can use either but I need to know

That's hot. Story?

>As are the other people in this country whose rights are continually being infringed upon by fake ass politicians.

Every time I hear a politican talk about "freedom" it's only guns, but when it comes to other freedoms like drones, or endless wars, or healthcare as a right, or ending TSA or the Patriot Act, that "freedom" disappears very quick.

Why do guns seem to get this special freedom as I'm harassed by these pig cops and TSA fuck?

let’s assume death notes are real, shouldn’t we therefore ban people from reading and writing?

>each bullet programmed
Aim assist is for pussies.

>let's talk about absurd theoreticals and then apply our thoughts on them to reality
fuck off libtard

...

It is within the range of possibility tho

A worthy consideration but not necessarily as complex as he implies, i think.

Who gives a shit what a politician says? They are actors playing a part. One side says one thing, the other side says the other thing, neither side does anything. I reiterate, politicians are not representative of the common individual. Once people realize that politics is a religion as opposed to the misconception that it is about governance, then division will decrease. Hillary doesn't give a shit about your or me any more than Trump does. It's not real. It's theatrics. They crave power, control and admiration. They line their pockets while we starve. You may hate guns now, but you will covet them when the day comes that you need one.

It's in the range of possibility.

You think drones coming out of the sky killing people is a strange concept happening the US?

The armed private citizens who were allowed to carry in that gun free Zone were smart enough to know their weapons limitations. That's called responsible gun owners. Unless you think the proper response to a meticulously set up ambush from a great distance was to use a weapon designed to defend yourself from attackers at an average max range of 30 feet?

Your smart bullets would cost a minimum of $1000 each. It would take a billionaire to kill 2000 people. And if he did want to do it, he would just hire a hit squad instead of getting his hands wet.

Don't give guns to leftists, muslims, or niggers. Problem solved. Also, stop treating men like shit and they won't shoot you.

For about 1/100th of a second.

BUT HYPOTHETICALLY THOUGH......let's pretend the bullets are free. What now smart guy?

You said warm twice.

you mean, in the theoretical scenario, a military clerk would snap and borrow a brand-new LAV instead of a vietnam-era-tank...?

ever watched what new ammunition is capable of?
actually, i don't wanna fight in a modern war...

come on man
you're just simplifying it into absolute absurdity

kek

you're a high quality leafbro

Lmao! I can have a magic gun with magic bullets, but making the bullets free is simplifying it to absurdity? If I make it moose mounted can we come together on this?

>let's say there's a gun that guarantees the loss of 300 human lives a minute; and let's say through some novel ammunitions vest, you can carry enough to guarantee the loss of 2,000 lives
Let's say there is a novel device called a bomb that can be constructed from fertilizer a trip to the gas station and a rental vehicle, let's say the instructions to make it and possible worse case scenarios have been available on-line for 20+ years, let's say it's even happened before. Should people have the right to go on-line and read what they want in private? or not report their daily purchases and movements to government?

no, its ownership should be mandated so everyone is forced to have one at all times
welcome to the free market fag

You don't send a daily log of your thoughts and actions directly to the inbox of the NSA?!? Traitor!!!

>he thinks this gun doesn't exist.
They were shooting a million programmable rounds a minute 10 years ago. We didn't have good head targeting then but we do now, put the two together and you have your gun.