The founding fathers didn't mean AR-15s

>the founding fathers didn't mean AR-15s

Does the left really want to go back to only having pic related?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uoDgQGpRSFo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Muskets are aesthetic af

>the founding fathers didn't mean AR-15s

Did they have a time machine OP?

why don't you guys just stuff some sage up that musket and shoot yourselves with it?
enough already JUDE!

>open carry muskets
ok

no they meant 60-72 calibre projectiles coming out of literal hand cannons that could rip through several men in a line

The founding fathers also didn't mean the internet, so the left needs to shove their high powered assault keyboards up their asses.

does the right really want people with severe psychological disorders to be able to buy semi-automatic rifles?

that was the very first thing that the trump government made legal

>the founding fathers didn't mean television and the internet

Does the left really want to go back to only having pic related?

The founding fathers had no problem with private citizens owning fucking warships and people, of course they'd allow an AR-15.

>watching americans debate interpretations of their constitution instead of trying to solve legal problems using moral and legal principles like sane human beings
your system is OLD and BUSTED

Actual cannons would still be legal if the dems had their way. Shoot a couple cannon balls through a crowd and you have a bretty gud massacre.

>muh guns

Fuck off back to your containment country, kike. The humans are talking.

actual cannons are legal

youtube.com/watch?v=uoDgQGpRSFo

fuck the founding fathers, what would they know... they lived in a time of superstition and ignorance

saying that a document is correct for all times and places is what fundamentalist religions do

We could have these still maybe

Founding fathers also was against federal reserve and central banking

Wow it's almost like you need to take a psychology test and go through a fuckton of paperwork to get a gun

The 2A doesn't apply to AR-15s? Does that mean the 1A doesn't apply to Radio or TV since it didn't exist when they drafted the US Constitution? Plus, muskets were military-grade arms when The Bill of Rights was written. Why would ARs not be covered by the 2A? Hell, they're not even military-grade, they're civilian variations of the M-16.

one more word from your goy mouth i swear to god i'll open your borders so wide you won't be able to sit for weeks

Not Hamilton and his crew

...

They were entirely right to be.

the founding fathers meant whatever weapon it takes to keep the government at bay.

you can fill a van with 5-6 cannons and wipe out 50-200 people through the van siding and immediately drive away

weapon of mass destruction right there
imagine sneaking that into a school prolly around 40 killed in one shot

>the overkill

Actually the founding fathers wanted parity with government weaponry and citizens

I should be able to buy an F22

well duh, the founding fathers meant for the american people to defend themselves with muskets and swords for all eternity

>most advanced gun in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was written was the Long rifle that could shoot three times a minute.
>NO THAT APPLIES TO EVERY GUN/WEAPON THAT MAN WILL EVER CREATE UNTIL THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE

2nd amendmentfags everyone

No they do not, lets just assume their argument for muskets only won out, 2 years from now they are pushing an agenda to ban the muskets as well with some other line of rhetoric until noguns because they just hate freedom in general unless it involves abortion or marijuana

>i'll open your borders so wide you won't be able to sit for weeks

And I am going to use the UN to dump half of africa in your shitty little arab land. You dont want to lose all that funding for being racists now do you? Holocaust? Like what israel has done to Palestine?

You're on thin ice kikes. Everything youve done to subvert the west is easily going to be used against you.

>well duh, the founding fathers meant for the american people to defend themselves with muskets and swords for all eternity

m8 they would be shocked we still have this constitution still in existence and didn't get a new form of government.

are american civilians allowed to own an f-22?

If the founding fathers saw what modern America today was like, they'd grab as many AR-15s as they could and start a race war to take back the Nation.

>1st amendment only applies to wax sealed inked parchment
One and done, you insufferable flaggot

why the fuck would that shock them? quite the opposite, they'd probably hate all the amendments and changes to it that have transpired

Yes, actually.

Why do Amerilards worship a bunch of old transvestites from the 18th century? You act like the constitution came from fucking Jesus or something. Remind me again why we haven't adopted a new government?

>Benjamin Franklin never considered the future

McKillyourself

>One and done, you insufferable flaggot

I actually do agree with that as well. Sorry that triggered you. There is no right to not be spied on.

p-please no not the un which accuses us for being quasi-nazi war criminals at every opportunity, please i promise i'll be a good kike anything but the un...

First it was fist & bone
Then it was a stick
Then a bigger stick
Then a sharp big stick
Then it was the sword
Then the musket
Then the rifle
Now its the full automatic death dispenser
Soon it will be lasguns
Weapons change like men do,but you don't b& men,do you?

>tyrese, give these niggas a volley

no way, is there one or just nothing disqualifying them?

Black powder guns are great but that's irrelevant, the Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be self-reliant and capable of using lethal force if necessary.

You cannot predict 200 plus years in advance.

Jefferson literally said we should have a new government every 20 years.

the fourth amendment.

>the Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be self-reliant and capable of using lethal force if necessary.

Except they put down revolts and rebellions by the population during their time so that's bullshit.

*tips tricorn*

no, but seeing as they know how to write things down they could stipulate for the future.

and they didnt. shall not be infringed is quite clear.

Right, but what part of the 2nd amendment guarantees the govt won't disagree you when you try to fight it? So what's your point?

...

>and they didnt. shall not be infringed is quite clear.

You have the right to any gun that existed during 1791.

>you try to fight it?

Cause I'm not? I want a change to the government the non-violent way, why on earth would I ever advocate murder and killing? Are you the FBI?

It's prohibitively expensive.
Fighter jets are almost exclusively built specifically for the government, and once the government decommissions them you can buy one, but the government still wants millions for it.

give me one solid reason why anyone needs an AR?

...

Why do they even think that's an argument? Back then the government or anybody else didn't have automatic weapons either. The purpose of the right to bear arms is to level the playing field. Not to be able to own muskets.

Pretty sure the 2nd was put in there cause Jefferson didn't want a standing army. Either way it is void now cause we do have a standing army.

>give me one solid reason why anyone needs an AR?

There is none.

...

Don't worry, Lucky Charms. Potato Cannons are still protected under the second amendment. :^)

Free speech is a moral principle, not a pragmatic one.

We get a new government every 4 years, idiot.

They don't want you to have pic related at all.

to defend yourself against multiple armed people breaking into your home which happens all the time in the US when retarded gang bangers try to rob a rivals drug house and get the wrong address

...

The Las Vegas shooter should have used this, it would have shoot 600 people.

Nice deflection faggot. I ask again, what does the founding fathers putting down revolts have to do with them not wanting US citizens to be able to defend themselves against all threats including the US govt itself? Stop being a little bitch and prove your point.

every fucking day it's the same slide threads.
and you faggots oblivious to sage keep replying to them.
pol is dead. time to move on.

They specified that the amendment was to protect the government.

>We get a new government every 4 years, idiot.

You can't be this stupid? We have a new party in power, not a new system of government.

Our constitution is shit, we should adopt a new one like every other European or developed nation has done over the last couple centuries now.

We need a parliamentary system.

so it's theoretically possible but they aren't going to sell current gen military tech

i've heard of a navy pilot who bought one to fly for leisure after he retired i think that was an f-16

...

If they didn't mean AR-15's then they would have written 'muskets' not 'arms'.

That's not an argument though.

the point wasn't that he didn't want a standing army, but because he appreciated and wanted to cultivate martial culture. the idea was that if everyone had a gun and were habitually using it for hunting and stuff then there is nothing to fear from the english

why not?

They lived during the height of the Enlightenment. The left now has Rick and Morty.

>what does the founding fathers putting down revolts have to do with them not wanting US citizens to be able to defend themselves against all threats including the US govt itself?

Yes the founders wanted the citizens to overthrow their government they spend years fighting the British to establish.

Using a ballpoint pen or printer doesn't have the potential to kill people.

I guess they didn't mean words like 'nazi' either when they wrote the first ammendment.

You fuckin ignoramus, let me spell it out.

The second amendment is about being able to challenge an overbearing government, as thousands of scholars have agreed on. If the government has the weapon, the people should have just as much access.

For things like thermonuclear and chemical weapons (though very few private citizens could afford them) there is a fair argument for regulation.

For literally anything else? You've got nothing. No cause, and no legal right.

If you want to go back to the way things were in 1776, Americans would basically sit back and do nothing while the French, Dutch and Spanish save their asses.

he wanted a gun behind every blade of grass

...

>founding fathers meant for the population to own the same arms as the military at the time

The Left:
>The Founding Fathers were talking about muskets with the 2nd Amendment!

Also the Left:
>FUCK THE FOUNDING FATHERS THEYRE ALL RACIST SLAVE OWNERS

Actually it means that private citizens should literally be able to own Abrams tanks.

>the idea was that if everyone had a gun

In theory that sounds great, in reality it doesn't work out very well

Pro-tip: 50% of guns in US are owned by 3% of the population.

It's not this egalitarian society where everyone has a gun and everyone is a law abiding citizen who will take out the "bad guys" with a gun.

>Actually it means that private citizens should literally be able to own Abrams tanks.

*own thermonuclear bombs

Take it to full ancap retardation.

Is an AR more dangerous than any other center fire rifle?

Do you need a computer? No. Give it here nigguh

Because of you.

>The founding fathers didn't mean anything other than wooden printing presses and leaflets, newspapers and the internet doesn't count
>The US was overwhelmingly Christian and Protestant at the time, ergo freedom of religion refers only to sects of Protestantism

It's so easy to use leftist logic against themselves.

>people who like the 2nd Amendment should listen to people who, not even a year ago, were openly rioting and campaigning against the 1st

>give me one solid reason why anyone needs an AR?

You don't but that doesn't change the fact that it's a legal product and firearms are directly mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The musket at the time, as in what they were talking about, was the AR etc if it's day. Yet they still went order of importance as Free speech #1 and guns #2.
It's resulted in the sort of gun proliferation we have in the USA now but it was by the very design of the founding fathers. I get people might not like that and it might very well of gone a bit too far but it's what was intended. It's just had unforeseen consequences.

Now if -we the people- want to amend the constitution again to remove or change the 2nd amendment that's 100% fine. It's a living document and we have changed it before a few times. We even flipped flopped on prohibition. That's how you get the 18th and 21st amendment if I remember correctly. Yet unless we all decide as a country to change the amendment the 2nd kind of directly say it's ok to own a gun. It's just does. So end runs to ban them are a slippery slope of just ignoring the bed rock of the entire USA legal system as in the constitution.

>Actually it means that private citizens should literally be able to own Abrams tanks.
There is a guy not far from me with a Russian Mig-29 parked on his front lawn