Huh. i never looked at it from this angle

huh. i never looked at it from this angle

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

SHALL

BE

They wrote the laws based on what weaponry the government had at the time

exactly how it is now

NOT

yea sure

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, they knew that the threat of tyrannical government could only be tempered by an armed populace.

This is as true now as it was then. Maybe if the government was still using muskets and the populace had automatic rifles, you'd have a point.

>dutch shitposting

>hahahaha americans were defeated by guerilla warfare from starving farmers
>hahahaha americans were defeated by guerilla warfare from starving sheep fuckers
>hahahaha americans think the american government could be defeated by guerilla warfare

>also might makes right, that's a leftist idea, right?

That's not true they had weapons capable of putting some rounds downrange in a hurry. That argument is a fallacy, just be honest and admit you want to repeal 2A completely

...

>The author is so unhinged that he hopes his benevolent govdaddy will use drones against its own citizens.
wew

riggggghhhhhttttttt...........

Sage

Pic related

>1488pbp

KANGZ

>filename
kek

pic related.

they still had these though. And they could fuck a crowd up

Be careful they hate the first amendment too...

>AH NEEDS MUH AK-15 TA FITE DA GUBBERMINT IF-
>*drone'd killed from 1300 miles away*
The second amendment is for rock throwing rural and suburban philistine retards.
City people all voted for Hillary.

The weapons have adapted to meet the needs of a well regulated Militia.

Do they really want to push 50cal cannons?

Everyone is a sniper!!

freedom of the press only applies to the printing press and not the internet ergo STFU OP

When the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st amendment, your speech could be heard by no more than few dozens of people.

Today twitter has 330 million of active users.

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

During the revolution people literally came to the battlefield with privately owned artillery and warships.

Recreational aircraft carriers should be legal.

oh and your obamacare only covers you for musket rounds being treated by rusty bandsaws and knives with no sedation and a hot iron.

Absolutely shut down

snort. Yeah. I BET you didn't. Keep failin, commies.

>600+ rpm
Call me when you get one...

You're welcome to come to my house and try to remove from me the tools that I use to defend it.

Yes those were commonplace in the american household right

Fuckin cheese head, get back to work. Make me some cheese fucker

BE

Knock knock

Canons and warships were common enough to win a war

gotta defend yourself from the 44% of the population that is not white

>the founding fathers thought guns would only ever be able to fire one round a minute!!!!

Implying they didn't expect stronger guns to be, you are not Dutch to me

INFRINGED

>the government will have no problem using drones on its own civilians also you are paranoid about the government
huh
never really made me think about it from this angle tbqh

Don't be a pussy OP. I read from a reliable source that if you shoot yourself with small caliber bullets, you can build up a tolerance to larger caliber rounds. You should use this method. Then you wont have to worry.

Guns were actually more lethal back then.

was that goalpost heavy?

You joke but what are hate speech laws?

...

What about Switzerland ?
Get BTFO

me on left

the 1st Amendment only applies to hand written documents, hand operated, single sheet printing presses and unamplified human speech .

that's all that existed back then too.

#HTH!

A large number of ships, cannons, and weapons that were used in the American Revolution were privately owned.

So... Yes.

Implying this high iq person wouldn't be able to enter your trailer. Why are drumpf supporters so ignorant, god why do we let people like you vote

>Yes those were commonplace in the american household right
You are changing the subject with a strawman.

This gun was invented prior to the 2nd amendment. To make a statement "Muh only muskets" has been proven BTFO.

The amount of homes it is in is irrelevant next to the fact that ANYONE could have it in their house if they can afford it.

Our government was well aware of firearms that had a higher RPM than 2. They were also aware that there would be advancements in technology. They also knew that an unarmed population will quickly be ruined by the government.

everytime i post this rebuttal or something similar, they never have a comeback. it shuts them right up.

True communists should support the 2nd amendment to the bone, their fabled revolution depends on it. And yet all I see is those dumbasses calling for gun control.

>this angle

the only angle you look at is the tip of mudslime dick you keep sucking, stupid fucking tootpaste.

interesting enough
neither were muskets

>Michael A. Bellesiles, a Colonial historian at Emory University, when -- while searching through over a thousand probate records from the frontier sections of New England and Pennsylvania for 1763 to 1790 -- he found that only 14 percent of the men owned guns, and over half of those guns were unusable.

nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

inb4 joo york times

for some reason drones can't end the war in the middle east and literal sand niggers can outsmart them but the people who made said drones and the sons of the greatest rebels to ever live will have trouble with it? doubtful at best

Did they REALLY put a G36 carrying handle on an M249? Why would you do that? To make it look more "assault like?"

Hate speech laws are degeneracy of purest form.

Yeah man we should use muskets against the government dude we totally won't get ass reamed because they have guns that shoot 600 rpm and we have guns that shoot one rpm

You mean a single shot was more lethal.

You still kill more people with modern, automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

Then again, when the Founding Fathers wrote that they actually were letting merchants sail with enormous cannons on their private vessels, so who knows whats right?

We are still being defeated by goatfuckers in the desert with ancient AK-47's and RPGs while we are using modern technology

>everytime i post this rebuttal or something similar, they never have a comeback. it shuts them right up.
The problem I have with debating "gun control advocates" is that they are generally terribly uninformed. They operate on feelings, and when you hurt their feelings with facts, they will strawman INSTANTLY down to "muh children".

Always remember:
>How many children have to die before you support gun control?
Answer: All of them.

well the thing that should be argued is if a society needs guns, but arguing about what the constitution says is dumb.

wtf am i looking at

M I L K I E S

is that a SAW with a G36 scope? wtf

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

firearms were ultimate one kill weapons at that time, so burgers should be allowed to own predator drones nowadays.

sage, fuck you, hide, fuck you, gib sturmgewehr.

>"heh stupid rednecks can't do shit against us!!!"
>KABOOOOOOOM

>well the thing that should be argued is if a society needs guns, but arguing about what the constitution says is dumb.
You have this totally backward, but you are from a backward place.

No one NEEDS guns. No one needs a car, television, internet or fancy brand name clothes.

Yes goy defend yourself with flintlocks

This
The founding fathers where gun enthusiasts as demonstrated in a lot of these correspondences, they where well aware that it was possible to make repeating weapons. They where also fairly brilliant men, and could no doubt predict that in the future gun technology would evolve just as we speculate about the future of weapons in sci fi shows and daydreams. Had they intended for the musket to be the only acceptable weapon for americans FOREVER they would have specified that.

Well obviously THEY won't obey the law, it's just meant to disarm us.

Wat loop je nou te zwetsen gek.
Op de Nederlandse tv hoor je niks anders dan deze onzin argumenten.

Het gaat erom dat burgers zich net zo sterk mogen bewapenen als de overheid, zodat de overheid niet te sterk wordt.

Am I being detained?

FUCK OFF COMMIE SHILL

- Replace Musket with Quill, Ink and Parchment
- Replace today's rifle cyclic rate with ability to transfer text of Constitution in nanoseconds over internet
- Commie gun grabber argument dies

PATRIOTS,

DO NOT LET THEM TAKE OUR GUNS:

'"We are in the minority. In these circumstances there can be no talk of violence on our side.” The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet." And it was.”'

Excerpt From: Saul Alinsky. “Rules for Radicals.”


“His fourth indictment against the British reads: “Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families …” These words more than suggest that if Gandhi had had the weapons for violent resistance and the people to use them this means would not have been so unreservedly rejected as the world would like to think.”

Excerpt From: Saul Alinsky. “Rules for Radicals.”

DO NOT STOP FIGHTING THEM.

dit is een aas draad kneus

wtf ban assault muzzle loaders now!

game over for any argument to the contrary right here desu

sageru and moving on.

Your pic is stupid because of safety in numbers. If a majority of Americans own guns, we can start an uprising against the government.
It's not about keeping the individual 100% safe from the gov, it's about enough individuals being proficient and armed, to get a % of civilians that must be dealt with.
We're scattered everywhere around the country, they can't take us all out and salvage a meaningful amount of the country. Keeping the country armed helps stop shooters before the police arrive, and prevents State power from completely overtaking us with physical force.

Girandoni an iconic firearm for US history despite its foreign origins

So far their "antifa" scarecrow depends on civilians not being able to defend themselves from the mob while police is told to not intervene. Of course they want to ban guns in this situation.

I love these threads because the kikes and faggots only bit a close range AR-15 (sorry but Vegas was not AR-15, but a failed CIA operation, 32nd floor is too far away from the J.A. concert.).
The fact is a well armed and regulated population can withstand even the great US military (see Afghanistan). And even the most evil Jews who love raping Christian babies and drinking their blood still want to rule over them as slaves. And so with every man woman and child fitted with a semi-rifle and a few elephant guns rigged to fire in unison (patent pending) - yes we the people can stand against a tyrannical government- especially when we find, again, live free or die.

>have you really thought this through?
Yes. A counter insurgency against the US population would need a 1:100 ratio of troops to citizens.
That's 3,000,000 active boots on the ground.
Someone else will have to explain how many troops you'd need in rotation to pull that off.

They also allowed private ownership of the WMDs of their time in cannons, privateers, Galleons, ManOWar's and whatever else existed. The second amendment was never intended only to protect guns

...

This
Can confirm pro bulletproof strats

...

i agree, citizens should go back to being able to own cannons and explosive devices, carry guns and knives everywhere and not be discriminated against.

cars cant be used to mass murder like guns can[lol lets post some picture of a shitskin attack], what i meant to say is if the benefits outweigh the risks. The Usa should just give guns to mentaly stable people, in germany you have to do an exame by a psychiatrist, i think that should be addapted in america.

FTFY

Nice attempt at a red herring; the 2nd wasn't created to regulate weapons, it was created in an attempt to give people military power against their own government primarily.

MAKES

>Because the chances for me are bad I should just accept a tyrannical government and give out my means to defend myself because I cant beat them anyways
>Now would you excuse me I have an Antifa Riot to attend where we protest the tyrannical government that we can increasingly not to anything about lmao

Also
>haha we already heavily restricted your access to self defense
>Why dont you give us the rest not like it matters lmao

Leftists.

Our laws provide the amendment process and Constitutional conventions to eliminate our right to bear arms. If the American public wants to give up its 2A rights you can do it legally and constitutionally.
What do I mean "you"? Beat it chocolate-fingers.

> the 2nd wasn't created to regulate weapons, it was created in an attempt to give people military power against their own government
GOD MODE

>Lol, how can these fucking rice farmers fight the most powerful nation in human history with a bunch of sticks?

>second panel is a pimpmygun image
>short text utilizing subtle infiltration methods
>its probably the EU flag shill but he removed his façade

enjoy your daily $30. drink some beer for me.