Right to bear arms

What is your rebuttal when a leftist tries to argue that the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to only apply to muskets of the time?

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
youtube.com/watch?v=qFoF9WPVTKg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm
youtu.be/MfsKibQ480w?t=46
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

i throw them out of my helicopter

There was a fucking ship armed with cannons and other faggot crap that the president affirmed.

Doing God's work

They should have put "Right of the people to keep and bear muskets" then

Lefties btfo

>founding document of a country
>intended to be static piece of legislation

Then freedom of speech dosn't apply to internet?

It's clearly written with no particular weapon in mind

In their time it was muskets and simpler guns, but it was guns and it was a huge move away from fucking horse charges that had been made, they were well aware that technology would move.

Best explanation I've heard in a while

Then tell him that the military and police are also limited to muskets.

They said arms instead of muskets because they werent retarded and understood the concept of technological progression.

The fact that leftists believe those people couldnt imagine technological advances only speaks of their own stupidity.

This

Lever-action rifles existed at the time, as did automatic weapons (gattling guns). The founding fathers were well aware of these weapons existence, and would have explicitly stated their exception.

The right to bear arms is a universal moral principle, not a temporaly fixed rule.

"RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"
The AR-15 isn't a fireleg.
underrated

Lol no.

SHALL

That they’re faggots who shouldn’t open their mouths to speak on topics which they know nothing of.

That the intent was for the people to keep parity with the government in terms of weapons, so we should have nukes and f-16s if we so choose.

At this point I say, obviously that's ridiculous and the restrictions on weapons are currently pretty strict as it is, when comparing to the founder's intentions.

Usually works well.

the printing press
im only replying to your slide thread because im bored

They had warships with cannons on them. If you handed them an AR they'd shit their pants in glee and be dumbfounded that every citizen doesn't own about 5 or so.

How is it a slide thread? It's more on topic than 95% of the posts on here

Shall not be infringed

And really, when you are found to be in a deadly situation, wouldn't you want either yourself or someone 'on your side' to be appropriately armed to defend you and your family?

>intended to be static piece of legislation

Amended 27 times.

Preach on broanon!

Preach. On!

...

/thread

Just because people post stuff like this every damn day

Retard doesn't know history.

I simply refer them to the Heller decision and tell them to read it. The Supreme Court already shut these nonsense arguments down. This is a settled matter no longer open to debate on an official level.

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

That by that reasoning freedom of speech only applies to parchment and feather, and freedom of religion only applies to puritans and protestants.

Well excuse me if I'm not aware of every post at every hour of every day, thousands and thousands of people post here, there's bound to be the same content from time to time. I didn't make this thread with the intent of it being a slide thread

Kek

That the Founding Fathers intended for the people to have equal firepower as government.

They didn't mean for non-whites to be given citizenship either.

The first amendment wasn’t meant to cover art or music, yet it does. They never dreamed of the internet, yet it protects your government bashing there. The constitution is a malleable document that has helped this country, and when needed it’s been amended. If your incapable of gathering enough support for your idea, you’re probably wrong.

Assumed intent is irrelevant, what matters is the legal text.

>SHALL

In those days, private citizens were also allowed to own warships and cannons.

cant barage the Farage!

The second amendment exists because the people need protection in the event that the government becomes a corrupt piece of shit.

Without guns, our country would have been stomped by the Brits years ago and we probably wouldn't be typing on this shitposting board.

Should marshal law come into play and start mowing us down communist-style, we need some fucking guns so we stand a chance.

At the time of ratification, it meant the same weapons that the Army had the time. The army had muskets as standard infantry weapon and heads of household had them too. This was convenient foe militia too.

Fast forward to today. Standard weapon is M16 or M4. Makes sense to me that populace should be packing the same, but AR15 will have to do.

The purpose of America's 2nd amendment is less the right of citizens to own rocket launchers and anti material rifles and more the right to never have to live under a tyrannical oppressive regime without the means to physically remove them from power. Being able to buy rocket launchers and anti-tank rifles is just the means to do so. Your right to bear arms is your right to band with your fellow man and when the time comes say "Right, we've had a good try at democracy but its given way for a totalitarian military junta owned and operated by an elitist corporate oligarchy. Time to tear it down and build a new government."

The people who mock your second amendment right don't understand what it means and in all likelihood don't own guns themselves.

Remind them that Hitler rose to power because the NSDAP were being assaulted in the streets by the communist and socialist german parties, who primarily focused on destruction of public property. Remember that the exact same thing is happening in America right now.

They threw Hitler in jail for exercising free speech and labeled it hate speech. Remind them that if it wasn't for the complete crackdown on any kind of nationalism in the wake of WW1 and the communist revolution in germany immediately after WW1 that the NSDAP would've never attained power.

Remind them that in such an event, they will inevitably turn to you to protect them since you were the only ones who kept your guns. Imagine their surprise when, in response to their rhetoric, you're standing on the other side.

>Without guns, our country would have been stomped by the Brits years ago

I really don't think the Brits give a fuck about you guys. Why is your entire country obsessed with the events of literally hundreds of years ago?

The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791. In 1777 the US congress quoted 100 Belton flintlocks, a weapon purported to be capable of firing 16 shots in 5 seconds. The only reason it was not followed through with was due to the prohibitive cost of the weapon.

Your move soyboy.

>the first amendment only applies to the printing press

>implying I would even speak with a leftist, much less 'debate' one
I leave that for the alt-light

Same with women hate threads, but that doesnt stop anyone from posting about muh roasties thousands of times a day

NOT

Muskets was the default weapon used by both civilians and the military at the time.
Equate that equal playing field to today and -WHERE THE FUCK IS MY NUKE LICENSE??

no one said they care about us now
we're talking about the time of the revolution, you fucking idiot
>inb4 I was just pretending to be retarded, master shitpost!!!1

The 13th amendment only applied to the farm equipment of the time.

BFYTW

how are you going to stop the iranians from stealing your nuke.

-meme dashes

That you should be able to buy an M1 Abrams or an A10 if you wanted to because the only true check on government power is force of arms.

The puckle gun is not an automatic weapon.

Yep. James Madison granted a letter of marque to a dude who'd loaded his ship with cannons, so he could act as a privateer. Mind you, this did not give him permission to have a privately owned battleship, the equal of anything the Navy had, his inalienable right to just do that was simply recognized. All the letter of marque did was authorize him to kill motherfuckers the US wanted killing.

Why don't we conduct a seance and ask why they didn't include automatics in their intent? Couldn't predict the future? What a bunch of bigots.

2nd amendment is proportional to the time as it is in place to stop a tyrannical gov from forming again.

What is your rebuttal when a rightist tries to argue that the founding fathers meant for the 1st amendment to only apply to printing presses of the time?

Aren't M4s or M16s the same as AR15s? I thought the AR15 was just a brand name

>What is the war of 1812

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

But...it was called a machine gun

That the founding fathers were not retards and were aware that technological advancements would take place, especially when it comes to fire arms. The founding fathers themselves saw great leaps and bounds in armaments during their lifetime.

Does this look automatic?

youtube.com/watch?v=qFoF9WPVTKg

Its manually operated.

M4 and M16 are about the same but M16 is longer (a rifle) and the M4 is shorter barrel with adjustable stock (its a carbine). They both shoot NATO 5.56 and are capable of either full auto or burst fire.

The AR15 is the civilian version. It is semi auto only and shoots .223 caliber, the same as 5.56 in size, but mil version is stronger (more powder) and using that ammo in your AR15 can damage it

user, the Gattling Gun did not exist during the era of the Founding Fathers. You're thinking of the Puckle Gun, which was significantly different. Also, no, lever action rifles had not been invented yet.

Just stop.

Freedom of the Press refers to this specific machine and this machine alone, am I right lefties?

I would prefer this IMO.

The Gatling Gun was manually operated as well. That doesn't prohibit it from being a machine gun.

Girodini rifle was already a thing, 20 round magazine rifle
Puckle gun was already a thing (basically a larger caliber gatling gun)
Large cannons, mortars, explosives, were already things, and were affirmed to be covered

Also freedom of speech applies to more then just 1700's tech.

If they try to counter with the usual "where do you draw the line" type bull shit, just tell them they need to get with the times, its 2017, guns are a thing. The reasonable line is somewhere in between nukes and tanks/aircraft, and that has already been established.

>machine gun

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

"A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from an ammunition belt or magazine"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm

"An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber."

You sure about that?

A Gatling gun is manually operated, and is not a machine gun.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't work anymore since freedom is speech isn't freedom to hurt muh fee-fees... Apparently.

Very well put, user.

Can you imagine what the minutemen could have done with AR15s?

Question: what do you do about the people that will not give up their weapons?

Protip: use force (government)

Guess those people need some guns so the government won't infringe on their rights?

youtu.be/MfsKibQ480w?t=46
Not a rebuttal, but somewhat relevant.
45 seconds in.
This was available while the founding fathers were still finding shit and fathering children. It's not semi-auto, but they were well aware of what the future could hold.

I'm not arguing that the second amendment only covers muskets or some shit like that. That is stupid. It clearly covers all "arms".

I'm just saying that the puckle gun is not an automatic weapon.

I think trying to argue that automatics are okay because automatics existed at the time is not correct. Automatics are okay because they are arms. Period.

That was us not the brits dipstick. We did it out of spite.

Like I said, it wasn't a rebuttal. Just something of relevance.
All he said was that the puckle gun was not an automatic. Which is correct.
Though if you showed one to an anti-gunner I imagine they'd say it was too military-styled for civilians anyway.

Not to mention the fact that an AR-15 has much lower quality internal components. Mil-spec equipment is held to an entirely different standard compared to civilian firearms.

I don't care. The cat is out of the bag. If the government and garbage criminals have them, im getting mine.

Parity. Nicely put.

...

>lever action rifles in the 18th century were just like today, with cartridge ammunition and smokeless powder

Underrated
>Though they hate the military already and not a fan of cops.
I'd tell them when only they call the cops to save them from a bad guy the cop brings a musket.

The founders did not intend the second amendment for "home defense". Every able bodied American is supposed to be armed and trained, unless they object on religious grounds. Whether that's guns in the home or a community armory or both is a logistic best left up to individual counties.

In this day and age, that would mean access to tanks, munitions and so forth.

The American founders envisioned an armed and trained populace capable of mounting its own civil defense at a moments notice. The second Amendment was primarily created to circumvent the need for a standing army in peacetime, it was an attempt to create a new type of government incapable of exerting tyranny; the first actual free nation in human history.

When discussing American gun policy I tell everybody the same thing, regardless of what talking point they parrot in my direction.

Civil defense is neither right nor left, the Founders were radical leftists of their day in some of their views, and it was the right in the USA who created and passed FOPA.
Guns are not a black or white issue in relation to how they fall within within the left v right paradigm and anybody who thinks otherwise has no idea about politics in general and is probably just regurgitating some marketing they heard from whatever prog/con infotainment they are a fan of.

I direct people to read the writings and debates of the founders for themselves, such as the first congressional debate on arms and militia.

And if they instead choose to keep relaying marketing tropes to me, I generally just call them an idiot until they decide to go be retarded in some other direction.

Unless it's an American who does not either train with a militia or at least own their own firearm. Then I inform them that they are actively evading their responsibility as citizens before I begin to flippantly insult them.

LOL

Modern AR-15s can shoot 5.56 (.223 Wylde), and a quality AR-15 will often be more durable, lighter, ergonomic, and have more potential for accurate and precise shooting than a military issue M4/M16.

The fact there seems to be a secret government terrorizing people with fake shootings in order to take their guns. A tyrannical secret government terrorizing Americans into giving up their guns with false flag attacks nobody actually gets shot in.
The anti gun fags are literally what the Founding Fathers anticipated. The Founding Fathers made 1st and 2nd Amendments in that order for a reason.

Wanna know how I know you've never shot a fucking AR?

Also, I suppose it's a hackjob, but we can get full-auto-like fire and SBR-like ARs with binary triggers and brace stocks.

They were meant to defend against the Government, and Modern Military of the time.

Look at what the Military has now. Average citizens can't come close to that.

underrated

Because artillery was civilian owned, naval combat ships were civilian owned, all military technology was shared and there was not any stigma over it.

James Madison officially clarifying arms included cannons, and that semi automatic and even Proto automatic weapons existed back then

>principle, not a temporaly fixed rule
This. It's about being able to fight back against tyranny, which means sidearms on par with what the government has.

Muskets?

The main issue with that is it ignores established supreme court rulings.

...

It is a non argument. Privately available weapons of the time included cannon equipped frigates and privateer battleships. The 2nd amendment is for killing tyrants

Freedom of speech is only freedom to speak in an 18th century American drawl, not these rapidfire Ebonics dialects that can spit out 6 words a second.

>What is your rebuttal when a leftist tries to argue that the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to only apply to muskets of the time?
I pull out my revolver and knock their front teeth out with it