In your unbiased opinion, can government restrict magazine capacity? Is it constitutional?

In your unbiased opinion, can government restrict magazine capacity? Is it constitutional?

I don't know, the Constitution doesn't actually say anything about clip size.

In your unbiased opinion, can government restrict recreational nuclear weapons? Is it constitutional?

They are weapons/armements/arms, the restriction of the ability to bear them can not be restricted.
That's like asking if the point of the spear can be restricted without infringing on your right to a spear.

No they cant. Jewess Lawyers think its legal, but we know better than to trust Jew Lawyers

Shall.
Not.
Be.
Infringed.

cant restrict 18 year olds either since trump would violate the militia clause, and thats treason.
He would hang next to Hillary and Obama.

Is militia with 10 shell magazineclips a well regulated against enemy with 30 bullet clipmagazines and +100 mattressclips?

gov is an affront to the spirit of man and should be crushed mercilessly with extreme prejudice

Makes no sense to do that to start with

No.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It say's no where in the constitution about the capacity of arms. It says americans are allowed to own weapons.

Magazines can be either fixed, detachable, or absent as in the case of belt-fed guns. Tyrannical government can regulate anything, but sucks at doing it, and people don't want a government that can make mandates on every walk of life. People need guns because the government is not required to provide you protection by law either. All it takes is a military coup and everyone will regret that they trusted the government for national security.

Just grow a pair and learn how to use a knife properly.

>Is it constitutional?
Unironically yes, if someone has the means to produce or acquire nuclear weaponry or any other type of weaponry the government has no right to restrict it

It's unconstitutional because it is technically restricting the use of arms
>inb4 shills say it is totally legal

Constitutionally? In my unbiased opinion, HELL NO!

t. Le wilderness caveman larper

>is it constitutional
Mate, the government doesn't give a fuck.

What if they restricted them to only allow a capacity of 1?

Some states already do it.

The second amendment protects the right to own a musket for hunting deer.

Now why the fuck would you want to restrict something so damn minute.

Yanks will do something stupid to get round this law like making a system that loads multiple ten round clips.

It would be pretty close to the maximum capacity of any weapon when the second amendment was written.

>shall not be infringed
>lets his rights be infringed and continues to do so
??

Us Maple Backs get around the 5 round rifle limit by using "Pistol" magazines which allow for 10 rounds at a time. So, I don't see what would stop our chucklefuck neighbors down south from doing a similar work around.

Wrong

No. George Washington plainly stated the population should be just as well equipped and trained as their government.
So if the gov has full auto drones the people should have them. Same with mag size

>clip

No and no.

Guns with capacity for multiple bullets already existed along with automatics.

Food analogies are retarded, but this one was actually on point.

How come the government can keep passing laws restricting guns? Obviously they aren't protected. The only class of firearms that the ATF doesn't regulate are blackpowder firearms.

The real point is the 2A already has unconstitutional additions on it, and these "SHALL" fags havnt done SHIT. Its sad how much people talk and post about "straws that break the camels back" when the backs been broken for fucking years and they wont and havnt dont anything padt sharting in walmart popping out 56% monsters.
Its unironically too fucking late and no one will do shit.

In Canada it's 5 rounds for rifles, 10 for pistols, 5-10 for shotguns. But Canadian law is completely fucked, so if a company manufactured a magazine for a larger-calibre weapon, but smaller bullets could be loaded in above a different weapons own intended *magazine* used... it's legal. This actually happens alot it seems as places carry magazines for guns they don't carry, for a reason.

Just a complete clusterfuck. As political figures argue well, paraphrased they say:
>If people already intend to break the law, they aren't going to stay within legal limits

they can and do. its retarded.

oh and as far as constitutional, im pretty sure they can argue it all the way down to 1 bullet per mag because of the guns made back when the constitution was written.

>In your unbiased opinion
what the fuck are you saying

The "arms" have changed, so should the law. Back then the government had flintlock rifles=the people should have the right to have flintlock rifles. Now, the government have tanks=the people should have the right to have a tank. Along with nuclear weapons, helicopters. drones, artillery pieces etc.

>In Canada it's 5 rounds for rifles
silly bullshit. we got perfectly legal 30rds AR mags neutered with a pin so you can only load 5 bullets though. surely no criminal would simply remove the pin

Why should someone not be allowed to own a tank or drone?

I knoe this is sarcasm, but I unironically agree.

>Understanding the reference

>Its unironically too fucking late and no one will do shit

I won't say you're wrong, but explain to me why it's a lost cause.

Read
Now tell me, have any of these unconstitutional "laws" been stopped since? How about the literal gun grabbing in say, Katrina? No? The time to use arms and force the govt to follow the law of the land has past, no one is going to do shit all while they whittle it away to nothing. Boils frogs, the entire nation. 50 years you'll be lucky to own a hunting rifle, and ammo will be taxed so high it wont even make sense to hunt anymore.

Fair enough, but I'll just say this.

Regardless of all the "whittling" that the government has done to the 2A, this country is still armed to the teeth and the people are purchasing more and more firearms everyday. I don't think the situation is as dire as you make it out to be.

It doesnt matter how armed we are if at the end of the day they can, and have, confiscated and no ones done jack shit. All they have to do is continue to whittle at the law, state by state and county by county, use some bullshit excuse like a hurricane to warrentless search and seize, add that public indoctrination where the kids give up "crazy grandpappies" guns, jail the "lost in a boating accident" types over planted pizza, etc and its over.
Fight? Use your guns? On who? The entirety of your local, state, and federal level? The police? Military? Its a joke. If anyone would have done anything they already would have (and the similar cases that have like Waco ended in death and memory holed).

Until an official repeal of ALL local and state regulations infringing on the 2A, it won't get any better and will just get worse and worse.

Oh fuck off. You're just jealous that I can turn the guy trying to harm my wife and kid into hamburger with one finger.

Except it isn't

Because of butthurt kikes

SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

That's a very pessimistic outlook, but you make a good point.

I don't know how far our military and law enforcement have already been subverted. I would hope they'd put the people and the constitution before the whims of some globalist kike politicians.

Completely. They break the law all the time and cover. And in a few decades, 100%. USA is going to be a Brazilian tier failed state before I die of old age.

I still don't get how the NFA or FOPA are "constitutional"?
Couldn't you just go to court and cite the constitution, particularly the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part and get off from any charges?

any solutions bud or just stating the obvious?

See
Repeal all unconstitutional laws, jail all those responsible.

ie-its too late friend