A question for ammosexuals

So where does the Second Amendment stop? Military-grade weapons? Nukes?

The Second Amendment never talks about what /TYPE/ of firearms can be held

Everything other than WMDs. The only reason you can’t have them is because even most countries aren’t allowed to have them.

There should be no limit to the second amendment if someone wants to have a nuke let them have it.

It implies whatever types of arms are necessary to ensure that the state remains a free state so basically whatever is sufficient to overthrow the government if that becomes necessary

Arms imply a weapon you can typically carry in your arms.
>But you can modify it...
Don't be autistic.

in other words, armaments sufficient to defeat the full might of any standing army that the government might deploy against the populace

But the military has drones, tanks and training. You really think an AR-15 can even slightly damage the military of a world superpower??

You really think a bunch of backwoods inbreds could effectively fight a team of Navy SEALS or Green Berets?

Vietnam.

Vietnam

>destructive devices are firearms
wew

The first amendment doesn't talk about what kind of technology can be used either.
You sure like getting banned.

I'm PRETTY SURE that the Vietnamese were being assisted by Soviets and Chinese

Hillbillies, on the other hand, would be supported only by Cousin Cletus. Cousin Cletus isn't the same as the Soviet Union or China

Only nukes.
Nukes are not fire arms or armaments but disaster level biological and chemical warfare devices.
Everything else that isn't chemical or biological warfare is A-OK.

Hi there friendo!
I'm sorry that no-ones posted this yet, but I'll be more than happy to remind you that
WE HAVE THIS THREAD EVERY DAY

vietnam
But of course if america was allowed to use nukes, war would have ended in a few days

The line is drawn at weapons of mass destruction on account of protection of liberty in the 14th.

>Where does the second amendment stop?
>The Second Amendment never talks about what /TYPE/ of firearms can be held
Leaf-in-Hiding, the second amendment doesn't stop because it doesn't actually give a right to anything. It simply says the government cannot infringe. So, no where.

SHALL

That wasn't the argument. You seem to assume that he's saying that gun laws in their current state are even acceptable. Also, the government wouldn't damage its own infrastructure in the case of an insurgency or civil war. You also have to think about the number of soldiers that would defect or turn against the government if they tried to pull that shit. Finally, if everyone appreciated their right like they should have from the very beginning, it wouldn't be only Cletus with the guns.

That was probably one of the most ignorant statements I've read in a long time, and I've read alot of ignorant things.
Face it, kike, our "devil dogs" had a run for their money when fighting in the jungle against rice pickers and unwashed peasants.
It's funny you should mention Russia, because the Taliban is still fucking them hard in Afghanistan since Bush's war Iraq.
All while using ak47s and run down Toyotas with bald tires.
By the way, it isn't rednecks who you should be concerned about. It's your white neighbor, boss, electrician, lawyer, etc who keeps his political opinions to himself, but hates you in his heart

Wow, it's almost as if a jungle (Vietnam) and mountainous desert (Afghanistan) is somehow different than a trailer park (South/Midwest/Dumbfuckistan)

wouldn't urban areas be even worse for fighting insurgents?

No, since the military could easily destroy a trailer park or cabin with just a tank. These aren't cities (hillbillies avoid cities except for when NASCAR or Trump is in town)

We also have stupid /ptg/ threads (where cocksuckers kiss up to Trump as if he didn't screw up that day) too.

I'm glad this thread (and many more) pushed an alt-right thread into archives =D