Does this look like a musket to you? Because it's not

Does this look like a musket to you? Because it's not.

In case none of you realized it, the second amendment was written in 1776, long before we had assault rifles or any kind of modern weaponry. All they had were muskets. Now, you honestly want to tell me that the second amendment should apply to modern guns? I'm not buying it.

There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=I_V0eXPB-aY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbuss
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

being this retarded warrants seppuku

/thread

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


FUCK OF SHILL


SAGED

Does this look like a Musket to you, because it is.

I think I missed your argument

>well-regulated

Why do gun freaks always leave this little tidbit out, huh?

>military style assault rifles
>at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, all that was available were muskets. The army had them, and the Found Fathers were okay with civilians having those same military grade firearms
Yeah, sounds to me like they would have been cool with it. Never mind the fact the civilians had their own private warships.

@ the time muskets were military style rifles ... think about that, then read what you wrote

Fuck off to your safe space snowflake.
S
A
G
E

>well regulated
During that time, that was a way of saying in proper working order. It’s the same root word in regular. When your doctor asks you If you have regular, (read: well regulated) bowel moments he’s not asking you if the government has written laws about when you’re allowed to take a shit

It doesn't matter what I wrote. What matters is the fact that while the military had muskets too, they were not very advanced weapons.

A musket and an assault rifle are vastly different so there is no way the founders would have been ok with people have such advanced weapornry.

go fuck yourself

You claimed they would not be okay with civilians having “military grade” weapons and id like to know what exactly you base that on, given that civilians owned the exact same weapons as the military then, it stands to reason they would support the people having access to the same weapons as the military now. Explain why you believe differently

>The right of the people
Why do anti-gun freaks leave this little tidbit out?

You could also own battleships with large cannons at the time. I'll trade cannons and only turn in my muskets if that's cool with you.

The 2nd amendment also allows private ownership of cannons (which were never outlawed btw -- you can own a canon if you want)

The stick you posted looks downright retarded compared to a real cannon that can level a residential building in one shot.

>was written in 1776
No it wasnt. That is not even within a decade of the right answer you dumb fuck.
And they let us own cannons. Not just muskets. You dumb fuck.
We were allowed to own any/all explosives too. You dumb fuck.

Wow are you a dumb fuck.

/thread

A modern assault rifle can kill much more people than a musket. Pretty simple, bro.

Youre not buying it but i am. Getting my AR15 tomorrow!

>why didn't the founding fathers just be more clear about the future technology of weaponry and what's allowed???

You will all be hunted down and executed

Did you know that the muskets the civilians used were the same as the military used?

Wouldn't that make them... "military grade"?

Yet they still had them????

Clearly, when the Founding Fathers talked about *militia* they meant a real fucking militia that can withstand an army.

If 2nd amendment was proposed today, you'd be allowed to own machine guns, grenade launchers, and anti-tank missiles.

You know that there were people who owned warships and cannons back then, right?

That’s very true, but not the same argument. Rate of firing is not the same claim as the authors of the bill of rights would not want parity between the weapons the government possessed, and the weapons the People possess. Please stand by your own arguments.

OP is a faggot

We have a military now, we no longer need a militia.

Stop bringing this up. It's not the same thing. Stop.

>>There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons and it's about time our nation stops pretending they would have.

Then get rid of your computer and start printing on a printing press, fagtard. They obviously couldn't have foreseen computers back then.

youtube.com/watch?v=I_V0eXPB-aY

The british also cheaped out on repeating rifles and breach loaders, which could have changed their fortune in favor of the India pattern which was significantly cheaper. The same as most of the military still uses M16 and M4's while the HK416 is just creeping into circulation and the SCAR is operators only.

We had a military then as well you deplorable fuck

Well then you should be cool with what we have now, cause the military has full auto shit and we don't. Also you are an enormous faggot. When do you transition?

Except an excess of fire extinguishers directly correlates with a reduction in fires, where as a an excess of guns does not correlate with a reduction of gun violence. Quite the contrary in fact.

I kinda want to see a manufacturer make a modern musket.

Same musket but black, carbon fibre, with rails and an adjustable stock.

>The bill of rights passed in September 25, 1789
>The girandoni air rifle 1776, used in the Lewis and Clark expedition funded by Thomas Jefferson 22 shots in thirty seconds
>Belton Flintlock 1777 could fire 20 shots in 5 seconds
>Duck's foot pistol could shoot 3-5 shots all at once
>volley guns
>Blunderbuss was used by Portugal and Britain, basically a shotgun, invented over 200 years before amendment number 2.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbuss
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

>Why do gun freaks always leave this little tidbit out, huh?
Daww, it's illiterate

Going by that logic, then the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to the internet, radio, or television. Only voice and pen/paper. Your move, faggot.

>the 2nd am was written before assault rifles were guns so they arent protected
well technically the bill of rights was written before blacks were considered people so do u really wanna base political decisions around chronologically based intent? you just stripped all human rights from muh blacks

...

Unlike you I actually took the time to read Heller vs District of Columbia decision.

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

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

To sum it up, you're a dumb ass

>stop bringing this up
the absolute state of international jewry

None of that matters. Why? Ask yourself "what was a 'musket'"?

The answer is "it was what soldiers were armed with." By that standards the ARs we have are gimped toys.

Well regulated simply meant well armed, not "very controlled by a bureaucrat".
If anyone is having any trouble with 'initial intent', please read Madison in the Federalist Papers. If you no longer think initial intent is important, than you go by the laws of today, which are what they are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

>Stop bringing this up. I have no argument to refute you. Pls stop, no bully
FTFY faggot

People could buy artillery back then so modern weapons are still protected by the second amendment.

There's 7 different gun-shitposter threads up right now all with the same bullshit and if I don't see them cleaned up I'm going to fucking 8gag and staying.
WE HAVE THIS FUCKING THREAD SEVERAL TIMES AT THE SAME TIME EVERY SINGLE DAY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT GOD DAMN

Shutup cocksucker, guns are fun.

22 shots in 30 seconds (44 RPM) is far fewer than the AR15s 600 RPM.
The Belton Flinklock does not actually exist.
Shooting 3 - 5 rounds at once means its more deadly for one person, it does not facilitate mass shootings.
Volly guns were not portable.

All horrible examples.

>Stop bringing this up. It's not the same thing. Stop.
Not an argument. Baiting faggot, go do something else with your time.

>In case none of you realized it, the second amendment was written in 1776,

The surpreme court has ruled that SHALL involves all weapons.

Until 1932 you could mail order Browning heavy machine guns.

FUCK OFF SHILL

gay bait thread, sage

By all accounts doesn't this mean that there should be some provision for the "people" to receive training and equipment from the state or at least special protections in the assembly of their own? Not in an amendment form of course, but in some form of federal regulation.

Does the second amendment mention muskets?
Fuck of shill faggot slide thread.

Every developed country on the planet has a similar blue line, but most don't have the red line. Hence no correlation. Crime has been in a freefall for the last few decades regardless of gun ownership.

Sup Forums < Does this look like printed handbills nailed to fenceposts? Because the First amendment was written in 1787. And this was all they had. So shut the fuck up and get off the Interwebs.

>written in 1776
No, you moron. Constitution was written in 1787. Amendments even after that.

Oh look, it's this thread again.

sage

This is a bait thread.
However at the time muskets were modern military equipment.

The government should always fear the people. Not the other way around.

>The founding fathers would have never understood that weapon technology would have eventually evolved beyond it's current point like it has been throughout all of history

Musket = high tech military equipment in 1776
Admendments 1-10 still hold their original meaning from 1776
Why should the second admendment be any different ?

Hahah your boss should fire you for this shit post. I'm a leaf and I know the first amendment was written after 1776. Share blue hires the dumbest of the dumb

I'm Russian but
SHALL

It does look like a musket to me. Same basic concept, same function, same operation method.

You raise an important point. No where in the text or the discussion of its ratification is the second amendment meant to be applied to modern small arms. It simply says arms. If they did not mean the broadest interpretation then they would have specified. As such the destructive device category in the national firearms act is blatantly unconstitutional. The government has no legitimate authority to restrict the ownership of artillery.

The Musket was actually pretty low tech. It was just cheap and plentiful like the AR platform is now.

FUCK OFF SHILL

>All they had were muskets.

Just not true. And no matter how many times we prove to you faggots otherwise, it never sinks in.

"the belton flintlock never existed"
>But Congress recognized it's existence so they knew this weapon could one day be in public hands

You actually spent time typing this? Fuck off.

>yeomen owned cannon and warships
Yea, lets get back to what the founders intended, ill take a heli carrier with a 76mm and truck mounted smart bofors please.

Ya'll should really take the time to read District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia was a brilliant writer.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

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

...

There also was no internet, should we diminish freedom of speech because of its power?

It isn't though. Can you pull the trigger ten times a second? And even if you could, how long would your barrel go before it melted and warped?

You motherfuckers are equally against muskets as well. Recently silencerco came out with a musket with a suppressor integrally built in. It was supposed to be 50 state legal. Guess who's against it? Yup liberal ant gunners. Fuck y'all

It wasn’t only about muskets, the founding fathers allowed cannons. Search up “Steven Crowder gun control", he explains it well.

the continental army actually had repeating rifles. their rifles had also been far superior to the english army muskets. the continental army, privately funded, aggregated funding from private industry, machinists, and technologists

by the 1820s america also had the best ships on the planet, many of them being built and oeprated by private individuals

the founders made the second amendment assuming that the arms given to civvies could be vastly fucking superior to army grade firearms/ships

>that .jpg name
stop shitting up the board fuckhead

it looks amazing is what it looks like

Sup JIDF slide thread,

White citizens should be able to bear the same range of arms as the government. Back then it was muskets, today we should legalize owning tanks, drones and nuclear weapons.

sage

I can promise you, you’d rather be shot by that than a 50 cal musket ball.

Completely inaccurate

Guns were the most power weaponry at the time as well

Well regulated means ability to maintain and operate.

>2nd ammendment:
>YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED A SHITTY MUSKET OR BLACKPOWDER GUN BECAUSE IM TOO RETARDED TO SEE WHY YOUD NEED A REAL GUN OOOH

You do know that there are civilian entities in the united states right now that own and develop nuclear devices right? This goes for chemical and biological agents and every form of tactical and strategic weapon in US inventory or development.

Do you notice that we never have any problems with those owners. Do you know one thing that they have in common. Virtually no feelings based regulations whatsoever. There are people right now that own working jet fighters and attack helicopters and main battle tanks. Who wants to take a bet that your faggot ass can't stand that and would try to take it away without any legal provocation?

The main flaw with you gun grabbing faggots is that you dismiss the fundamental purpose of the second amendment. It has almost nothing to do with what kinds of arms. It has to do with what kinds of rights to employ them as the people see fit. At minimum 300,000 americans use guns defensively every year. Literally tens of millions have one for their own protection. Your problem is that you dismiss their right as non existent. That is why you will never win an argument without emotional or systematic coercion. If you really hated guns you would want the government to give up its guns too, but you don't. You hate freedom. You hate the lack of control over others. That's why if you ever god forbid did get the guns you would just move to the next (((moral outrage))) and ban that. You cunts are the problem. Big pharma is the problem. Feminism and the communist indoctrination camps you call schools are the problem. My guns sitting safely in their hermetically controlled safe are not the problem. Get the fuck over it and sort yourself out. Or come and try and take them pussy.

You're a fucking idiot. Do you really believe that the founding fathers thought that was the end of technological advancements as of let's say 1776?

Just because the technology/weaponry changes the core principle is we have the right to defend ourselves from foreign or domestic threats, fuck off you piece of shit.

sounds perfect to me

That's not me!! That's someone else who works here.

Um, no one is talking about slides here, therefore this is not a slide thread.

tl;dr?

>There's no way the founders would have been alright with civilians having military style assault weapons

Yes, they would have. How do we know? They literally explained it for 3 months in congress as they were writing the second amendment. They even explained it in a "future" tense, which covers AR-15s.

This

It doesn't matter. We got em, and pussies like you can't do anything about it.

> jWud
yeah, rite, kike
sage

What are you talking about? Are you mentally ill?

No one is out to get you.

...

Actually, if you do a best fit line you'll see that there is a slight negative correlation, which means that in fact gun ownership DOES have a small positive effect in reducing homicide rates (see pic, I made it myself, there's others too as well though).

What I find funny is that I don't see where you're getting with the no correlation thing. If there is no correlation between crime and gun ownership.. then why does it matter to regulate guns at all?

>>chieftain no know nail club invented yet

Such a retarded argument.

The point is that the people can defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical state and keep the state from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

If the Founding Fathers were here and saw that the state had "military style assault weapons" they would want civilians to have them too.

Please, stop being so fucking retarded.

>Muskets we're military standard hardware
>Founding fathers talked about the need to cleanse government through bloodshed every generation
>OP is a literal fucking retard