How can a ban of pic related in America

be justified under the Second Amendment?

Any serious reason?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/kbqTpuDu51M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Occupational_Taxpayers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Those aren't actually banned though, user. There are self-contained backpack style models available in 7.62x39. All you need is the appropriate tax stamps and a shitload of money to actually buy one.

t. Youtube.

SHALL

Reminder miniguns not attached to something do not exist.

It's not justified, so people can buy them.


But tell me, cuckland, when was the last time somebody shot up a public place with a fucking minigun?

Not even to your hands to fire it?

So can any American buy a fully automatic gun (excluding states like Calif and Jew York)? Other than purchasing the actual gun, what kind of hoops do you have to jump through?

Syria sometime in the last week I'm guessing :^)

There's a handle though

Even if you could easily get one, why the fuck would you?
there's nothing to do with it that you can't do with much smaller and easier to carry guns

you can buy them in CA and NY

but lots of liberal states like that will do their fucking best to make sure you can't via stupid amounts of paperwork, licensing and telling the sheriff that is supposed to sign off on it simply not to sign off on it

It's a movie prop, dimwit.

>when was the last time somebody shot up a public place with a fucking minigun?

October 2002 when I was playing GTA Vice City.

>Reminder miniguns not attached to something do not exist.
In pic related the minigun is attached to Mac.

I ask this because I keep getting conflicting answers. Some people say only single-fire guns can be purchased by civilians, others say you can get full-auto weapons like the M-16.

This morning actually, GTA V, in downtown Los Santos.

You can get it anywhere but you give up your 4th amendment rights to do so, which should be criminal. The police can come and search your home anytime without notice and you have to check in with the authorities regularly after paying fucktons of fees to get the class 3/4? license to own a full auto weapon.

RIP Mac, you crazy moon talking nigger.

>He can't buy a tank

Theres something special about fully automatics

All Automatics that were not grandfathered were banned in 1986

This basically means any automatic gun made before 1986 is grandfathered. But with that, to transfer said guns is a huge bureaucratic nightmare. You have to have a lot of licenses, paperwork, fucking tax stamps its ridiculous

This isn't even the expensive part, the gun itself is incredibly rare and valuable because the supply of pre '86 guns is so low. So the owner is definitely getting his money's worth selling it off

It can't, but the pro-gun lobby know when to pick their battles. Pushing to legalise something like that is a pipe dream when the left are still unironically pushing for shit like bullet buttons.

US v Miller sets the definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment.

NOT

ok cool, tks

So as a civilian, it would be illegal for me to buy a full-auto AK-74 since they are not grandfathered (if they were available for sale)?

NFA 1968 amendments made for the legal headache with class 3 SOT firearms.

FOPA banned the sale and transfer of full-auto rifles MANUFACTURED after 1986.

There isn't any.
It is entirely unconstitutional

There are only like 3 miniguns on the NFA registry available for private personal ownership.

I demand the right to own a nuclear weapon... for self defense.

Depends on the state also what the m16a3 is full auto but not the m16a4 do you even gun bro

>So as a civilian, it would be illegal for me to buy a full-auto AK-74 since they are not grandfathered (if they were available for sale)?

NO.

You would have to be licensed by the ATF and then apply for a class 3 SOT, pay the tax, and then you can only purchased an ak-74 made before 1986.

No. And because the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's up to you to justify why it should be banned, not the other way around.

>4 different fucking bills and agencies to ban one series of guns that has never been used in a mass shooting let alone crime

>So as a civilian, it would be illegal for me to buy a full-auto AK-74 since they are not grandfathered (if they were available for sale)?
AK-74's are made across a wide array of years. You can probably find ones made after 1986.

But magically, one made before 1986 is legal and one made after 1986 is illegal, despite being 100% identical

They make you wait anywhere from 6 months to upwards of 2 years depending which county you live in in NY to get a pistol, even completely clean with no record. Plus, at least in upstate NY, you need to find at least 5 people to be interviewed on your behalf, and they have to reside in the same county which you're applying for the permit, and they CANNOT be family.

A lot of people see those requirements plus the wait, and just think "well, that's tough." It more or less makes it that getting a pistol in NY is reserved for those who can either pay five people who live in the county to lie for them, or some social madonnas "hey spam your facebook to get interviewed about me getting a gun."

It's bullshit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist in NY.

land of the free my ass

yeah I was talking about the latest ones, the AK-74M.

There are ak74 full auto receivers and trigger groups on the registry

If you want to know more about the convoluted bullshit that is the NFA link related along with several links in the description.

youtu.be/kbqTpuDu51M

Also the NFA soley targets law abiding people and is basically no different than a poll tax. It is amazing it still exist and hasn't been struck down

>US v Miller sets the definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment.
How can the SCOTUS "define" a term 150 years after it was used first?

And how does this argument: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." make any sense? Why should a minigun not be required for a regulated militia?

Very, very, very few authentic Ak-74 exist in the hands of private us collectors. Also, it is a fact that there is one legitimate AKS-74U registered in the states, it was given to a senator by a mujahideen during their war with the soviets.

It doesn't.
It is shitty mental gymnastics to justify an authoritarian agenda.

The only reason they get away with it is because "guns are scurry"

>They make you wait anywhere from 6 months to upwards of 2 years depending which county you live in in NY to get a pistol, even completely clean with no record. Plus, at least in upstate NY, you need to find at least 5 people to be interviewed on your behalf, and they have to reside in the same county which you're applying for the permit, and they CANNOT be family.
This is for a conceal carry pistol, not a regular pistol license. A regular pistol license just requires the license itself and to take a class.

Its pretty dumb but your entire latter statement is for CC's which means theres few actual NY-ers who have a CC because the law is so fucking thick

>I demand the right to own a nuclear weapon... for self defense.

As an American that is entirely reasonable. Nuclear arms are still arms.

On the subject of NFA weapons, will the Hughe's Amendment ever be repealed, Burgerbros?

There are also several AR-15s that are full auto that have been registered for private transfer after the 86 ban that were "allowed" as political favors/bribes that were originally given to a few politicians who sold them for the exhortant sums they go for

yeah I meant to specify some of the more recent iterations of the AK-47 design, eg. post 1986

No that couldn't be reasonable. Those are WMDs, and no private entity has any place/good reason/money to test a nuke for fun.

Not anytime soon.

We're currently fighting to get suppressors off the NFA

>Hugh's Amendment
not without offering something to the other side.

I'd would be for universal instant background checks in exchange for hugh's amendment repeal.

>As an American that is entirely reasonable. Nuclear arms are still arms.
That is not exactly correct.

People have the right to own and bear arms which are required for a functioning and regulated militia. A militia does not need nukes. A militia essentially needs the same weapons as the police, the coast guard, the state reserves etc., so light tanks, miniguns, AA guns, helicopters, explosives, hand granades, AK-47s etc. But nukes is a national defense matter which a militia doesn't need. Similarly, a 1789 battleship is probably not an "arm" protected by the second amendment.

>yeah I meant to specify some of the more recent iterations of the AK-47 design, eg. post 1986
There are some out there but they're exclusively in the hands of class three manufacturers/dealers who own them as "post dealer samples" used to demonstrate to law enforcement and military.

I can.

However, I'd have to get rubber tracks & outfit it with all the proper signal lamps and lights, and then find someplace to register & insure it... then I could drive it down roads.

>No that couldn't be reasonable. Those are WMDs, and no private entity has any place/good reason/money to test a nuke for fun.

Isn't the second amendment designed so that citizens can overthrow a tyrannical regime? The citizens should be allowed any weapon the government possesses. When all governments give up nukes then the citizens don't need them.

This is clarified by US v Miller

to refer to personal arms that can be effectively mustered by the militia.

the arms must be:
1. commonly owned
2. applicable to defense of the commons

to be protected arms under the 2nd.

Miller decided that definition was congruent with the notion of "arms" in 1787. This meant that uncommon or unusual arms can be infringed upon at the congress' discretion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Yes.

To kill commies with and their commie military-police state. To be prepared and trained for foreign invaders to your country.

Second amendment was for the purpose of a well regulated militia. What good is a militia that cannot compete with its enemies? All weapons are justified.

The practical problem is; You can responsibly own, safeguard, protect and utilize a point of aim point of impact weapon like a gun.

You can't do those things /w a nuclear bomb.

thats wrong

see here

Nukes really stickied up a lot of shit. Even though I'm full pro-2nd amendment, they probably shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but the military. Once they become available to anyone, not everyone will be as careful with them as the US military (and yes I know there were some pretty huge security lapses recently, but the govt can still provide more security)

It's like you've never played battlefield, any WW2 game, ace combat, or watched battle footage in the middle east recently
If it's needed in modern warfare it's needed by our citizens, because if we ever have to overthrow the government you can be sure as shit we will need it since they won't hesitate to use the military upon us equipped with those very weapons
Now fuck off cuck, we got a country to save

...

the major point of the militia clause is that if they are not popular arms, they don't count.

Also improperly stored maintained and transported nuclear devices can accidentally kill people just by being improperly stored maintained and transported.
Nuclear material is inherently unsafe and virtually impossible to limit the scope of damage to one persons property.

...

Heh, just like computers or any system, humans are the weakest link in security. That's how Jew take over technological memetic systems.

>missing the definition of "arms"

to cosplay as heavy from tf2

to cosplay as a Reich Heavy Trooper

except not a single human being died from a radioactive leak from a nuclear weapon ever.

Disinformation paid shill. He is wrong about almost all of that.

t. NFA collector

>all models after 1986 are banned, leaving just 12 or so around that are "legal"
>not banned

No faggot. No licenses to buy a pre-86 transferable. Just a $200 tax stamp. You're either a paid shill or an uninformed millenial

Why would you allow the government to decide what is a "popular arm"? If 3D printed suitcase nukes become easily accessible and everyone makes one is it then a popular arm?

Fuck
Off
Shill


Stop spreading disinformation

> you give up your 4th amendment rights

not after FOPA

>pucklegun
>grenades
>canons
>warships

shut up faggot

men are talking

>Too retarded to know the definition of what arms means.

Open wide so I can spoon feed you.
arms
noun
1.weapons and ammunition; armaments.

I'm sure they weren't talking about coat of arms.

>Why would you allow the government to decide what is a "popular arm"?

1. I didn't allow them anything

2. a popular is decided by the people, hence, the definition of "popular"

>If 3D printed suitcase nukes become easily accessible and everyone makes one is it then a popular arm?

No because it fails the second test.
It not useful for defense of the commons.

Its like defending your house from burglars by lighting it on fire.

>you would have to be licensed by the ATF

Nope lying faggot


>and then apply for a class 3 SOT

TOTALLY UNRELATED TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FAGGOT

>pay the tax

I don't even know which tax you are being wrong about here, SOTs have lots of taxes but they're literally manufacturing new machine guns (for R&D purposes, law enforcement or military use only)

>and then you can only purchased an ak-74 made before 1986.

The only thing you got right. Find overpriced machine gun, pay $200 tax, wait 6 months for approval. The waiting is the only real shit part, that and the jEwed prices.

I suspect this shill is another NFAcuck trying to make people think it's harder o get into, so they won't join his "little club".

Doesn't want people to know how it's really very easy. Fuck the ATF of all people have made it easier with online filing for that $200 stamp now

You didn't do your homework, stupid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

>nice dictionary.com reference

this is why you don't have a law degree.

Miniguns aren't even cost efficient If not strapped to a chopper,why are you guys arguing over something you won't even bother having anyhow? I know you want to keep muh gun liberty,but If someone owns a fucking minigun,I doubt he is looking for self defense.

you actually have to jump through some big hoops. and get a NFA tax stamp. Criminals cant get these tax stamps or jump through these hoops so if they want an automatic they'll convert it illegally.

You need an FFL to get an SOT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Occupational_Taxpayers

You are moron

go murder yourself

Sorry you got owned bro

Tell me more about all the licenses I Must have forgotten about when buying my transferable Cobray .380

(Fun little buzz gun)

>No because it fails the second test. It not useful for defense of the commons.

Could nukes not be used against a valid military target? If the government has the ability to nuke its own population shouldn't the citizens have to ability to nuke it back?

Don't need a SOT to buy pre-86 NFA.

You don't know shit. Stop learning about what you think gun laws are by watching retards on YouTube or listening to the fat "ex navy seal" who sold you a mosin Nagant

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

GO EDUCATE YOURSELF LITTLE NOGUNZ FAGGOT

Not technically banned, you can still own one registered before March 1986. If you REALLY wanted one, you could get an FFL, then get a letter from Law Enforcement saying it's a 'sample' for demonstrations and potential sale to police. The problem with that is it's considered 'non-transferrable', meaning it can only be sold to LE or other FFLs, and must be turned in or destroyed if you lose you FFL.

About half the MGs in Gunbroker seem to be of this type, many of which are clearly not intended for LE sales.

>Could nukes not be used against a valid military target?

on your own land?

sorry, your too dumb for this debate.

>WELL
>REGULATED
>MILITIA

Literally the first words.

stop talking to fucking chumps, then.

just go read the laws.

>posts box of shit

kewl proofs dood

>big hoops
>find thing you want
>live in state that doesn't explicitly prohibit it aka NOT KEK JERSEY
>pay for it, $500ish for a decent silencer, $4-5000 for an entry level Mac-11 type, $8-9k for a meme UZI, $20-30k for an ar15 type (depending on conversation method, sear, etc) $50-60k for a very rare thing like a transferable ak74 import
>download a form
>upload a fingerprint scan for the background check
>pay ATF $200
>wait 6 months
>new range toy

That isn't for if you just want to buy NFA idiot

You really are mad right now, is it because you can't even buy a mosin Nagant until you're 18?

>People have the right to own and bear arms which are required for a functioning and regulated militia
The sentence doesn't specify "arms for the militia" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed"

I'd love to have a minigun. Got a couple of shotguns, anything other than that is extremely difficult or even impossible to get here legally.

while never legally acquired via tax stamp and then used in a crime, an assault rifle has been used in a crime before. sort of.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

the rifle had been modified, illegally, to fire automatic, so it probably had a fire selector switch -- making it an assault rifle.

>point of the militia clause is that if they are not popular arms, they don't count.
No the militia clause simply gives the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed.

The first half of the sentence could say "Due to antigunners being illiterate faggots,the right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed" and it would have the exact same grammatical meaning

have fun going to jail

>reported to FBI

Where's your SOT? Where's your FFL?

You don't need a SOT or FFL to buy a machine gun. You need it to engage in the business of buying or selling guns.

Where did you get your non-knowledge? /k/? Lol that's like getting tech knowledge from Sup Forums

>No the militia clause simply gives the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed.

wrong
wrong
wrong

The militia clause may not limit who can own guns, but it definitely limits why type of guns can be beared.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

popularity is defined by the choices the people make to possess various arms. however, if something has been banned for 100 years, you cannot rule it unpopular because the people have not been given the option to popularize it.

and you don't need either to buy an NFA title 2 item.

definitely stop posting now.

This type of common law shit has been one of the worst affronts to American liberty in history.

This is the kind of decision that is made by judges with an agenda.
Ffs we've had multiple Supreme Court justices outright say that the second amendment only protects the militias to have guns.

To add insult to injury with that particular decision their whole argument was it needed to be used in the military and the ignorant justices didn't know that soldiers routinely used short barreled shotguns