Suppose we developed energy weapons, including rifles and sidearms. Suppose these weapons were many times more powerful than even the most high caliber chemical based firearms we have today. Suppose you could destroy a car with a single shot from an energy rifle.
Should these be covered by the second amendment?
Better question - if you developed a firearm replacement that was 100% equal to or better than a traditional gun in terms of reliability, life of hardware, magazine capacity, ability to stop a target, rate of fire, etc. but was non-lethal, would 2nd amendment babbys still cry about shall not be infringed?
Yes.
Nah man the 2nd clearly states, "... Shall not be infringed unless. A non lethal alternative is created, then all lethal weapons must be turned into the government and made illegal for a civilian to own."
Pretty cut and dry stuff so they literally can't complain
SHALL
>I have to live by this centuries old document and can never reinterpret it because it is old
Sharia4America
>Slowly give away your rights goy, they're old and irrelevant in today's day
It used to cover cannons so yes it would likely cover any energy weapons to an extent.
yes.
They won't ever reach that level, anything non-lethal at least
Pretty sure flamethrowers are largely unregulated as is, so go for it.
This would be retarded. The second amendment isn't just for personal self-defense. It's also to give the people the means to defend themselves from invasion and a tyrannical government. Non-lethal weapons wouldn't be much good.
While we're on the subject Nipon.
When is your first Mech finished? And will that be covered by any amendment?
Yup. Don't give a shit bitchtits.
>what is shall not be infringed
>Should these be covered by the second amendment?
Yes. There's no reason why they shouldn't.
Most firearm restrictions cover the form of the gun, such as short barrels.
"Desctructive Devices", which does talk about the amunition you use, covers bombs, grenades, missles, and rockets, and .50 caliber rounds expelled by "the action of an explosive or other propellant". Nothing about energy projectiles in there.
So, unless your energy weapon somehow counts as a nuclear device, your right to own and carry one would be protected.
Of course
Odaiba already has an RX78, they're building another gundam now.
Flamethrowers are illegal in California dont know about other states
To this day I've yet to see someone so thoroughly BTFO as Piers was in this image.
Still love it
Rekt
HOLY
O
L
Y
SHIT
H
I
T
BTFO
T
F
O
It says "arms," not "guns," not "muskets," not "knives." Arms. The right to keep and bear arms.
>using California as a measure of what weapons are legal in the US
Why should the government be able to use something they forbid their people from having
>100% equal in ability to stop a target
>non-lethal
clearly they would not be 100% equal in this regard unless your gun is putting them in a coma
fuck yes
and america is going to be the one selling them to you
#1
Some weapons are too dangerous to leave in the hands of any one person. For example, weapons of mass destruction.
as a non american can someone explain
because the gubbermint is oh so trustworthy and has the peoples best interests in mind!
ignore all the things they have done wrong towards their own people and continue to do!
honestly only cops and the military should ever have guns!
BTW the cops are racist and biased and untrustworthy!
-T.Liberal logic
>he thinks the AER-9 Lazer Rifle wont be covered under the 2nd Amendment
lmao
what is it about the word "arms" that's so hard to comprehend?
should we? yea
will we be able to? probably not
I imagine they would classify them as weapons of mass destruction
Why are such weapons acceptably safer in the hands of governments than citizens?
There is no mention of muskets in the amendment, just "arms".
The problem of course is that arms will continue to get more powerful and more dangerous. Imagine a nigger with an energy rifle capable of blowing a hole the size of a window in the side of your house - or worse.
What if the weapons can completely vaporize a person? It'll be hard to prove murder without a body.
Morgan was being his usual cucked self
Trying to put in his knife binning input into shit he knows nothing about talking about muskets being what the founding fathers had in mind about the 2nd.
A based bitch pulled some shit out of her ass that is actually implied.
Morgan drops his bull's cum catcher to reply calling her out being passive aggressive because he's a numale. Asking her to show him where that is.
She replies with, "it's next to 'musket'"
Muskets wasn't in the Constitution so basically calling his 1st post what it was, bull shit
When are we banning high capacity assault plasma weapons?
>Why are such weapons acceptably safer in the hands of governments than citizens?
Why are such weapons acceptably safer in the hands of more than one person than one person? Is that what you are trying to change the point from?
Does freedom of the press only cover printing presses?
Bear arms, it says nothing about muskets or cannons. It covers everything.
Idea of second amendment is to out ordinary citizens on pair with military. That equality ended long time ago. If anything, second amendment should be modified to allow citizens to own military grade equipment regardless of state.
With that in mind, no amount of firepower is too great for second amendment.
If your government can nuke entire city of misbehaving citizens, you should be able to do it as well.
Balance of strengths has to be maintained.
NOT
thank you
A frequent anti-gun argument (which Piers Morgan uses here) is that at the time when 2nd Ammendment was written, people only used muskets, so it should not protect people's rights to have handguns and assault rifles.
Carol correctly points out that no where in the US Constitution (wherein the 2nd Amendment appears) does it mention what type of gun the 2nd Amendment applies to.
If you actually look at the writings of the people who wrote US Constitution, most of them support citizens owning weapons for both self-defense and protection against hostile governments, with on-par weapons.
Furthermore, there were indeed handgun-sized and semi-automatic large magazine weapons at that time period as well, so the people who were responsible for the 2nd Amendment did indeed have those weapons "in mind"
I wouldn't say that there is a grave imbalance because motivated and well-prepared civilians have more training, better equipment and aren't bound by any rules of engagement
as far as armor and artillery are concerned, those tend to either change sides or get captured in combat thereby equalizing things in this regard
air force can also be dealt with after raids on military depots, MANPADS are easy af to use and you need about 7 seconds to get a lock and fire
logistics are paramount and with grassroots support, they become a non-issue for citizens and a nightmare for the opposition
any domestic opposition is hard psychologically for it's one thing to fire at sandniggers instead of your own flesh and blood
Why should it be reinterpreted? They wrote it with specific purpose.
But energy weapons will never exist, OP.
Do you know the amount of energy required to power a laser that would effectively cause damage?
Unless you're able to carry a fresnel lens everywhere and make a weapon out of it, but good luck.