It may be true that I don't NEED a high powered rifle but the second amendment says I can have one

It may be true that I don't NEED a high powered rifle but the second amendment says I can have one.

It is also true that I don't NEED to hear whiney bitches cry about guns but the first amendment says cry babies can cry all they want.

What I wonder is why people actively want to give up their rights?
If they succeed in hindering the 2nd what will come next?
The same people ready to give up their second are also trying to impede their own 1st with hate speech regulations.
50 years from now we will have no guns, no expression, no trials, and we will all be slaves housing military personnel.

>for the record I only own a couple handguns and a couple shotguns. No Automatic Rifle, 15 clip per second, military assault rifle with baby seeking bullets.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Justifying homosexuality is like trying to justify eating shit.

>AR-15
>high powered

second amendment doesn't mention AR-15's
Doesn't say that random disorganized citizens with automatic weapons counts as militia either.

should make an official militia group sanctified by government to own automatic weapons
vigorous testing and requirements for joining official militia
all non military and citizens not officially recognized by militia are not allowed to own anything better than a shotgun

>the second amendment says I can have one.
The second amendment doesn't give you your rights.
The government doesn't give you your rights.

The only thing that gives you your rights is your firearm and being enlightened about your freedom to fucking use it on redcoat cowards.

According to the gungrabbers it is the highest powered, most deadly rifle ever made.

But I do need it for more power.

Actually, it does. The right to bear arms is guaranteed to the people, not to the militia.

Constitution doesn't say you need to belong to a "militia" to own guns, it says because militias are important to a free society the people have the right to bear arms.

/thread

Why have a second amendment and MUH GUNS if the government keeps eternally fucking you in the ass whether you have them or not?
Wasn't the point of the gunst to stop the government from pulling bullshit on you?

Thinking a 200 year old paper gives you anything.

Don't sweat it.

The "Day of the Rope" is coming.

And this time, the cowards can't survive without electricity and water being pumped into their homes.

I think your confusing the word AR-15 with firearms.
Notice how I said that civilians should have weapons?

See:
Come and take it, you cowardly fuck.

And if you pay the government to do it for you, well...

See:

i hope they get rid of that dam 5th amendment

I didn't say that?
Or are you implying that the second amendment says that we have a right to bear automatic firearms?

Err...

See:
instead

Yes.

>the second amendment says I can have one.

No, you have the right to have one.

The 2nd Amendment says that the government cannot infringe on your right to have one.

It's not the paper, it's the words and their meanings, DIPSHIT

So you're saying it doesn't matter whether you have guns or not?
In a "day of rope" scenario i guess everyone having guns makes it a full PvP zone, so if your plan is for everyone to exterminate each other then it may work out.

>Or are you implying that the second amendment says that we have a right to bear automatic firearms?

The 2nd Amendment does not limit what arms we have the right to. Nothing in the wording limits the action type, caliber, or capacity.

It doesn't even have an asterisk and then at the bottom of the page say "*I mean, you know, within reason."

Automatic weapons were being developed soon after firearms were invented so I'm going to go with yes.

Words mean shit! We was kangs and shit. You sound like a fucking retarded nigger.

>Thinking a 200 year old paper gives you anything.

A 200 year old paper from which the federal government derives it's authority to this day, yes.

The gun isn't leaving my possession until my hands cannot hold it.

Here in glorious 'Murica, we can collectively tell the existing government to go suck cocks in faggotland.

>AR-15
>high powered rifle
This is false.

All memes aside, there is no reason an ordinary civilian should be allowed to buy an AR-15.

>because I can
Yes there is, you fucking cuck.

that it's some people's fetish?

>.223
>high power

choose one

More power.

There is a reason, the government fears its people.

>we can collectively tell the existing government to go suck cocks
So, why haven't you stopped the foreign intervention all around the world and ME? The cold war mentality and unwillingness to cooperate with Russia? Obamacare? The obnoxious support to Israel? The crisis with illegal immigration? The outsorcing of jobs to foreigners? The ever increasing debt?
The fact that Trump rose the way he did means that people are absolutely fed up with the government. It also means that even if they were fed up no one bothered to do shit, and i guess their guns were put to great use in shooting ranges and coffins under your bed.

Sure, hold your guns all you want. I guess they look cool enough to make for a good decoration.

Everyone read this.
Learn it.
Link it in all anti gun threads.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Police are not here to protect citizens, according to Washington DC high court.

He was probably using high powered 5.56 NATO military grade exploding ammunition

>official militia group sanctified by government to own automatic weapons
>vigorous testing and requirements for joining official militia

It's called the Army, idiot.

Anybody else can own non-auto weapons except for certain regulated and taxed & licensed firearms.

Gun ownership is a fucking right that you have, simply by being smart enough to be an American. You wouldn't give up your right to free speech, would you? Because that is the next right you'll lose right after you give away your right to bear arms.

Fuck off, shithead.

First amendment makes no mention of the internet, dumbfuck.

There is no reason to have more than one car or different pairs of shoes. If you are a law abiding citizen then I can spend my hard earned money on whatever the fuck I want too

>there is no reason an ordinary civilian should be allowed to buy an AR-15.

Luckily there's a thingy that says I don't need to be "allowed" to buy it.

Also, self defense is a valid reason. Lightweight, accurate, larger capacity could be important so that you don't run out at an inopportune time. And, you know, beyond cosmetics, an AR-15 with a 5 or 10 rd magazine is much like any other semi-auto rifle commonly used for hunting.

Ah, green/red/beige tips.

The first amendment does not protect treason and I highly doubt that the same Founding Fathers who passed the Alien And Sedition Acts would tolerate a vocal minority of culturally foreign avtivists agitating to undo our foundational law.
I do not think the First Amendment protects Michael Bloomberg's perpetual, multi-named anti-freedom campaign.
At the very least, politicians in office should not be allowed to criticize the Bill of Rights at the same time that they are supposed to be upholding and defending it. If they care so much they can step down first.

I saw some article written by some dope that said the 5.56 round can go "unusually fast at 3000 feet per second, unlike the typical 750-1400 feet per second of most handguns."

>comparing rifle round velocity to handgun round velocity to determine the rifle is "unusually fast"

interesting

>50 years from now we will have no guns, no expression, no trials, and we will all be slaves housing military personnel.
That should be OK by you because then you can safely go to your favorite gay bar.

"Outrageous acts of science" had a piece where they said a 12 gauge slug has higher muzzel velocity then a .223 round....

You don't know shit, junior. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't defame or libel someone with impunity. Same for guns: you can't take a fucking gun legally into a private place that says no to your dick extender being there. You fucking liberals think your fucking gun rights are invincible. Just like in your favorite gay bar you just got "Vince-ed".

People afraid of freedom need to GTFO. You don't like the foundation of the country, GTFO.

Not if they take away the 14th.

Nowhere in the constitution are the terms "give" or "grant" used. It mainly tells the federal government what it can NOT do. Americans rights are "endowed by their creator". Even without the 2nd, gun ownership falls under "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property).

the point most people fail to understand, and that I see so much energy and breath wasted here about, is that every law is a law of limits.

that is to say, that you can HAVE an abortion until a certain date. you can OWN a car that goes a certain mph, likewise, you have the freedom of owning a weapon TO A DEGREE.

notice that americans don't have the "right" of owning a tank or rocket launcher. there is A LIMIT TO THE FREEDOM. that being said, the only sensible energy that should be spent is in discussing the "limits" of said freedom. to harp on and on and debate endlessly the merits of "a particular gun" is a useless exercise. every law is made "in abstract", meaning, it defines limits that do not subscribe to A PARTICULAR WEAPON.

that being said, all those ITT who claim they are in favor of gun rights and ownership, what do you believe to be a sensibly described "limit" the this freedom of citizen owned weaponry?

if people truly understood this concept, these threads would have 1/20 the replies that they do.

drop the accusations, drop the defense, and simply describe and define the proper and reasonable limits of said law.

I feel like im a founding father or some shit being so detached and logical when the chaos surrounds me......

You gotta get people motivated.

As of now, people are just trying to keep their family fed.

It's going to take something ridiculous to get them out of their comfy routines.

What potential political power does this grants citizens against an illegitimate government?

You actually can own a tank, I'm not sure about a rocket launcher though, maybe with the correct permits.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little goyim? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Harvard, and I've been involved in numerous secret pyramid schemes in the USA, and I have over 300 million dollars. I am trained in economics and I'm the top jew in the entire society of intellectual hebrews. You are nothing to me but just another customer. I will bankrupt you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of bankers across the USA and your bank account is being drained right now so you better prepare for the eviction, maggot. The eviction that kicks out the pathetic little thing you call your ass. You're fucking broke, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can extort money from you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my holocaust stories. Not only am I extensively trained in ripping you off, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the JIDF and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable trolling off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking goyim tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the unreasonable price of 10% above market value, you goddamn idiot. I will overprice items all around you and you will drown in them. Oy vey, kiddo.

So you're saying that because of the existence automatic weapons prior to the second amendment MUST mean that when they said firearms they meant that

"any laws that prohibit ANY sort of gun is unconstitutional."

No they said firearms with no specifications because they knew that that was a right we should have, it doesn't matter what kind of guns were allowed to own all that matters is that we have them.
We already have regulations about certain guns that aren't allowed to be owned by civilians I don't see you guys complaining about that.

It leaves it up to the citizens to overthrow that government.

again, you all are missing the point.

forget the 2nd amendment

forget anything besides the ACTUAL THOUGHT OF WHAT IS A REASONABLE LIMIT

knowing said situation, knowing people, the united states, WHERE DOES THE LIMIT LIE AND HOW DO WE DEFINE SAID LIMIT

BY WHAT CRITERIA IS IT LOGICAL TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A WEAPON FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP

....I swear people point to papers AS IF they hold some power over "logic", obviously, if the constitution had said "you have a right to own slaves" we would logically would have "amended" that. stop pointing fingers to a goddamn document and start discussing the actual issue

>political power

It gives them actual physical power, not political power. The only political power is the power to vote. Tyrants don't accept the power of the vote, then you have no political power. You can still shoot them in the face, but that's not political power.

relevant

>BY WHAT CRITERIA IS IT LOGICAL TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A WEAPON FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP

Citizenship.

Law-abiding status a bonus.

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment says complete and unhindered gun freedom. Nowhere does it say background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, and restriction of certain weapons are illegal.

>]
Who is the "government"?

The declaration of independence gives us the right of revolution.

Just like cars, you don't need a corvette, they are impractical, environmentally damaging, and very dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's a car just the same, uses the same kind of fuel as other cars. Ok, so insert tactical rifle in there, uses the same ammunition as wooden stock rifles, same velocity, same killing power, and in certain hands can fire just as rapidly. It's a gun, guns are legal, no need to justify anything.

Oh, my bad, I thought you meant the suitability of a person to own a weapon.

The suitability of the weapon itself for civilian ownership:

Discriminant fire?

If yes, it can be used responsibly thus should be allowed.

If not, it cannot be used responsibly thus should not be allowed.

By that standard, full autos and most conventional explosives A-O-Kay and nukes/biological no-nos. Even some larger explosives would be no-nos.

clearly you don't understand how laws work.
All it says is that civilians have the right to have firearms.

The fact that it doesn't specify means that laws prohibiting certain types of firearms (laws that we already have and have been in affect for years) aren't unconstitutional.

If it said "have the right to own any type of firearm" or "there shall be no laws restricting the ownership of any type of firearm" then you would have a point.

But because it doesn't specify the right to any and all forms of firearms or weapons there is nothing unconstitutional about future and CURRENT firearm restriction laws.

and fyi I'm not actually for or against proposed laws to restrict firearms, I see both sides as reasonable but people saying that they're rescinding our constitutional rights is just going completely overboard.

No, it just says "shall not be infringed."

Infringement = limitation.

Background checks violate my presumption of innocence.

Waiting periods delay a right, a right delayed is a right denied.

Mental health checks would have a dubious standard at best.

Restricting certain arms is a limitation on my right to arms.

again you miss the point.

the only logical question to ask, if what limits you wish to ascribe to the citizens in terms of what they can and cannot legally purchase.......

I can't buy a nuclear warhead. I can't drive over the speed limit.

HOW DO WE DEFINE THE LIMIT OF A WEAPON IN REGARDS TO THE LEGALITY OF CITIZEN PURCHASE


i.e. what is the criteria to determine the suitability of a weapon FOR purchase by civilians?

this was has been and remains the only logical question in the whole debate

Bill of RIGHTS, not needs.

You can own a decommissioned (obviously) tank, you can own a rocket launcher, you can own fully automatic weapons. Just follow the laws, get the permits and pay the fees.

If you don't appreciate ALL your rights then move to a totalitarian oppressive shithole and leave the people who appreciate freedom be free.

Until you're allowed to own tanks, land mines, SAM platforms etc I don't think the government will ever fear you user

It seems to me that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

It's true, if I form a militia, even if I am the only member, I should be able to have grenades, bazookas, fully automatic weapons, whatever I want. The amendments that have restrictions say so within those amendments. The 2nd has none.

Arms are infantry/army weapons.

So just let any wannabe mass murderer/terrorist buy guns? Is that what you want?

>The fact that it doesn't specify means that laws prohibiting certain types of firearms (laws that we already have and have been in affect for years) aren't unconstitutional.

Except, you know, it prohibits the government from limiting my right to arms.

Deciding what arms I can't have is kind of limiting.

>If it said "have the right to own any type of firearm"

Then it wouldn't make sense since the right is assumed and the 2nd is just a prohibition on government infringement.

>"there shall be no laws restricting the ownership of any type of firearm"

Right, a general prohibition on government infringement. Clearly what you speak of would fall under that penumbra.

>and fyi I'm not actually for or against proposed laws to restrict firearms

Fyi, you are. You just think you're not because you assume the moderate position is "not for or against." When the moderate position is really "a little infringed."

clearly you don't know what the word militia means...
Hint : IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE MILITARY YOU IGNORAMUS

>Is that what you want?

I want their rights respected, yes.

I also want their potential victims to have the ability to drill them in the face if they actually try some shit.

are you baiting or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

It is a "living" document, not some old piece of parchment. No one will ever agree an a limit. How about discussing opening mental health records and immigration records to background checks. Uh oh, that's a pussy sjw trigger, isn't it?

>Deciding what arms I can't have is kind of limiting.

wow. so you assign no upper limit? you can buy an atomic bomb right? why not?

why wouldn't an atomic bomb be considered an "arm"?

seriously genuinely curious about your simultaneous intelligence and delusion

>if I form a militia

You don't have to do that. The right belongs to the People, not the militia.

See:
The American Revolution

>Everyone on God's green earth is absolutely free.
>You may not like your options, but you're always free to choose from them
>If you choose to live in cowardice, then you have to go back.
>If you choose to be a free man, then you have a responsibility to defend your own rights against infringement.
>It's not the government's job to do that for you, nor is it anyone else's.

This is the meme magic spell that gave birth to this country. This is all it took for men to become enlightened, and the Founding Fathers and company walked the field with their fellow free men just to prove to them how fucking free they were. This was what they camped out on the sidelines of a battlefield waiting to "explain" to the redcoat cowards.

If the feds refuse to honor your constitutional rights, you have the freedom to march onto the White House lawn and evict them. We even have the freedom to toss the existing constitution in the trash and draft up a fucking new one.

That is what is meant by the American Enlightenment. The Constitution doesn't tell YOU what you can do. The Constitution is "We, the People," telling the government what they can do.

>I want terrorists and murderers to be respected and be able to kill freely

Well, at least you admit you're anti-America.

Can own a tank but you can't own any tank shells.
That's an important distinction.

You sissy liberals are the ones opposed to opening mental health and immigration records

Atomic bombs are generally ordnance, considered separate from arms which would be man-portable discriminant fire weapons.

But no, mere ownership of an atomic bomb hurts no one. Irresponsible use of an atomic bomb hurts people. And should be discouraged and the irresponsible party be held liable.

>and be able to kill freely

You kinda ignored the "shoot him in the face is he actually tries anything" part.

>you sissy liberal are the ones opposed to opening mental health and immigration records

Who are you talking about?

>but you can't own any tank shells.

Yes you can. They are federally regulated under the NFA of 1934 and each shell is subject to its own registration and taxation requirement as a Destructive Device.

>no, mere ownership of an atomic bomb hurts no one. Irresponsible use of an atomic bomb hurts people.

so, hypothetically, if it were proposed that atomic bombs could be sold on the open market with no restrictions, you would have no objections from a legal point of view? no qualms whatsoever?

I don't think that means what you think it means

Well then, the government should just hand out guns to every single citizen so we can all protect ourselves from anyone crazy with a gun. There are some people who can't afford a gun and we wouldn't want to create an inequality.

This will definitely lower gun deaths.

>AR15
>high powered rifle

good one

>No Automatic Rifle
these are illigual in the US

>why people actively want to give up their rights?
The same reason merican christians worshipe asrashit, they were rise to do so; immagine if you were told something is so since you were born, you would believe it as that; your people were rised to be a they are; look up denazification of the germans.

atomic weapons exterminate hundreds of thousands of people, it isn't something used by infantry or armies, if so then yes.

>slippery slope
shit thread matie

See your problem here is the assumption that any of these people calling for gun bans own a gun. They don't. To them guns are probably spooky boom-blasty-go-dead machines. I swear they're like the Native Americans the first time they saw the Spanish with cannons and muskets.

I would be hesitant, but I mean, the government already has them. Other governments already have them. Any of those could be used on you at any minute. What's a few more gonna hurt?

But there is a world of difference between a firearm, even a full auto with explosive incendiary rounds, and an atomic bomb. As a thought experiment, I would reluctantly err on the side of freedom. Should I die, I die a little freer than the alternative.