OK Gun fags, I'm here to prove that even you don't fully believe in the right to bear arms

OK Gun fags, I'm here to prove that even you don't fully believe in the right to bear arms

The first amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, arms could be ANY type of weapon, a tank, RPG, Nuclear weapon, assault helicopter, grenade you nae it they are all arms

So unless you un-ironically support the right of people to have those arms YOU DO BELIEVE IN ARMS CONTROL

B BU BU BUT, those weapons didn't exist when the amendment was passed...
>well neither did the AR 15 or anything other than a single shot smooth-bore musket or pistol

My point is we both agree that arms should be controlled and regulated, even restricted by the government, we just draw the line in different places

Other urls found in this thread:

fpif.org/much-nuclear-weapon-actually-cost/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_weapons
militaryfactory.com/smallarms/guns-1700-1799.asp
sli.mg/RRwNZV
youtube.com/watch?v=RCLbU_MdGrg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>first amendment

oh shit your right second

I'm actually totally cool with all of that. It's not like most would be able to afford that shit, but I think people have the right to it.

No idiot arms are strictly firearms. Tanks are ordinance vehicles, not firearms and an r.p.g is a rock propelled ordinance, not at all like firing a bullet, which is a percussion based projectile. There really is no saving you retarded fucking millenials, is there?

an RPG is not that expensive

you could take down a building with that

infantry and army don't drop nukes in militias aka armies.

>trying this hard to get replies

that's good.

everything army uses is arms.

I still think people should be able to have tanks, though.

What about airplanes and lobbing grenades out the window

>]
all should be available to the citizenship.

As I identify myself as attack helicopter, I demand a right to carry and use anti-tank weapons!

>cots are arms

nukes aren't for administering power or conquering, no point in their existence.

No they shouldn't
So a communications device is arms? G hinges are given classification based on mechanical function for a reason

Everything army uses is arms, as defined by the documents and contexts.

No they shouldn't.

AR-15s as a whole should be banned (due to the prevalence in these mass shootings) and I don't think the average American needs any kind of rifle unless you're a hunter and not an assault rifle desu

I'm talking about tanks and nukes, nigger. Of course RPGs aren't expensive, they were literally designed with that in mind. Regardless, they're pretty fucking inaccurate and the rounds are still prohibitively expensive for people without a fairly solid income.

I dont think weapons should be restricted by the government. I dont think anybody should have a say in what the fuck I buy. Go fuck yourself.

Bootlicking faggot that can't be responsible for himself bitching at responsible Patriots , Bitches like you are what are known as collaborators , and guess what happens to them.

>So unless you un-ironically support the right of people to have those arms

we do believe that and it's fully possible to do that

it's just a matter of money

>B BU BU BUT, those weapons didn't exist when the amendment was passed...

you think people were that stupid back then, okay we get it

anyone who can afford to design, build and maintain a nuclear weapon deserves one desu. That's fucking impressive

>No they shouldn't.

FUCK OFF THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY YOU ARE NOT GETTING MY TANK

No, there should be absolutely no laws restricting weapons. Sure, people could get a nuke, but who could realistically afford one without at least having something to lose? A warhead alone costs about $2 million, and the equipment enabling you to use it without killing yourself will run you around $2 billion... fpif.org/much-nuclear-weapon-actually-cost/

An M1 Abrams tank would cost about $8.92 million today (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams), an Apache attack helicopter would cost over $35.5 million, and since private contractors are making these things, they could just refuse you service if they wanted.

You could realistically buy an RPG and a round for around $1000 (maybe cheaper on the black market), but you can kill the same amount of people for much cheaper using trinitrotoluene you make in your garage.

Arms control is delusional.

The argument that no arms control allows anyone to get whatever weapon they want is simply stupid because it thinks that everyone can afford those weapons, when in fact almost nobody can, and the people that could afford those have a high probability of being either completely sane and not blowing up the world or in very volatile positions of power in which using such weapons would end badly for them.

>take down a building with that
The only people with enough money to buy enough rockets for that wouldn't want to do it anyways.

you really want to take that chance?

Except everything you listed can be owned, dipshit, the cost is simply astronomical. You better believe if I ever get rich I'm fucking buying a tank.

Cannons existed and I'm pretty sure citizens owned those, mainly on merchant ships.

some private people do own historic tanks but they have to have the gun disabled in order to do so

>So unless you un-ironically support the right of people to have those arms

I do unironically believe that if a person can afford it, they should be able to have it.

It's on them if they use it wrong and get fucked up for it.

there is no "chance" involved. if a terrorist or criminal wants to blow something up, they will find a way. unless you want to ban all cleaning products and pressure cookers on the planet

>due to their prevalence in these shootings
God that's such a retarded fucking justification.
>It's not anywhere near the best weapon for the job, we're just going to ban it because it's used frequently
That's like saying that the majority of weapons fire 9mm because you hear people reference their "nines" frequently.
We need to go back to the years when stupid cunts that didn't research shit before talking about it were ridiculed.

>The first amendment states
We got a smart one here fellas. Dont bother debating him.

Read Scalia's response on it
Realize you aren't intelligent
Profit?

I own a tank and a Vietnam War Chicom Type 56 Rocket Grenade Launcher legally.

What's your point OP

What about shoulder mounted surface to air missiles?

Every single one of those are legal if you have the money to afford them.

Get fucked liberal. We've been polite humoring your transgressions thusfar as they are very minor annoyances akin to a mosquito bite and not yet irritating enough to wipe your kind off the map. You are not yet worth killing and dying over.

But, if you so desperately insist that we must validate the 2nd by using it the way the Founding Fathers made it very clear it should be used... to remove you from Government... we'll gladly fill the streets with your corpses. Just put your cards down and do it. Show your hand, stop with the bluffs and back-room treason. We've been waiting for so many years. Just do it.

>SHALL

>well neither did the AR 15 or anything other than a single shot smooth-bore musket or pistol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_weapons

militaryfactory.com/smallarms/guns-1700-1799.asp

that automatic weapon is seriously lacking in diversity, by which i mean a fleshlight

>prove

>subjective

amazing

We should be able to buy all of those though...

Yes. And in all those cases, those are legal to own in the US.

>So unless you un-ironically support the right of people to have those arms
i do believe that. civilian owned nuclear arms would be a great thing for america. you communist poorfag cuckolds couldnt afford them, but trump could.

>4th amendment applies to modern technology
>2nd amendment only applies to muskets
pick one

>long guns are used in 2% of gun homicides
>firearms are used in .0005% of homicides

Yeah we should trample on 330 million people's rights for this.

>being this dumb

Tank,RPG,Grenade are all legal with the proper ATF tax stamp for a destructive device (at least for the RPG and grenade.


the tank you could just buy, but the gun and each round of ammo would need to be registered, same for the RPG.

They make them! M28 aka Davie Crockett mobile nuke

Last time I checked blowing up buildings is still illegal.

>The 2A should only be applied to what the founding fathers thought the citizen could have available to them at the time of writing
>This must mean muskets
>I will conveniently ignore the state sponsored piracy of Letters of Marque and the encouragement for private warships to raid British shipping.
>Equivalent firepower in this regard would mean everyone has as much as needed to sink a fucking ship.
>Fuck you gun grabbers.

The implication is that they would have to be bearable arms, i.e. weapons capable of being carried by a person.

yah, and so is owning the weapon that can do it

border patrol militias should be able to legally buy and utilize them to remove taco.

arms are not the same as munitions

What it is capable of and what you are actually going to do with are two different things.

My 20mm can take down a plane doesn't mean I would ever shoot a plane

That thing is so American. The blast radius is wider than the maximum range the nuke will go

owning a propane tank is illegal?

>>The 2A should only be applied to what the founding fathers thought the citizen could have available to them at the time of writing

They had canons and explosives as well so anything up to the size of a Canon should be acceptable

> your

allow me to interject.

during the time it was written, a Kentucky long rifle was the pinnacle of modern military portable firearm.

in context, it meant any and all were allowed to be kept by citizens, to be used on their government to keep it in check. without this unique check and balance, corruption could occur and with no means to expunge it, could lead to national collapse.

On top of that, with cannons, horses, explosives and muskets, they had everything the army had, so it could be said that we're meant to be on equal footing with the military. If you have enough angry people to form cavalry and artillery divisions, then I'd say it's completely justified.

I believe you should own ANY type of weapon, a tank, assault helicopter.

1.However any guided weapon removes the agency of man from the equation and therefore a thinking machine, which has no rights and should be illegal.

2.That and all weapons should be properly stored to the standard that the government takes for that weapon.

between these two rules nuclear missiles would be out of the hands of anyone who can't research, design, refine, build, store, and operate at the same level or higher that the US government. So maybe Bill Gates and Zuckerberg could afford one but I doubt anyone else could.


If you can afford to buy, maintain, store, operate a weapon system to the standard of the US government then you are likely level headed enough to be trusted with them.

...

>If you can afford to buy, maintain, store, operate a weapon system to the standard of the US government then you are likely level headed enough to be trusted with them.

You cannot seriously be this delusional.

>a Kentucky long rifle was the pinnacle of modern military portable firearm.

>Forgetting the Girandoni air rifle
>A 30 round, silent, semi auto air rifle considered by the Continental Congress for use but passed due to it's expense

if you can put down a couple million dollars on a tank, you are either A. rich and have had a decent education or B. won the lottery.

I only think the second would really be dangerous.

i trust the american people more than the american government.

at least people are routinely held accountable for their actions.

>being rich means you are a good person

You're retarded.

You can't drive tanks on public land with the main gun activated.

bitch please, that was the f35 of its day, could barely function cost was too damn much and could only be made one at a time.

As far as I can understand:
sli.mg/RRwNZV
Even if 98% of the population want a gun ban, it won't happen unless you reformat America (god given, un-repeal-able and un-restrict-able right).
Improve your psychiatric care and expand its domain, allowing people to be monitored better. Same thing for "suspected terrorists".
Your Orlando guy had at least 2 months where he went from normal to weirdo to high scorer. Also, wife beater history and straight up weirdo overall, was he a NEET?

wow cool I'm going to research that right fucking now bru

rich people are better than poor 'people'. its a fact.

but you can even buy a used tank or assult heli in Europe

youtube.com/watch?v=RCLbU_MdGrg

>So unless you un-ironically support the right of people to have those arms YOU DO BELIEVE IN ARMS CONTROL
Actually, some of those are considered Ordinance, not arms.

So fuck you or something OP.

>rock propelled ordinance

composition/division fallacy.

People owned Private Warships up through the 19th century. Read up on letters of marque.

There is significant supreme court precedent that the 2nd amendment extends primarily to arms "in current common use"; so it definitely should include all military small arms, if not things like hand grenades and light rockets.

NFA regulations already require taxing and regulation of such destructive devices. While I don't necessarily agree with this, Society seems OK with it, for the most part.

Hell, in the early 20th century you could easily buy dynamite for farm use, no regulations or questions asked.

Something like a Nuclear Weapon doesn't fall into the 'common use' category by any standard.

It's Homophobic and intolerant to take away gays 2nd amendment rights, the only way they could have even hoped to protect themselves from an armed terrorist.

The 2a protects everyone. Check your ignorance, and educate yourself, god.

can't americans already own tanks?

I'm sure I've seen rich collectors showing theirs off in gun show videos before

gungrabbers btfo

I have no problem with people owning any of these things, though I don't know who would want to own a nuke or an assault helicopter, that shit is ridiculously expensive for no practical benefit.

You know during the time of the founding fathers private citizens owned warships, artillery, and HIGH CAPACITY ASSAULT RIFLES (20 rounds, wow!!).

When you build a society based on common core values these things aren't scary. The fact that the left has done everything in its power to undermine society is the only problem. But we'll take it back, don't worry.

Yes but there are some hoops to jump through. Just like we can buy fighter jets. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bought a MiG-29 jet fighter

>can't americans already own tanks?

Shhhh!

Don't tell anybody!

Nothing is stopping you from buying this ya know

LoL FPS Russia!!!! That dude is armed to the teeth for a guy from Georgia

I really want someone to go mad minute with a bolt action and take down like 40 people.

Then people will shutup about assault rifles.

the only thing stopping me is the taxes and registration paperwork nightmare.

otherwise i would daily that bitch.

equally my rules still allow the government some wiggle room. If the government wants a particular weapon out of the hands of the public its simple. They get the weapon out of their own hands by adding thousands of rules to the care and maintenance of the weapon.

for example for tanks,
Rules for all tanks owned in the US private and government must be able to:

> survive nuclear attack
> be protected against modern small arms
> be stored at least 5 miles from any house
> must be serviced yearly by government inspectors to prove that it is capable of defending the nation
> must have radar absorbent paint
> must go 50 MPH
> must meet any and all EPA standards
> all ammunition must be stored in bunkers
> must have proper tank drivers licenses
> must have proper tank gunners licenses
> must be registered so that it can be called upon to defend the nation
> etc.

just add enough rules and most big items soon become out of reach for most.

however small arms can't play the rules game because the justifiable rules can only go so far.


To be clear I believe the government has right to know that a citizen is capable of owning, maintaining and operating a particular firearm. It however does not have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot own.

I'm not against gun owner licences and background checks so long as the number and type of weapons owned is not recorded.

They'll still say it was an AR-47 baby killer.

I'd rather they did it with a katana or a bow or even a hammer or bat. Then they couldn't even yell gun at all

i would love to watch a shooting spree with a musket, or some civil war black pwder revolver.

some sandnigger with a machete going apeshit in another gaybar would shut the left up once and for all.

nah, they would want to ban all assault knives over 3"

...

The people you need to be worried about are the kind that will sell their car for one because they're not planning on living pat tomorrow.

OP is right and this is the argument I've always used.

If you can agree that you don't want to live in a neighbourhood with a sand nigger that owns a nuke, and you can agree that a world where you have to use plastic cutlery is too restrictive, then the sensible solution must be somewhere in the middle.

I know some burgers are going to hate me for this, but if I could re-write the 2nd amendment, I would say citizens have the right to own rifles. I think the gun problem in the US is mainly a handgun problem. If you needed a license to get one, that would take them away from most niggers.

I think people should have those arms.

This unusual weapon was designed by Isaiah Jennings of New York in 1821. Unlike most rifles of the time, the user didn't have to reload after each shot:

The multi-shot rifle illustrated takes twelve individual, superposed loads of powder and ball, one on top of each other, and is fitted with twelve individual touchholes, each with a swivel cover which also act to position and align the lock as it slides from its forward position towards the rear to align the shots in reverse order

kek.

a large group of sandniggers beating faggots to death with korans.

ban all assault pepperbox's, think of the lgbtqwerty children, oh lawdy.

i laughed way too hard at this, it would end up like some monty python skit.

>all these sperglords thinking they are alpha by being overbearingly blind in their defence of anything that goes against "duh liberals"