Why doesn't the right to bear arms include the Davy Crockett?

Why doesn't the right to bear arms include the Davy Crockett?

Where do you draw the line?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DciIVzwHpH0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What is District of Columbia vs. Heller?
----
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. District of Columbia v. Heller

>Virgin islands

We only need enough weaponry to be able to kill politicians. Semi automatic rifles are enough

I once went to the Virgin Islands on a whim. When I came back, they were only called "the Islands".

Cannons were already banned when they draw the constitution.

1/10.

Do two virgins cancel each other out?

Hi. Right-wing libertarian here.

Nuclear weapons are not necessary for personal defense. This goes for explosives and fully automatic weapons as well. There gets a point where you go from "self-defense weapon" to "weapon that can cause severe collateral damage to innocent bystanders."

There's zero reason to own an automatic weapon other than hobby/sport shooting, and even then that kind of thing should be regulated by trusted license holders for use at the range only (which they already are.)

But there were privately owned warships.

> I used to be an unfunny lardass burgerboi virgin. I still am, but I used to be too.*

That doesn't mean that it was legal to arm them with cannons. People can privately own tanks and fighter jets today, but they can't legally load them with explosive shells or bombs.

Kill yourself, you statist cuck. Full auto firearms are not always the best choice with which to fight, but should be available to utilize in ending a tyrannical regime.

Common law, namely, precedent.You should know this given you're an American.

Good luck trying to use those full-auto weapons on tanks and Predator drones, dude.

Oh, you want to use them on infantry? Okay, sure. While you're rattling away all your ammo on full-auto like a 12 year old playing Call of Duty, I'm going to be using my semi-automatic weapons to actually deliver the kill shots.

>a weapon with an effective range shorter than it's effective radius
Why build such a thing?

>being this delusional
It's not about what is needed. SWAT 'needs' highly accurate fully automatic rifles, but they are illegal for US citizens.

As rifle technology expands, the US citizen is left out, barred the right to also advance the technological era of his firearm, until the right is gone altogether.

What prohibitions do you claim were in place? Ships HAD to be able to defend themselves - don't forget our early pirate wars.
You also can own a tank with a functional turret and own the shells (albeit with pricey tax stamps per round). If you can find a location in which you can fire them without violating ordinances meant to protect your neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their property, you are free to do so.

Davy Crocketts are ordinance. Same reason as grenades and c4.

Why is this silly reasoning hammered out by liberals constantly? Technology doesn't win wars. Americans learnt that in Vietnam.

The police don't need fully automatic rifles, though. Why risk civilian lives by wildly spraying bullets with reckless abandon? What possible purpose does an M4 serve that a civilian AR-15 doesn't?

>the line

it shall forever remain a mystery to you

imbecile

Modern automatic rifles fire multiple rounds at extremely high rates of speed with incredibly high accuracy.

The "automatics are only for suppressive fire" thing is a myth.

Because they have no other argument when confronted with the fact that the 2nd amendment is not for sport or hunting, but for ensuring the government doesn't have a monopoly on deadly force over its citizenry.

every firearm should be legal to own

explosives (including warheads) should not be included because they are not firearms

source: my opinion

Never mind the fact that the Vietnamese had tanks, jet planes and automatic rifles, too. In fact, their infantry had a technological edge over the Americans -- their AK-47s were infinitely more functional than the cheaply-manufactured, problem-ridden early M16s.

See:

Technically you can own a Davy Crockett, the firing mechanism at least, just not the ordinance.

And the average citizen is going to be able to control a fully automatic rifle how, exactly?

Thats not an arms
Thats a heads
And we dont have the right to bear heads

I thought there were no explicit prohibitions on owning nuclear weapons as a private citizen inside the United States?

>hurrrr durrrrr

Already devolved into babby's first image macro for gun-grabbers, eh? More options put you in a better position. Select fire > semi-auto only - the option is retained on military rifles for a reason.

1/10

9/10

This is like saying
>and the average citizen is going to control a bicycle how?

They are not more difficult to control than a semi auto.

Yes they can actually.

The option is retained on military rifles because soldiers are trained specifically to operate fully-automatic weapons. An ordinary citizen is not going to have the training or willpower necessary to accurately control a fully-automatic weapon without injuring bystanders or going wildly off-target.

You can generally own ordinance, but the tax stamps are ~200/round, iirc.

omg a samurai
i didnt think they posted on Sup Forums

You were SO close to getting this right.

The human right to self-defense involves neutralizing immediate dangers to the self (and other innocents.) Precise weaponry such as handguns, shotguns and scary-looking ar-15s fit the bill wonderfully. Explosives like hand grenades, land mines, missiles and nuclear weapons, however, are not optimal for self-defense are understandably restricted.

Fully automatic firearms and suppressors should not be so hard to obtain.

Volgin pls

America was on the brink of winning the war, but it had gone on for so long and was so deadly, no to mention that Vietnam was the first time that a war was televised. People got restless and the war was ended by the democrats in congress.

The logistics of war really make the talking point of tanks and jets on citizens get old fast.

Newfag, the Jews fear the samurai.

>military service is for life
>I don't know what contractors are.

There's nothing wrong with suppressors, they're a useful tool for lowering noise generated by firearm discharges (which serves two purposes: keeping neighbors happy, and keeping your ears from bleeding.)

Fully-automatic firearms, though, should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens. They're far more likely to hurt themselves or someone else than they are their intended target, due to the inherent difficulty in controlling the discharge of an automatic weapon.

The afghanis will be welcoming us as liberators any day now.

>making shit up
It's easy as fuck to control a SAW.
It's easy as fuck to control an M16.
Both are considered automatic rifles.

It's even easier to control an MP5.

You are just falsely scared of automatic fire and somehow believe it requires magic birthrights and shit to be able to handle it.

Fat kids who run a 28 minute 3 mile and can only do 3 pull ups still controlled these "automatic!!" Rifles just fine.


For shooting the SAW they take you to a big open range with tires and they tell you to say "die motherfucker die!" As you hold the trigger, at the end of saying that you let go of the trigger and pause briefly, then repeat.

This prevents the barrel from overheating.

It's not magic it's just like shooting your ranch rifle faggot.

Kill yourself
RARE
A
R
E

>Fully-automatic firearms, though, should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
This is why gun education should be taught in school.
Otherwise the conscripts will be limp wrist faggots

Kek has blessed your post for truth.

Fully automatic weapons should not be banned, but should require training. Make a class 3 license require very significant background checks, an interview, and a psychological evaluation, but then make all fully automatic weapons and suppressors available to those with said license.
Then make the private sale of automatic weapons to someone without a class 3 license something like a felony with jail time of 10+ years.

...

Child shoots m-16 for the first time, full-auto fire present.

youtube.com/watch?v=DciIVzwHpH0

Teddy had the right idea
>The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!"

Yes

But that's impossible!! No ordinary citizen could do that he must be trained SAS!

A ship captain wrote to one of the founding fathers and asked if cannons were covered by the 2nd amendment. He said "of course".

>they tell you to say "die motherfucker die!" As you hold the trigger, at the end of saying that you let go of the trigger and pause briefly, then repeat.

That's a great tip!

Born on a mountain top in Tennessee,
greenest state in the land of the free
Raised in the woods so's he knew ev'ry tree,
kilt him a b'ar when he was only three
Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier!

In eighteen thirteen the Creeks uprose, addin'
redskin arrows to the country's woes
Now, Injun fightin' is somethin' he knows,
so he shoulders his rifle an' off he goes
Davy, Davy Crockett, the man who don't know fear!

Off through the woods he's a marchin' along,
makin' up yarns an' a singin' a song
Itchin' fer fightin' an' rightin' a wrong,
he's ringy as a b'ar an' twic't as strong
Davy, Davy Crockett, the buckskin buccaneer!

Andy Jackson is our gen'ral's name,
his reg'lar soldiers we'll put to shame
Them redskin varmints us Volunteers'll tame,
'cause we got the guns with the sure-fire aim
Davy, Davy Crockett, the champion of us all!

Headed back to war from the ol' home place,
but Red Stick was leadin' a merry chase
Fightin' an' burnin' at a devil's pace,
south to the swamps on the Florida Trace
Davy, Davy Crockett, trackin' the redskins down!

Fought single-handed through the Injun War,
till the Creeks was whipped an' peace was in store
An' while he was handlin' this risky chore,
made hisself a legend for evermore
Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier!

I don't even get why full auto firearms are illegal.
I mean, maybe something like an lmg where you have 100-200 rounds that can be fired so you're able to just leave it on full auto, but in most mass shootings the shooter is literally better off with semi auto so he can count the rounds left in the mag and be more precise.
Full auto would just have them run out of ammunition very very quickly.

i can buy a fucking tank if i had the money
even a god damn fighter jet
i havent exactly looked into the stipulations and shit they might need to be disarmed but if i can afford a fucking fighter jet im sure i could arm it somehow

Because it's not "arms". It's mass destruction weapon like anthrax.

Visual representation of liberals explaining the difficulty of full auto fire.

Nuclear arms are still arms.

>>Where do you draw the line?
Indiscriminate explosives are roughly where I draw the line.

Like mustard gas?

Yeah.