If civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons to, according to the Constitution, fight off a government if it turns tyrannical, then shouldn't we be allowed tanks, armored helicopters, drones, nukes ?
We cannot even compete against the American military and therefore our 2nd A rights are being infringed upon .
Do you gun nut freaks now see the danger in your evil gun philosophy ?
Other urls found in this thread:
jmw.typepad.com
armslist.com
controller.com
mortarinvestments.eu
twitter.com
>We cannot even compete against the American military
>ancap: the post
You can buy tanks and drones
>You can buy tanks
Good point. I don't know much about drones but you can even buy tanks in this country and not only that but you generally don't have to pay congestion charges because a lot of them are considered antique vehicles.
if the false dichotomy was "either nobody gets guns or everyone gets nukes", i'd choose the latter
in fact, within our lifetimes, people with elon-musk level brains and wealth can have their own nukes if they want them. the US Manhattan project achieved its aims with comparatively primitive tools, compared to what exists today.
That said, I think that the spirit & intent of 2A was that the common man should be as effective as a professional infantry. Therefore, he ought to have the weapons of the professional infantry of his day.
That means, American citizens should be able to own: select fire weapons, grenades, radios, body armor, etc.
That rule of thumb excludes jets, largebore weapons, nukes, etc.
Interestingly, the colonists did have heavy cannons, and, the opening skirmish of the War of American Secession was when the brits marched into a town to try and confiscate the colonists' cannons.
So, the fact that the colonists retained cannons suggests that artillery/tanks/howitzers might be fair game for civilian ownership also...
As a practical matter, i think each town or county should have an armory, with tanks, crew served weapons, and heavy vehicles. The armory should be under the command of state level guard, and constitutionally prevented from ever serving under federal control without express authorization from that state's governor, and constitutional restrictions on ever serving outside of the borders of the state.
(the current National Guard doesn't have either restriction - and it should have both)
Texas has a Texas State Guard that is separate from the NG.
No if the Feds can own it private citizens should be able to.
Is there anything more equal than a group where everyone is equally capable of killing each other
All of those are allowed.
Texas has it's own independent air force that operates jets too. IIRC the only State in the Union with such a distinct feature.
I disagree with you on Jets and other items however. Not only did Colonists have cannons, they also had naval warships.
>The 13 colonies had only 31 ships among them for the Continental Navy in 1776. According to a history written by a Merchant Marine veteran, the Continental Navy had 64 ships during the Revolution. The privateers numbered 1,697. Total guns on the Continental Navy vessels: 1,242. Total guns on the privateers: 14,872. The Continental Navy captured 196 enemy ships, while the privateers captured 2,283. (jmw.typepad.com
But whereas an aristocrat might have owned a warship in 1776, Bill Gates doesn't own an aircraft carrier in 2016.
Are you legitimately this uninformed/retarded?
Yes I agree OP one should be able to buy nukes if he can afford it. Glad you're finally coming around.
> according to the Constitution, fight off a government if it turns tyrannical
where in the fuck does it say that?
We should be allowed to own all of those things, free and clear.
Fuck off.
We are technically allowed to buy all that shit. It's just very expensive (and in the case of nukes they aren't technically illegal, but everything you need to actually get one is).
It says that arms are neccesary for securing the state
The state meaning a republic of the people
Thus we would need arms to keep out invaders and tyrannical usurpers
This was covered in immense detail in the continental congresses and the federalist papers
If you own enough land to safely store a nuke, I don't see why not
Everything else can be bought, so why not
>in fact, within our lifetimes, people with elon-musk level brains and wealth can have their own nukes if they want them. the US Manhattan project achieved its aims with comparatively primitive tools, compared to what exists today.
Wrong. You have denied physics with your fear and proven you cannot think clearly.
The manufacture of fissionable material is something only a state can do. The Manhattan project took a factory the size of a city to produce two bombs. If it were so easy, every State would have nukes. They don't.
If a State can't do it, a company probably couldn't do it, and an individual certainly couldn't do it.
This was the irrational fear that Bush spread to get the stupid politicians to actually believe that Saddam Husein had nukes. It is a fallacy called Pascal's Wager and uses the fear of great loss to outweigh impossible outcome.
Even if someone stole or bought nuclear material, it is still very difficult to get it to explode efficiently, and Hydrogen bombs are simply out of the question for anyone to build.
Next becomes the problem of delivering it in a way that does damage. You have to explode them in the air to do maximum damage, and that means getting close enough in a plane or using rockets which are also something that is very hard to do efficiently or effectively.
Just ask Elon.
tl;dr: no one could make one, and even if they got one they could not deploy it.
Yes private citizens should be allowed access to the same weaponry as governments
Just look at north korea if you think government monopoly on weapons is a good idea.
>nukes
good luck getting your hands on weapons grade uranium lmao
controller.com
go ahead and fucking buy one if you have the money
we should be allowed to own tanks and helicopters and drones
during the revolutionary war a lot of the cannons were borrowed from private citizens
the founding fathers lent their personal cannons to the cause
Fun Fact: You can drive tanks on roads as long as it's disarmed and the wheels are rubber not metal
I dont need your interpretation, I want a source of where it says that in the constitution
>the constitution
>the federalist papers
>the continental congress
Do you know what those things are
oooh, a Chieftain. Nice!
Says it's from the Littlefield collection, which was very well maintained until the owner died.
Only real problem with the Chieftain was its engine.
One could be made, but you're talking about a lifetime project barring some kind of miracle innovation.
It took several decades for India and Pakistan to develop their basic weapons systems, and Pakistan is reported to drive theirs around in unmarked vans 24/7 to avoid detection.
The only reason Israel has them is because an American Jew spilled the beans in the name of the Chosen Land, and South Africa had them because the Jews were uncharacteristically willing to share possessions.
Great read.
so you have no source.
>then shouldn't we be allowed tanks, armored helicopters, drones, nukes
Yes.
By the way you know you really can own a tank, helicopter, and drone, right?
Good luck getting your hands on enriched uranium or being able to successfully build a centrifuge, or diverting a source of plutonium legally. But if you could do this, I'd guess you could own a nuke.
>names the sources
>shill claims they are not sources
See pic
Do that
>being necessary to a free State
To my knowledge, a nuke is not illegal to own, but weapons grade nuclear material is.
The constitution doesn't say anything about fighting off a government. It says that a militia is required to secure a free state. That's all. Anything else is just intepretation.
The actual reason for it being there was so that the US didn't have a standing army, and could just call upon already armed civilians in times of war. So even having an armed forces is technically unconstitutional.
still no source.
It's a simple fucking request for your retarded claim.
why libtards and leftwanker always want to put down good things?
>how is a police state run?
>being necessary to a free State
The existence of privately-run nuclear power plants suggests otherwise.
How does that >imply rising up against the government?
I'm genuinely interested in how you think Nukes can be used defensively.
But yes we should be allowed all those other things.
do you not know what source means?
Is there actually a person or persons in this thread that believe our firearm rights should be revoked or restricted in any way, shape or form?
>I'm genuinely interested in how you think Nukes can be used defensively.
Like this:
>own nukes
>don't get nuked
This is the 2nd amendment
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The security of a free state, a tyrannical government is not a free state
Jagger is literaly drink for kids, grown up goes for Zemanovka
>Owning a gun prevents people from shooting at you
are you retarded user?
>The manufacture of fissionable material is something only a state can do. The Manhattan project took a factory the size of a city to produce two bombs. If it were so easy, every State would have nukes. They don't. If a State can't do it, a company probably couldn't do it, and an individual certainly couldn't do it.
Sorry fella. I'm actually pretty informed on this.
The key thing to remember is that the manhattan project was _the very first time anyone had tried it_
They were learning everything. The very first controlled fission reaction ever had happened literally 1-2 years before (Enrico Fermi) they tried to weaponized it. They weren't even done with the gun barrel design before they realized the implosion design would be better.
SpaceX has replicated, essentially, Soviet era rocket technology, but with modern American manufacturing, materials science, and electronics. That's the power of decades of progress. What used to be super-state level programs are now private enterprises.
Note that very few countries have a national space program, but America now has multiple private space programs.
Note also that basic fission weapons technology predates modern rocketry.
Powerplant reactors are privately designed, privately built, and privately licensed. All of them produce small quantity weapons grade material by products, some designs, like the Soviet RBMKs, were expressly designed to take crap (U238) and produce tremendously enriched material as a byproduct. Carter banned reactor designs in the US that he thought would be proliferation risks, but that doesn't mean they cannot be built.
Elon Musk has a better space program than North Korea. It seems to me that he could have a better nuclear program than North Korea if he wanted one.
Finally, the other thing I stipulated was a longer timeline - I said with our lifetimes. I happen to think Musk could do it "soon" if he wanted to.
>own nukes
>don't get invaded
Apartheid did not fall until South Africa gave up it's nukes. India and Pakistan have largely been peaceful since both obtained nuclear weapons. There have been no massive Israeli Arab wars since the Jews acquired nukes. Iran hasn't been invaded, neither has North Korea.
And the Russians did not invade Ukraine until the USSR stockpiles were collected.
>an armed forces is technically unconstitutional
Stick to a subject you know.
>The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE
Civilian plants have very low enriched uranium, like 7% at most. That really can't be used for a nuclear weapon. So little of the material in a weapon actually fissions it needs to be very enriched. Which is very tightly controlled and only in the hands of the military and government nuclear contractors and (in very small quantities) researchers.
>>Owning a gun prevents people from shooting at you
If someone knows you're able to defend yourself, they're less likely to attack you.
>since the Jews stole nukes.
FTFY
Watch In Search Of The Second Amendment. You do not understand what you are talking about.
so it's
-A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
-the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
-shall not be infringed.
So OP is a fuckhead and has no idea how to read
Pretty much all non-Americans.
a standing army is unconstitutional. i believe the way it legally works is that the congress re-authorizes it every session without ever letting the authorization lapse.
Anyone claiming the constitution doesn't explicitly say the people can own arms is a liar or an illiterate retard
>Pretty much all non-Americans.
I just wanted to know if there was anyone worth debating in this thread.
I love debating firearm rights. It improves my arguments in favor of defending my rights.
It also can help others in improving their rights defending arguments and can even sometimes change the gungrabber's mind.
Nukes are ordinance not arms
Hardly anyone in germany drinks that stuff.
>shouldn't we be allowed tanks, armored helicopters, drones, nukes ?
Yes. You're exactly right.
>Do you gun nut freaks now see the danger in your evil gun philosophy ?
...no?
>If civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons to, according to the Constitution, fight off a government if it turns tyrannical, then shouldn't we be allowed tanks, armored helicopters, drones, nukes ?
That's true, absolutely yes OP.
I'm glad you understand.
>"Oh, oh private citizens shouldn't have tanks or helicopters!"
>"That's going too far!"
Is this honestly how you think we'd react? Of course we should be allowed to buy tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Hell, the private citizens that can afford them already bypass those laws with enough cash so why not make it legal for a town or a city to purchase a tank or two in the interest of self defense?
also
>implying any one person can afford a nuke that doesn't already control multiple.
>according to the Constitution, fight off a government if it turns tyrannical, then shouldn't we be allowed tanks, armored helicopters, drones, nukes ?
you retarded?
OP's interpretation is correct if you bother to read the supporting literature at the time.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to raise an army elsewhere. The militia is necessary to ensure a free state.
So how is it unconstitutional? The reauthorization is just a check on the army's power. Every country at the time had a standing army. No reason to expect America not to. Framers just didn't want the army to become a de facto separate branch of the government.
If teens are really as stupid to think it's as simple as this, our public schools are a bigger problem than I thought. Shart in the fucking mart burgerteen.
??
Are you? In al of the documents and writings about the constitution it is explicitly states multiple times that the point of the 2nd amendment is to defend the people from foreign invaders and tyrannical governments
It does not define arms, it does not define any limit to that right, the only logical conclusion is that you can arm yourself with whatever you have the means to procure
>I'm genuinely interested in how you think Nukes can be used defensively.
Once a nation acquires nukes, nobody wants to attack them
They have only been used offensively against one enemy and in one conflict.
And that enemy didn't have any to fight back with.
also, if you are into libertarian/gun rights porn, read "MOLON LABE", by Boston T. Party.
spoiler alert: defensive use of nukes
>Less likely means they won't
pic unrelated
>1 post by this ID
mortarinvestments.eu
yea its haram, sharia police would decapitate you
Also this
What does 'source' mean to you?
Read the constitution
For further clarification read the federalist papers and other writings by the founding fathers.
Any search engine should do.
There's actually an incredibly simple principle established years ago about what weapons are protected by the second amendment and what weapons can be banned, though it was never really used.
In the 30's the NFA was challenged by a man who owned a sawn-off shotgun (which needed to be registered under the new law). The court upheld his conviction because the second amendment is about a well regulated militia (one that everyone is part of, in this view) and sawn off shotguns have no -reasonable- usage in a well regulated militia. Militias are basically regular people who are ready to jump up and protect their town, state, and country. They don't need atom bombs to do this.
I think that under this principle it would be okay to own all regular rifles, pistols, and shot guns (including "assault" style). I'm not so sure about things like machine guns and anti-tank weapons, but there's a strong argument to be had that those are reasonable weapons for a militia to keep and use.
>>Less likely means they won't
I'm not saying they won't ever attack.
I'm saying if someone knows your packing a weapon, they'll be less likely to attack.
Even if they attack, they run the risk of being attacked with your weapons.
That was the whole purpose of m.a.d.
A group where only the elites can kill people and their bosses who tell the rest of the population that they live in a democratic republic.
Nukes are privately owned but have to be maintained in government facilities.
>not knowing what a red AirForce is.
>I think that under this principle it would be okay to own all regular rifles, pistols, and shot guns (including "assault" style). I'm not so sure about things like machine guns and anti-tank weapons, but there's a strong argument to be had that those are reasonable weapons for a militia to keep and use.
Tyranny is what is legal for the government but illegal for the people.
...
Yeah I get this shit every time I mention this, you guys must be really fucking stupid to not get that this principle is a lot better than what we have right now.
Currently 4 out of 8 supreme court justices believe there is ANY individual right to own firearms, much less military-style weapons.
Looks like it's almost time for another revolution then.
>Looks like it's almost time for another revolution then.
That's not what the Miller decision was. The court decided sawn off shotguns have no military application. Which, they should have known was bullshit since sawed off shotguns were used to great effect in the trenches of WW1. Regardless, Miller didn't show up in court to defend himself (or rather his lawyer didn't) so the lower court decision went unchallenged.
Dude, there were literally ZERO rulings in favor of an individual right to own firearms before 2008. It's not a new thing.
>Currently 4 out of 8 supreme court justices believe there is ANY individual right to own firearms, much less military-style weapons.
Even if the gungrabbers stripped the second amendment from the bill of rights I'd still have the right to keep and bear arms.
Our rights are not granted by the constitution. they are protected by it. Hence: constitutionally protected rights.
I'm not going to give up some of my rights to protect a larger portion of my rights.
To continue, because it raises an interesting point I don't think anyone has brought up, the Miller decision required a firearm to have a military application to be unbannable. That means, your hunting rifles may be banned, but not your AR.
Miller didn't show up because he was dead.
"Reasonable usage" is different from "theoretical usage". Shotguns have barely ever been used in war, and sawn-off shotguns have been used even less. They aren't even legal to use in literal fucking war, to my understanding.
Other that nukes we are allowed to have them. But to have a firing tank or anything firing boolets bigger that 20mm is a bitch.
>there were no rulings prior to a ruling was made
you don't say....
Hunting rifles and sniper rifles are often virtually indistinguishable. They could definitely ban hunting, but banning hunting rifles wouldn't make sense under this principle unless you mean like 22LR, which is considered cruel to use in war.
The assault weapons ban was passed and expired years before that ruling so yes, it means something.
As someone who's been to two wars and seems shotguns in use in both of them, you're a fucking idiot.
>Shotguns have barely ever been used in war, and sawn-off shotguns have been used even less
wat
>What is the KAC MasterKey System?
>What is the M26 MASS?
>shotguns aren't used in war
and what exactly does it mean?
:6)
Okay fine, asshole. A lot of people in the military have shotguns for various reasons, but they aren't the focus and in world war one they were INCREDIBLY controversial.
It means they didn't even budge on the most blatantly insulting violation of the second amendment.
Arms != ordinance