What are the limits /k/ ?
"Shall not be infringed" does it then mean limits shouldn't exist ? What is your take ? If small arms should be allowed why not tanks and bombers then ?
What is /k/'s limit in terms of weapons possessions. lets be honest about it . What would you be comfortable with ANYONE having ?
Fuck you and your thread
Freedoms endowed by a right extend until they violate the rights of others. Under this assumption ordnances are the only thing that should be regulated due their unpredictable nature and generally infringing on others right's to peace and property.
>Do not post threads about gun control. They belong on /pol/.
>>28086893
>Under this assumption ordnances are the only thing that should be regulated due their unpredictable nature and generally infringing on others right's to peace and property.
Bullets frequently over penetrate or miss intended targets and fly long distances before causing damage.
Your argument is total horse shit. The 2nd amendment was clearly written to give civilians the same capabilities as the military. Either state that you think the law is outdated or shut the fuck up. Your mealmouthed bullshit about how "Shall not be infringed" isn't clear enough is the same sort of the thing the fudds who support AWBs say.
I bet you're the same type that claims "freedom of press" does not protect certain "evil" things like cheese pizza. Protip: No, you do not have to be a pedo to recognize that to have true freedom of speech you would have to have zero limitations on what kind of media can be distributed.
The fact of the matter is that some dudes in 1776 never thought we'd have ICBMs, MANPADs, chemical weaponry, or attack helicopters.
>>28086806
People used to be able to privately own warships, so there's your answer.
>>28086806
No limits with the exception of felons and the involuntarily committed.
In both cases there should a process to regain one's rights.
![R-1270715-1307859048.jpeg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RjQdo0o.jpg "R-1270715-1307859048.jpeg[1].jpg")
>>28086996
Agreed, and nice get.
There should be no ceiling as to types of weapons legal to possess. Things like biological and chemical weapons should be regulated, but not outright banned because the volatiles that serve as precursors are often incredibly useful in other reactions.
>>28086954
Was there a concise point in there somewhere? Because I didn't find it.
>>28086806
What-ever they could buy. Hell if someone could legally afford a nuke I would be okay with it.
>>28087043
The 2nd amendment does in fact state that civilians should have unrestricted access to all manner of weaponry. This is only because the framers of the constitution did not know exactly what would be developed down the line.
Perhaps you should attend some English classes.
>>28086954
They never thought we'd have such black magic as rifling, metallic cartridges, and smokeless powder either
>>28087074
Seeing as I completed all college required English courses and credits while I was still in high school I think I'm well versed enough in that area of study, but your writing is an inconsistent and contradictory mess. Try to keep from getting worked up when you put pen to paper it will kill your flow.
Now of course the 2nd amendment does imply that citizens are free to own any weapon of their choosing, but upon studying the spirit that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written in it becomes clear that some ownership of some modern weaponry can be destabilizing to our society and nation. That's my opinion at least, and that's what our nation is based on. Many of our laws and amendments are designed to change with what is deemed sensible at the time but to never cross the line of infringing on the basic rights of the public. In my opinion at least only things that should be regulated for civilian ownership are higher yield explosives.
It means what it says. Shall not be infringed. But in reality, that's impractical and impossible and as decent human beings we should forfeit our right to own an attack helicopter.
At the absolute bare minimum, the spirit of the amendment should be followed. It was written during a time where a people were forced to undertake violent revolution to overthrow an oppressive government. They knew that, no matter how many years pass, the need to revolt can and will rear its ugly head, and the citizens should have the tools necessary to do so. You can purchase a weapon that is, for all intents and purposes, identical to those fielded by all current militaries. That's enough to, God forbid, put you on an even footing. You and your three hundred million fellow citizens.
>>28087363
That's a very good way to put it.
>>28087098
Their objective was not to keep everyone armed with smoothbore muskets forever, friend. The point was to ensure some kind of parity between the government and the citizenry as regard arms and the ability to make war. The people should be able to defend themselves from foreigners and their own government alike.
So yes, while they did not presage weapons developments, that was unimportant. Whatever weapons were developed, the people should have them also.
>>28087098
You're looking at it the wrong way. The civilians of the time were allowed the EXACT SAME THINGS AS THE MILITARY. ALL OF IT.
>>28087098
>worked metal tubes, lead balls and black powder is common sense science
>cut metal lines, metal balls and smokeless powder is black magic
>>28087596
Smokeless powder would absolutely have been black magic in the 1700s.
>>28086806
>"tanks and bombars arnt legal guys!!"
Yes they are.
>what should shall NOT be INFRINGED mean? Hmmm weird.
What? Did you not just read your post? The Constitution clearly says what it means. That we as the Militia, not including the NG, have a right to any weapon used by the government. That means every. Single. Small. Arms. Available.
If you don't like it, move to Britain. Or stop being a kek, and buck up.
>>28087642
>not including the NG
Kek, I meant the people not in the NG.
>>28086806
The only reasonable limit should be any weapon that has no measurable nuclear radiation and a projectile diameter less than 16 cm.
no limit on full auto, explosive, length or noise levels.
We need to renew the assault weapons ban,” Sanders said. “We need to end the sale of high capacity magazines. We need to make gun trafficking a federal crime and give law enforcement the tools they need to get illegal guns off of the streets. We need to close the gun show loophole as well as loopholes that allow gun purchasers to buy a gun after the waiting period expires without a completed background check.” -Bernie "communism works!" Sanders
The colonial legions cannons where privately owned. So Lang as your RPG isn't hitting Someones house or property why the fuck not? Do you not enjoy liberty and freedom?
>>28086806
>implying there should be limits
>>28086806
No limits.
>>28086806
I don't see a problem with people owning tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers. How many people can afford to own and maintain those and want to do so?
This isn't an issue
>>28087363
But if it means what it says, why does the government infringe upon it?
If someone could realistically field an attack helicopter, fully armed at that, they should be allowed to do so
>>28087098
Civilians employed to assassinate British officers in the south during the Revolutionary War were using Rifled Muskets while the Continental Army was using Smoothbores.
>>28086954
>>28087219
Jefferson would have shit himself had he seen a nuclear detonation, a sarin gas bomb, or especially a smallpox bomb, considering he would have been quite familiar with the latter.
In all three of these cases, you have a hell of a time making sure only the intended target suffers it's effects, so I'm going to venture at least 2/3rds Congress would be happy to amend the 2nd should enough people choose to stroll around with viral bomb briefcases.
As for attack helicopters, tanks, etc., is this even an issue we have to worry about? What, is IBM cornering the market on Apache's to take back the business laptop market? I would assume operating logistics are enough to ensure nation-states are the only groups running these things.
I'm most inline with >>28087363. I don't really give a shit who owns what regarding small arms.
Those who cry for gun control would not be able to control themselves with a gun.
Fuck you OP. You can't take my nuclear warheads away from me.
>>28088067
>Fuck you OP. You can't take my nuclear warheads away from me.
you'll have to take the from my searing, plasma hands!
Do all you gun nutters also follow revolutionary war era medical advice?
>>28088154
Actually we all follow the parts of it that were accurate.
A few hair brained medical procedures doesn't rule out everything they did do right.
>>28086806
All small arms, and any vehicles should be legal for anyone who can afford them.
NBC should of course be illegal. FBI/NSA should keep tabs on anyone suspicious (Mr. Farook for example) purchasing large quantities of explosives, but in general explosives should be 100% legal as they used to be.
Reminder that dynamite was a common over the counter item in hardware stores only a few decades ago
>>28088212
So why not change the outdated parts of the 2nd amendment?
>inb4 there are no outdated parts
>>28086806
Limits...? I don't understand.
>>28088222
>dynamite was a common over the counter item
Fuck why did I have to be born post 9/11
>>28086806
I don't really have a problem with someone owning a tank or a bomber just because they're so fucking expensive to maintain and use. Anyone dropping that kind of dosh on something isn't going to be using it for a school shooting. They've just got too much to lose. Really I don't have a problem with anyone owning most anything legally. The "scarier" stuff will usually be out of the price range of the common criminal and the legal collector probably isn't going to pay 10k to go on a rampage.
>>28086897
stfu you dumb fgt
>>28088230
There aren't. The rights of man do not become outdated. They become more complex as time and technology evolves but the basic premise that all should be free to live as they see fit so long as they don't intrude on the rights of other doesn't change. It only become more nuanced and more vital to defend.
>>28086806
>What would you be comfortable with ANYONE having?
Anything except WMD's for every one including non violent criminals.
>>28086806
"Shall not be infringed"
Means exactly as it says. Leave it at that. And even at that time, the proverbial Abrams Tank at that time, a warship, could and were owned by private citizens.
If a person manages to get enough funds to buy their own jet fighter or tank, the feds have no power to say that person cannot own it.
>>28088230
Because there is nothing outdated by it. There are still evil people, organizations, and governments, foreign and domestic, that would love to take over and gain more authority. The spirit of 2A is to ensure that the common man would be armed and able to defend their life and liberty from those who would otherwise seek to take it.
The right to our own self defense is innate. Government doesn't grant you that right, you have it. The 2A enumerates this by placing restrictions on government, so that our natural right to our defense is protected.
I want to be able to defend my pot farm from meth heads and teenagers with a P47 lightning bolt with full giggle 50s and bombs.
Or with a Sherman Crocodile.
I'd just have to watch it with the flames, wouldn't want to get a DUI in a Sherman.
>>28086806
I draw the line at NBC (Nuclear/biological/chemical). Anything else, if you can afford to by it, use it, and maintain it why not?
>>28088276
Underage B8
>>28086893
>Freedoms endowed by a right extend until they violate the rights of others.
Thank you, and /thread.
People will disagree with you for even this but those are just shitheads.
Any item that us useful in the context of being an infantryman.
So, anything from assault rifles to grenade launchers.
>>28087098
>They never thought we'd have such black magic as rifling
>rifling didn't exist during the American revolution
You sure are fuckin' stupid.
Then again, ignorance and a low IQ are hallmark traits of the anti-gun crowd.
>>28088691
They even had the puckle gun.
>>28088739
Don't forget 20 shot magazine fed repeating rifles.
>>28088765
>>28088739
And even a magazine fed repeating pistol.
>>28088789
>>28088765
>>28088739
>>28086806
>If small arms should be allowed why not tanks and bombers then ?
Why don't you look up what a privateer is. American citizens used to be allowed to operate fully armed private warships, and even got paid by the US government on a contract basis to do so.
This is gonna go badly, so let me at least preface this by stating that I'm rabidly pro-gun.
Debate over the 2A has been ongoing since it was a proposed law. The vast majority of court opinions held that it only applied to members of state militias until extremely recently. I am personally inclined to side with the 200 years of rulings and opinions of political scholars and other experts that it does not guarantee an individual civilian right. The Supreme Court only reversed their own opinion in the very recent past. (DC v. Heller)
It's also worth mentioning that Madison specifically says in the Fed. Papers that the 2A is not intended to allow the citizens to fight an oppressive government and ridicules people who would intend to do so.
However, despite those points, a Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land, so for the time being, the 2A legally protects civillian gun ownership. There has not, however, been a ruling that says it prevents restrictions on what can be owned. In the court's words, "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."
It should also be noted that at this time, Heller only officially applies to Federal territory, and there is still a substantial amount of debate going on over whether it applies to states, with individual litigation using Heller as precedent currently being the only path to removal of restrictions in most of the country.
What if we did this, have a background check. And just have it be look up the person seeking to buy a gun on a mental health database, criminal database, and terrorist watch list database. Put the name in get it back 2 seconds later, if the buyer has none of those then sell them the gun, no wait.
Would that be ok?
>>28089211
Except it's not 2 seconds.
It can take weeks for that info to come back.
>>28088903
>thinking privateering is something that was allowed outside of time of war
>thinking it's something uniquely American
Fuck, where I live in Canada has a university built with money from a rich merchant who converted his fleet to privateers during the War of 1812.
>>28089207
>This is gonna go badly, so let me at least preface this by stating that I'm rabidly pro-gun.
Why would you ever think that /k/omrade?
This place loves freedom, noone would ever try to shout you down because you have an opinion that is unopopular, or isn't exactly in line with the group.
That's the sort of thing gun-grabbers and other librul SJW's would do. Not good freedom-loving conservatives like hang out on /k/...
>>28088888
>88888
that should win you one
>>28088903
There's no restriction on owning those. There are private citizens and organizations that own B-17s, MiG-21s, etc.
You could also conceivably own the bombs and ammunition that would be required to actually operate it as a weapons system (I believe it's considered a destructive device per the ATF, and there is some process for possessing those legally).
That said, the question of whether those arms are within a citizen's 2A rights is less controversial than rifles. Modern warplanes and tanks are expensive to own, maintain, and operate. Any person or organization willing to put up the money to run those systems has a damn good reason, and if that reason is that they are required for self defense or in opposition to tyranny ... well your government has fucked up beyond badly.
Rifles, on the other hand, are affordable and can be employed effectively with (relatively) little training. They are the every-man's weapon, and the 2A controversy is essentially the question of:
Do we actually really want a government "of, for, and by the people"?
>>28086806
Well, seeing as you can buy a tank, fully operational mind you, as well as have it shipped stateside, I don't see why you couldn't own a bomber.
Naturally any armaments, or firing of armaments, that could be considered cannon or larger have a lot of red tape.
You can also own the materials to create a nuclear warhead if you have the proper permits. Firing that is probably going to be a never gonna happen thing.
Tbh senpai I'm pretty comfortable with people having what they want. If they misuse it they should be held accountable, but people shouldn't be penalized for what they "might" do.
Saged, there's really no reason for this thread other than to shitpost.
