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
>>77547774
>first amendment
>>77548088
oh shit your right second
>>77547774
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.
>>77547774
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?
>>77548291
an RPG is not that expensive
you could take down a building with that
>>77547774
infantry and army don't drop nukes in militias aka armies.
>>77547774
>trying this hard to get replies
>>77548408
that's good.
>>77548366
everything army uses is arms.
>>77548366
I still think people should be able to have tanks, though.
What about airplanes and lobbing grenades out the window
>>77548542
>]
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!
>>77548483
>cots are arms
nukes aren't for administering power or conquering, no point in their existence.
>>77548535
No they shouldn't
>>77548483
So a communications device is arms? G hinges are given classification based on mechanical function for a reason
>>77548746
Everything army uses is arms, as defined by the documents and contexts.
>>77548535
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
>>77548408
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.
>>77547774
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.
>>77547774
>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
>>77548746
>>77548867
>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... http://fpif.org/much-nuclear-weapon-actually-cost/
An M1 Abrams tank would cost about $8.92 million today (https://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.
>>77548408
>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.
>>77549260
you really want to take that chance?
>>77547774
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.
>>77547774
Cannons existed and I'm pretty sure citizens owned those, mainly on merchant ships.
>>77549328
some private people do own historic tanks but they have to have the gun disabled in order to do so
>>77547774
>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.
>>77549327
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
>>77548867
>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.
>>77547774
>The first amendment states
We got a smart one here fellas. Dont bother debating him.
>>77547774
Read Scalia's response on it
Realize you aren't intelligent
Profit?
>>77547774
I own a tank and a Vietnam War Chicom Type 56 Rocket Grenade Launcher legally.
What's your point OP
>>77549195
What about shoulder mounted surface to air missiles?
![doof-warrior-playing-a-flame-throwing-guitar-in-mad-max-fury-road[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4aKSS98.jpg "doof-warrior-playing-a-flame-throwing-guitar-in-mad-max-fury-road[2].jpg")
>>77547774
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
>>77547774
>well neither did the AR 15 or anything other than a single shot smooth-bore musket or pistol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_weapons
http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/guns-1700-1799.asp
>>77547774
that automatic weapon is seriously lacking in diversity, by which i mean a fleshlight
>>77547774
>prove
>subjective
amazing
We should be able to buy all of those though...
>>77547774
Yes. And in all those cases, those are legal to own in the US.
>>77547774
>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
>>77548867
>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
>>77547774
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.
>>77550415
They make them! M28 aka Davie Crockett mobile nuke
>>77548408
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.
>>77547774
The implication is that they would have to be bearable arms, i.e. weapons capable of being carried by a person.
>>77550759
yah, and so is owning the weapon that can do it
>>77550713
border patrol militias should be able to legally buy and utilize them to remove taco.
>>77550159
arms are not the same as munitions
>>77550759
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
>>77550713
That thing is so American. The blast radius is wider than the maximum range the nuke will go
>>77550860
owning a propane tank is illegal?
>>77550786
>>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
>>77548260
> your
>>77547774
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.
>>77551187
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.
>>77547774
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.
>>77551668
>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.
>>77551410
>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
>>77551794
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.
>>77551794
i trust the american people more than the american government.
at least people are routinely held accountable for their actions.
>>77552042
>being rich means you are a good person
You're retarded.
>>77552042
You can't drive tanks on public land with the main gun activated.
>>77551829
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:
https://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?
>>77551829
wow cool I'm going to research that right fucking now bru
>>77552190
rich people are better than poor 'people'. its a fact.
>>77547774
but you can even buy a used tank or assult heli in Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCLbU_MdGrg
>>77547774
>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.
>>77548366
>rock propelled ordinance
>>77547774
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.
>>77547774
can't americans already own tanks?
I'm sure I've seen rich collectors showing theirs off in gun show videos before
gungrabbers btfo
>>77547774
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.
>>77552740
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
>>77552740
>can't americans already own tanks?
Shhhh!
Don't tell anybody!
>>77548746
>>77548867
Nothing is stopping you from buying this ya know
>>77552970
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.
>>77553074
the only thing stopping me is the taxes and registration paperwork nightmare.
otherwise i would daily that bitch.
>>77551794
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.
>>77553210
They'll still say it was an AR-47 baby killer.
>>77553210
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
>>77553210
i would love to watch a shooting spree with a musket, or some civil war black pwder revolver.
>>77553210
some sandnigger with a machete going apeshit in another gaybar would shut the left up once and for all.
>>77553597
nah, they would want to ban all assault knives over 3"
>>77553424
>>77548885
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.
>>77547774
I think people should have those arms.
>>77553424
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
>>77553716
kek.
a large group of sandniggers beating faggots to death with korans.
>>77553815
ban all assault pepperbox's, think of the lgbtqwerty children, oh lawdy.
>>77554012
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"
>>77547774
First-off it's the second amendment
And second-off, the second amendment is absolute, I support the rights of Americans to own any weapon they can afford
If you can afford a tank, go for it
>>77554041
I would have responded sooner but I was laughing so hard I blew soda all over my keyboard
>>77547774
People in the USA should be able to own every type of "arm" that is in existence today. Yes, even nukes. If you're willing to put up the money, and go through the strict process that every government goes through in order to have a nuke, then you should be able to have a nuke.
But all this is a pointless discussion, because a war between a civilian force and a government will not be won by having nukes, and tanks. But having AK's. Protip, you can't win a tank war, unless you have better or a lot more tanks. but you can overthrow a government with a rifle. If Elon Musk can own rockets that go to space... What is the difference?
>>77553210
fuck that, I want one of the weebs on this damn site to massacre a group of people with a katana and see what the narrative becomes
>>77554586
Japanification gone wrong.
Should we be letting these violent cartoons rule our childrens lives.
Tonight on MSNBC.
>>77547774
you're god damn right I would own nuclear weapons, RPGs, tanks and fucking assault helicopters if I could afford them. and I whole heartedly believe anyone who can afford them should be allowed to do so without your pansy candy ass beta babby bitch boi restrictions you double nigger
>>77554586
Didn't some idiot try that during Chanology? I think they shot him.
>>77554586
itll be like when they thought eggman was a mass murderer.
>ban assault memes
>grinch aliens
>>77552190
>you have to be a good person to not want to unleash legally purchased nerve gas.
>>77554832
>banning bait threads due to the hooks being sharp.
>epa banning people for being too salty near a tributary
>new jersy banning fresh memes for being dank.
>>77554586
nigga the most we're gonna do is lose our shit and bash a motherfucker with a daki until we can rip his clothes off
>>77555476
that sounfs like an America i can believe in.
>>77548408
i could just as easily take down a building with a truck and some gardening supplies. what's the point
>>77547774
I deserve a tank
>>77547774
You'd be surprised. The concept that's at the root of the second amendment is that of self-defense. Never is it discussed within what means of self defense is available to the free individual.
However, the issue really is one of practicality. What prevents the common man from arming themselves with those items on your list is one of expense, or even need. One might be able to make the theoretical case that someone should have the right to a nuclear weapon, but there's no way for any but the richest of men to fabricate one, and such a man typically has other, better options in which to investment to see that he is safe in his person.
The equivalent example derived from the period of the 2nd amendment's assertion would be that free man could not be allowed to have a frigate, for those are things only the state should have. But such was never stated. In truth, only the state could make the investment for the creation of a frigate (more than one, actually, because having only one is pointless); to assemble all the treated wood needed for serial construction, arrange for a dock, hire shipbuilders, open foundries to produce cannon, etc.(in France). Yet there was such a thing as the privateer, ships of private ownership, armed and commissioned to operate against the British, which--though decidedly less capable than a frigate--could hope to sail in the same waters as one of an enemy, avoid frigates like the plague and do its part for the war effort.
>>77547774
>>77556160
So, yes. Man's ability to defend himself (and his country or constitution) have no limitations, in theory. But it's not practical to go about trying to fashion an individually derived main battle tank, given that the expense would be prohibitive for individuals (or even communities) to compete with contemporary tech that goes into one, and your limited arsenals of inferior tanks would hardly do anything to secure you, because you'll lose a set-piece tank battle every time to any opponent that brings along a tank corps (if they don't, your tanks against soft targets was a considerable waste of resources). As with the privateer, a free man's practical need is that which can strategically counter in some way the advantages of enemy tanks.
What that may be is entirely dependent on the tactical and political environment. However, what's inarguable is that the simplest tools are often the best tools. And an enemy tank crew can hardly blitzkrieg over your way of life if they're shot full of holes with your guns. This is the most basic of tools you would derive the people of.
Would that state-loving bootlickers could have their perfect world and all its consequences separate from free men and theirs. And look, there actually is. Now book your flight to North Korea and GTFO of my country.
>>77555881
Shhhh dot tell them all they need is ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. What the hell is wrong with you.
>>77547774
You can latterly go out and buy yourself a Mig 29 right now.
http://flightplanet.com/jet-aircraft-for-sale/mikoyan/mig-29__3698.php
>>>77547774
you can own most of that shit besides nukes you fucking idiot
>>77548535
You can buy tanks. But they have to be deactivated and obviously you can't buy munitions.
>>77548899
Mate, whilst your principle is admirable, you really want people getting nukes?
>>77549195
I'm all for guns and shit. But basing your argument on "well people will never have money for it" is pretty flimsy.
You could end up with Bill Gates with enough warheads to blow the entire world to kingdom-come.
>>77556423
the idea is terrifying, but it is not possible, due to nato.
>>77556297
ATF will be happy to receive a payment of $200 for transferring a nuke, but no one will sell you one.
You CAN own a tank or a nuke. There's no laws against it. The government may get up in your business but they've never needed to pass a law.
>>77547774
Wish australians weren't pussies with gun control.
I fully support Americans owning tanks and nukes.
The idea of the second amendment was for the people to be able to maintain a militia to defeat the government.
Any weapon the government has, the people should have access to.
I unironically think that nobody should restrict what kind of arms an individual can rightfully acuire. OP you're dumb as a bag of bricks, of course my ownership of a gunship or tank or whatever the fuck I want to own shouldn't be impeded by the government.
>>77547774
I do believe it to be the people's right to those arms.
The SECOND amendment covered all weaponry when it was written, including cannons and volley weapons.
Also get the amendment right faggot.
Also sage
Yeah, we should be able to own literally any weapon. The sheer cost involved (not to mention how impossible it would be to conceal such a thing) would stop anyone from buying a tank and going on a rampage on a whim, and no goat-fucking terrorist is gonna be smart enough to operate a nuke, (and if they were smart enough to make them, they'd have them already) and no-one could buy them anyway, they'd be too expensive! People have the right to own whatever arms they need to protect themselves from an abusive government, so they have the right to whatever the government can have. The government doesn't have any rights that the people themselves don't. After all, you don't know any of the people currently operating our nuclear arsenal from adam, why do they have the right to nukes but not you?
>>77547774
>My point is we both agree that arms should be controlled and regulated
no
you're a racist
>>77548366
> what's a kinetic energy penetrator
>>77557118
was for
>>77556912
>>77556793
What possible good could come of citizens owning nukes?
>>77547774
Pro tip, don't fucking need a reason. The founding fathers ennumerated a couple of the inalienable god given rights we had, but made clear that the document did not grant them itself, but we're given to us by very nature of existence. Self preservation is something no one can take away from you. You can always defend yourself whether told not to or not. The founding fathers daughter to make sure you could compete with whomever sought to do you harm by not specifying the arms you could use. If it exists and could be used against you, you have every right to arm yourself with it or better. The capitalistic society we have is pretty rewarding with safety for success, but even the common man can even the playing field between him and the wolf at the door. The right to arm myself is not something you can separate from me while I'm alive. But they enumerated it this way to ensure the survivability of the principal on which they wrote it. I could arm myself with a chair in self defense. But at the point that I've been accosted and someone has broken the law, that which enforces the law, inconsequential violence, can be administered by the plaintiff. The state does not have a monopoly on violence, in fact, police, by several supreme court decisions, are not at all required to save you. Safety is not a right, it is a responsibility. And it is, legally, solely your responsibility. So yes, being well equipped is insurance. It's peace of mind, and not to mention it's fun as fuck.
>>77556793
Technically, any government bent on oppressing the people and depriving them of their rights. It shouldn't always be put in terms that the 2nd was meant to pit the people against the US government, because that wasn't the only scenario; just the most likely in the long term.
>>77556793
just go with the meme, mang
>>77557163
How the fuck am I a racist? Really, I wanna see your logic. you're either a really shitty troll or someone with their head so far up their ass that you're drowning in your own stomach bile
>>77547774
When did I ever say I didn't want to be able to own RPG's?
Kill urself my man
>>77547774
I don't give a fuck if somebody owns a tank or a flamethrower or whatever. FPS russia owned every fuckin wmd in the world and not I, nor his 5 million subscribers were afraid that his ass was going to go on a murder rampage.
>>77549327
Even with the bans and regulations it doesn't stop the manufacture of weapons of any kind.
If someone wants to do it and has the skills and resources they will.
No amount of regulation or restriction will change that.
It's not that difficult to make a full auto firearm from scratch, nor is it that hard to make explosives or wireless detonator etc.
It all comessages down to motive and resources.
You can make bombs from ingredients you use to make food and antiseptics etc.
Seriously, unfuck your idiocy.
Restriction hasn't stopped shit.
Look at the war on drugs for example.
Look at the fact that murder is illegal and it still happens.
You're a fool if you can't face the empirical evidence the world throws in your face daily.
Also, sage
Arent there some tank collectors in the US? I remeber seeing a show that featured one.
>>77557798
bingo.
ban all the weapons, make everything illegal.
at the end of the day, if i want something dead, not one single law is going to stop me.
there are good people and bad people.
if you take away any freedom all you will have left are just a bunch of bad people who dint care about breaking the law.
fps russia has a full asrsinal, but is no more a threat than Muhammad with a spoon.
but not a spork, ban all assault sporks wuth extended handles.
>>77547774
>First Amendment
It's the Second amendment you faggot.
>Un-ironically support
I believe that citizens should have every right to have those things.
>Believing that citizens should be limited to muskets
Sure, I'd support that if military and police forces were limited to them, as it was in the days of the Revolution, next point faggot.
>Believing that the Government should have enough power to limit rights.
No, faggot. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, are meant to limit the powers of the government, not the rights of the people.
Remember faggots, being a patriot doesn't mean kowtowing to the government that would trample upon you.
>>77547774
Nope, I'm fine with the personal ownership of any weapon the owner can afford. If they want to drop billions on a stealth bomber and hangar more power to them.
>kinda want guns
>don't want shitskins to also get guns
Are our shitskins your niggers, /pol/?
>>77558413
nah, our niggers understand how to use public restrooms.
[infringing intensifies]
What do you think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means?
It means when I want an arm, I can get any arm I want and cucks like you can't stop me.
>>77550807
It's not even that. There's an 18th century English dictionary scan on Google books and I broke down every single word by definition and it's context and such.
It literally means:
The right of the citizens of the United states to keep, carry, weild, and utilize, and and all armaments conventionally and historically available, shall not u Der any circumstances be tampered with or marginalized for any reason, and that any fighting age male thus automatically being part of the makeshift defense by their virtue of existence, shall have the right to practice and hone their combat skills.
>>77558052
Those tanks have demilled cannons, theyre basically just big heavy armoured tractors at this point. MAYBE a handful might have .50 cals on top, maybe.
>>77553881
>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
Then you have no conception of what rights are. They articulate absolute truths as to the natural state of man. Your attempt to stratify it with extraneous details completely misses the point. Say you were born a thousand years earlier, were empowered such that your opinion became the accepted philosophical truism and had the same notion of identifying which weapons individual man could or could not have access to. Now bring yourself back to the modern era. How did that work out for the concept of man's innate right to defend himself in his person, his property and his liberty? At what point was free man left completely subject to the will of any, state or criminal, who would do him harm?
>>77547774
Yes lets get rid of the first amendment so we don't have to listen to your retardation
Supreme Court of the United States has defined "arms" to mean common infantry carried rifles.
They allow some modest restrictions, such as not allowing full auto, but you will always be able to have basically the same gun as a rank-and-file military soldier, whatever that is.
If it's laser guns 50 years from now, "arms" will include laser guns if that's what has become the common infantry weapon.
>>77553340
As such this constitutes as INFRINGING the 2nd amendment
Even the NFA and Tax Stamp system qualifies as infringement but it's somehow been allowed to just roll right.
Here you go!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVs5kgvA_Ow
>>77553390
But then the media and government wouldn't say a god damed word about it.>>77553597
Regulated militia
>Regulated: Provisioned, supplied
>Militia: Any person or people's participating in defense/offense action
If you read the federalist papers the main concern Alexander Hamilton and Adam's discuss is the importance of a standing army but the danger it poses. The only way to combat a standing army Is to have an armed population that can keep it in check by being able to combat it if necessary. Fear of becoming Rome (personal armies) or later-Rome (mercenary armies) or Europe (monarch armies).
If the army has tanks. Then the people need anti-armor. If the army has helicopters, the people need SA7s. If you want to regulate no tanks with tracks on the highways thats fine, folks could get wheels.
Second amendment means second amendment. The first is the most important, the second exists to make sure it never is stripped away.
Daily reminder that while UKs gun crime is lower, they have more murders per capita than the US. Good luck getting stabbed.
As an American, I unironically believe in my rights to own, modify and develop any tool including all current and future weapons. If I need a nuke for asteroid mining, I need it.
>>77550234
>NOT
>>77559567
>BE
>>77547774
He isn't an ancap
top kek
>>77549503
no, no they dont. the old BTR we converted into a mobile workshop came with a fully functional main gun
>>77548867
>Mfw the Orlando shooter didn't use an AR-15, but a Sig MCX
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>77547774
>well neither did the AR 15 or anything other than a single shot smooth-bore musket or pistol
You're wrong.
>>77547774
If recreational nukes were a thing we would've taken care of islam on 9/12. Not sure I agree with your proposal.
>>77560896
God that would be beautiful, a sea of glass...
>>77547774
>first amendment
And I do unironically support civilians rights to bear any and all arms including ICBMs if they wanted them. The people are the soul of the country, treating them like children makes us all gravitate towards childishness. Our forefathers trusted each other with ownership of the strongest weaponry of the day, by not doing the same we admit that we are all worse than those who came before us.
>>77553996
you are wrong it was made during the revolutionary war to supplement the colonial militia
>>77547774
arms are wepons you carryin and operate in your ARMs personally
a tank, mounted machine gun, helicopter, and nuclearbomb do not fit that description
>>77550860
No its not
>>77561306
You're an idiot. Define all words circa the 18th century.
Sage
>>77551293
oh shit you're white
>>77547774
but I am ok with that. I want everyone to be force drafted at 18 to military and social service, or foreign peace crops, fit healthy, and trained in all kinds of combat.
And people too soft for that, training in multiple kinds of physiological and medical help to hold those who struggle in the military fronts.
>>77547774
I think people should be allowed to own those things though.
Fuck off shill.
why don't you believe in arms control for the military? they shoot many more people than civilians do.
i believe in nuclear arms control because they're indiscriminate weapons that can't be used in self defense for individuals.
>>77559561
>develop any tool including all current and future weapons.
I shot a second hole for the second amendment!
>>77561433
all weapons back then were used with the individulas arms except cannons dipshit
a sage is not a downvote
>OP'sfw he now understands that we don't both agree
>>77547774
If you can afford to buy a nuke, then I say it should be allowed. But don't be surprised when you have a lot of angry people at your doorstep demanding you hand it over or disarm it.
>>77548867
>t. person who knows nothing about guns, hunting, or freedom
>>77559719
>INFIRZZLED
>>77561890
>If you can afford to buy a nuke, then I say it should be allowed. But don't be surprised when you have a lot of angry people at your doorstep demanding you hand it over or disarm it.
>>77548867
>Assault rifle
GO die from choking on fermented mudslime cum.
>>77553996
Can you image 100 of these in battle line? The smoke alone...
>>77547774
>a tank, RPG, Nuclear weapon, assault helicopter, grenade you nae it they are all arms
I'm okay with that
>>77547774
All right anti gun fags I'm here to prove once and for all that you are not opposed to gun violence. If guns get banned and confiscation takes place who does it? That's right the police. And how do they do pull of this miraculous feat? That's also correct they use guns. What do a large number of anti gun supporters call for? Surprise it's for the police to summarily execute previously law abiding citizens because they own guns. That's right a large number of anti's unironicaly call for the execution of gun owners for the moral sin of wanting the ability to defend themselves with the equivalent means of force that would be brought to bear against then irregardless of fucking gun control. It has been proven time and again that criminals will still get or manufacturer guns. Why? Because they work.
But muh mass shootings... They still happen with or without gun control. The difference is after gun control happens the media stops reporting on it like they do when they are pushing for gun control.
In short you are not pushing for gun control. You want and are violently screaming for human rights control. You want to control every aspect of everyone's lives and you can't do it if they have the equivalent means to fight back.
When you say gun control what you actually mean is totalitarian nany state.
I don't want that and you do. So in short fuck off. The reason that Europe has actual thought police is that nobody has the equivalent means to fight back. I don't want that for my country and you do, so again continue to fuck off. Your feelings are not more valuable than human rights. Because at the end of the day the second Amendment whether you practice it or not is every sane law abiding citizens right. Rosa Parks could have chosen to go sit in the back like a "good" negro at the time was expected to. Instead she chose to practice her rights just like responsible gun owners do. And it is infact you who are on the wrong side of history.
>>77548408
There is a guy in Hollywood who owns fully functional cobra attack helicopters. There is a show on the fucking history channel dedicated to Rich people buying and restoring tanks. Private companies manufacture test and develop all of our nuclear weapons. There are 8 legally owned M134 Vulcan guns in private collections right now as we shitpost. The rock island auction house sold an RPG last year Ian did a review on it. The problem with your argument is that everyone knows that there are better ways to stop the violence, but the left needs it as an excuse to disarm the law abiding citizens so that they can force more authoritarian legislation and policies. Fight me on this pro tip you fucking can't because you are a no guns faggot and you would need the police to do it for you.
>>77547774
>using unironically
opinion discarded.
>>77547774
>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
Well, yes, I _DO_ unironically believe that you should legally be allowed to own all of those and more.
>OP BTFO!!!!
>>77547774
Arms != munitions.
/thread
>>77548867
>prevalence in these mass shootings
So, literally TWO used in mass shootings?
>>77553881
>thinks a car costs the same amount as a tank or nuke
Motherfucking britbong, a single tank round costs upwards of $10,000.
>source; a motherfucking (former) tank gunner (me).
>>77554331
>this imbecile from Melbourne unironically thinking guns are evil because the TV told him so
>>77556328
Incorrect. They don't need to be deactivated, and you can buy or legally manufacture munitions with the proper paperwork.
>>77556423
Yes, and they are actually legal to own, but who would sell one?
>>77556582
Real good appeal to incredulity AND strawman.
>>77557118
>you're a racist
Ad hom, and not an argument.
>>77557232
appeal to incredulity.
MAD against government oppression.
Daily reminder that gun control doesn't work
>a tank, RPG, Nuclear weapon, assault helicopter, grenade you nae it they are all arms
They're classified as "ordinance" and some private corporations actually do own nuclear weapons for research.
>>77548260
You're*
Just fuck off and die anon.
>>77558022
Your logic is flawed. If having rules and restrictions changes nothing then by your logic we should just tear down every other rules and restriction and not even have a legal system to govern us at all. So lets just go back to the wild west, free for all. Lets not make any attempts at stopping people action regardless of their their nature cause hey if they wanna do it they will do it, so why stop them right? ??
>>77564597
First you need to find a tank round for sale.
Then you need a $200 tax stamp to buy it.
Then you need to transport it to the tank (mail) with a ton of paperwork and expense.
Then you need a place to shoot it.
You probably need a law enforcement officer present when you shoot it.
Only movies and tv shows really would go though all that bullshit. But it is possible and has been done.
>>77558832
>>77549503
>Those tanks have demilled cannons
Some, not all.
Many are in perfect firing condition. Thank god.
>>77553210
They'd just ban the "eeevil sniper guns"
>>77561306
>>77561795
>a sage is not a downvote
>>>/rëddit/
>all weapons back then were used with the individulas arms except cannons dipshit
Warships. Privately owned "back then".
KYS faggot.
>>77562196
>has no argument
>therefore, posts an irrelevant image macro
>>77565547
And you can manufacture them as well, if you know what to do. It's been done for WW2 cannon.
And even if there was no need for the tax stamp and paperwork, there's zero issue with people having a loaded up tank until and if they break some law with it, or allow it to be stolen.
So as usual, OP is a massive piece of shit.
The only conceivable regulatory action against any form of technology should be against nuclear arms.
The lion's share of nuclear arms must be kept in fine working order amongst the most responsible powers of the world, in the event that they must be used to repel an extra-terrestrial threat. In the event that a superior method of planetary self-defense is determined, all nuclear weapons should be scrapped.
Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE should not be regulated. I am perfectly willing to incur small loss of life in order to preserve the right to self-determination and self-defense. I dearly wish that all citizens felt the same.
I feel that anyone unironically using nuclear arms as a tenent of an argument for firearm restriction amongst citizenry is pretty scummy, though. The most potent of arms should be reserved solely for planetary defense.
>>77547774
Following from the reasoning that, "well neither did the AR 15 or anything other than a single shot smooth-bore musket or pistol".
The founding fathers found that such arms were on par to which was standard military armament at the time. It comes from the fact that weapons the patriots fought with against the british was mutually accessible by both sides. I would follow from that, that the second amendment implied that all free citizens were granted that right in the 13 colonies.
The idea to a well regulated militia is that US born citizens are the quintessential component to a constituted society to begin with.
>>77566840
![1416405778892[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2IGwDrk.jpg "1416405778892[1].jpg")
>>77547774
>The first amendment states that people have the right to bear arms
No offense, but I'm not going to read any further. To have an argument about the constitution, there's an implicit requirement that you actually read the damn thing, which you clearly did not.
>>77547774
the founding fathers supported commercial ships having canons to protect themselves from pirates. They made no distinction between a canon and a musket. I'm not going to make a distinction between an AR-15 and an M-1 Abrams.
>>77547774
But I do support the right of the people to own those things.
There is no reason why a law abiding citizen can't own a nuclear warhead.
Fuck off you freedom hating communist kike.
>>77547774
I support the right for all mentally sane people who aren't convicted felons to have all of those weapons. The second amendment was made so that we could have the arms necessary to preserve our freedom, even from our own government.
When we fought for independence we had the same guns the British military had, if we ever need to fight for independence from a tyrannical federal government, we also need the same arms as the US military.
>>77567034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocW3fBqPQkU&spfreload=10
>>77553210
they'd yell "Ban high powered sniper rifles" and ban things like the .50 Cal like they did in Commifornia.
I think we should have the right to own anything. Any firearm, machine gun, anything.
I do feel there should be a certain line when a weapon becomes non-discriminatory. All mentions of the term "discriminate" in this post mean target discrimination (as in hitting target X but not Z) and not any other form of discrimination.
You see, a gun discriminates. Machine guns and cannons discriminates. Even bombs discriminate (maximum blast radius). A nuclear explosion discriminates, but its fallout does not (at the whim of nature). Biological and chemical weapons also do not discriminate (also at the whim of nature). I do think people should be allowed to use non-discriminatory weapons, but only if everyone around is okay with it to a very large radius, exceeding more than the maximum effect radius that could ever be possible; if someone has the resources to blow up a nuke, he should at least do so somewhere that it won't be able to negatively affect anyone. If there is no such place on earth but a guy with a nuke still wants to have his nuke blow up, he should detonate it in deep space.
Does that make sense?
>>77547774
There's really not any weapon that the US legally disallows you from owning, provided you have enough money and time for paperwork.
You can buy a fully-operational surplus tank if you've got $100k sitting around and you fill out all the proper forms.
Yes, I believe in the right to own an rpg.
