SHALL NOT BE INF...
>Arms men't muskets not machine guns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/machine-guns-second-amendment-ruling_us_57769b2ee4b09b4c43c03f30
>>79728214
2 words: puckle gun
eat shit, retard
It actually meant cannons and mortars and Da Vinci's concept of a tank that became real tanks like that one.
I am Greek.
Machine guns have really only one purpose:
Keeping heads down.
>>79728214
>he doesn't own his own tank barrel
pleb
Nice shill thread.
You'll all notice tbat these low energy bs bait threads are on the rise. Sure some if it is 'summer', but most of them nowadays are outright slide threads started by, among other players, Correct the Record and other leftist groups.
Just sage this shit and move on, or better yet, just hide them.
>>79728214
They do realize that Muskets are still rather effective and easy to produce weapons right?
>>79728214
Machine guns are already banned so no problems here.
I guess according to the first amendment we should still be using the printing press, since dissembling your ideas online for millions more to see is just too dangerous!
>>79728214
>being a constitutional democracy
>have special magic laws nobody is allowed to change
>hardcore minority clings to achaic laws in the face of public objection
>interprets constitution however it suits them, applies it however they feel like
>ignore legal concepts like "lawmakers intent", speak on behalf of dead people who made the original constitution
why not throw out the whole constitution, if an elected government with the support of the majority of citizens can't change a law, what is it worth; why should ancient dead lawmakers count more than modern ones?
>>79728214
first amendment only applies to printing presses and unassisted spoken voice
fourth amendment only applies to physical persons, houses, and papers.
10th amendment only applies to the 13 original states
>>79728214
>the 1st is restricted to quill on parchment and yelling really loudly
But it doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution. If the authors of the Bill of Rights had meant only muskets they would have specifically said muskets.
>>79728214
So when pic related goes into a gay bar and starts mowing down 5 x 3 faggots/minute, what are you going to do?
>>79728214
>freedom of speech meant the quail and printing press, not the internet
>>79728214
It's a lower court. Any idiot with a law degree can get on a lower court.
>>79728877
there is a reason america is not a democracy. we are a republic. true democracy = mob rule.
>>79728877
There is a specific process by which new amendments can be made. That the republic is unable to agree with each other well enough to meet those defined standards doesn't imply that they are more competent than their predecessors who trounced a world empire.
>>79728877
There's mechanisms for changing the constitution, tard.
None of these stupid ideas have enough actual support to make the cut, though.
>>79728214
>>79728214
>Girardoni Air Rifle begs to differ
>>79728214
>huffington post
>taking advice about self-defense from white women
>>79728214
The ruling has nothing to do with muskets or adding new limita.
The ruling is only a court saying they aren't going tonoverrule the supreme court in the 1968 and 1982 acts, and that the amendment doesn't require a shall-issue permit for machine gun manufacture or ownership.
>>79728214
Well come and take it then.
>>79728857
I like this argument. Can I use in the future?
>>79729792
save it, it's all yours my friend
>>79728877
The basic idea that We the People created the government as our servant still holds true. The question really is: Should we the people allow the government to own weapons? Politicians do three things: Lie, steal, and kill. Such people should never be entrusted to assemble large bodies of armed men.
>>79728214
>automatic weapon
>machine gun
>Appeals Court
Fucking retards
>>79729219
>more competent than their predecessors who trounced a world empire.
you seem to have a funny view of the american war of independence
>>79729223
the issue is that not only is the constitution arhcaic, so are the laws governing it's alteration
It would be like making law that could only be over-ruled by a eight foot tall man
the laws that govern a democracy should be alterable just like the laws themselves are
just this year australia changed the laws around voting to stop major parties exploiting preference allocation to get minor parties nobody voted for into parliament
a constitution is just a roadblock to modernization, many countries are relegating their constitutions to the history books
>>79730288
>flag
The whole point of making it hard to repeal fundamental liberties is precisely to prevent morons like you from shitting all over everything
God damn Australians are good at shitposting.
>>79728214
>1 post by this ID
>>79729960
found the texan
the government is theoretically the adminastrators of the will of the people
the people clearly think the first amendment isn't good enough, if they can't agree on an alternative it should simply be struck from the constitution and left to individual states
if states have such vastly different wishes, maybe they shouldn't be united
>>79730288
Your opinion is meaningless. Who cares what a dumbass like you thinks? We retain arms to fight tyranny. There is nothing obsolete about the government beingthe servant of the people. What IS obsolete and archaic is you view that the citizens are property of the state, to be used as it wishes. If we the people decide to change the government, it is OUR choice. Not theirs. We don't buy into this divine right of kings, which has merely become the divine right of government. A bad servant may be dismissed, and killed if necessary.
>>79728214
>huffpost
seems legit
>>79728214
>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.
>b-but the gun can't be too scary or shoot too fast
>t. leftist retard
Protip: Arm means any weapon, regardless of caliber or magazine size, if the law doesn't explicitly ban something a judge has no business prohibiting it.
Also, the second amendment's original purpose was to give the population a chance to overthrow a tyranny, so logically any citizen should have access to the same type of weapons used by the army.
>>79730397
hard to repeal=the past having more power than the present
a true democracy holds the will of living voting citizens above all else, do the citizens of 1900 get to vote for president?
>democracy
>constitution
pick one
>>79730585
I agree. There is no reason for people who hate each other to be forced to stay a single nation for the benefit of the government. Europe has over 20 countries in a land mass about the size of the lower 48 states.
>>79728214
>get shot by AR-15
>small wound, easily survivable
>get shot by musket
>massive bodily injury enduring a miserable painful death
>>79728214
The Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the citizens of the US in any way.
How does the 2nd amendment suddenly refer to only muskets?
Wouldn't they have explicitly stated that then? Why didn't they?
>>79730682
typical meaningless claims
I didn't say ctizens are the property of the state
if people want to change the government fine, let them
if the people want to change the constitution let them
if the people don't want a constitution, what right does anyone have to stand against them
everyone in america wants to force other citizens un-democratically by enshringing their own personal beliefs in the constitution
christians would ban islm in the constitution of the could
gays would enshrine gay equality
mexicans would enshrine open borders
but in a democracy it's the majority who should have power, not a bunch of gun nuts who claim their ancient fore-fathers laws ought to be in-alterable
>>79731173
good thing this isn't democracy
>>79730791
Since we are not a democracy, I pick the Constitution.
Thanks for clearing that up.
>>79728214
oh shit nigger, I love merkavas
>>79728214
> what is the Girandoni Air rifle?
>Also (You)
>>79731173
Im sorry that your country does not recognize natural rights, but ours does
>>79730992
>muricans actully believe this
>muh low velocity
>muh lead shot deformation
newfaggotory asside, on wht basis are you comparing the two
the intend of the law?
the comparability of the phisical arms?
the context within society, of history?
let me jus put it out there that the right to bear arms was writen as a tempoary protection for individual states to ensure some states didn't invade others while the federal governmnet was forming.
they meant "the right for the militias to remain protecting their towns while we sort things out"
the constitution wasn't made by experts in law, it doesn't contain modern legal safeguards and features, the drafting was average at best, many parts are ambiguous or poorly written
what would you say the intent of the amendment was?
>>79728214
faggot
>>79731713
Do you peasant cowards even have any rights? Stop wagging your tongue you lowly sand toad.
>>79731533
>natural rights
but I bet you don't agree with the international approach to law and human rights huh?
natural rights are simply a combination of
"what is normal is correct"
and
"my persona views are backed by god/nature/principles exempt from reason and democracy"
they are directly contrary to democracy, and are used by a minority to try to push people around
At the time muskets were cutting edge technology, yet they trusted people enough to allow them ownership. Equal ground for the rich and poor. Why change things because weapon technology has improved dramatically? I for one do not trust police/government to always do the right thing. Especially on a lower level. Cops are regular Dumbfucks like any average Joe. Thinking they are more capable pertaining to decision making is ludicrous. I trust myself more with an ar15 than I do some stressed out fat body that's underpaid and stressed out to protect my family and person. That being said, happy Fourth of July.
I hope dingos eat all of your babies Australia.
>>79732228
trips. KEK wills it.
>>79732003
>but I bet you don't agree with the international approach to law and human rights huh?
They did not include the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, so of course not
>>79728214
Come at me niggers
>appeals court
>>79731713
>he never read the federalist papers
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
>>79731272
This, desu. When will people learn that we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
>>79731960
>>79731963
what is so hard to understand about "intent"
if a law is made that says "people must wear seatbelts in cars"
a judge would say that the same applied to trucks, because despite not being specifically mentioned the INTENT would still clearly apply
conversely a judge might decide that not wearing seatbelts on a toy car is not illegal, because despite technically being a car that was not the INTENT of the law
and if a law was unclear, or people were unhappy with a judges interpretion then the laws would be alterable by a simple vote in parliament, or failing confidence in that that a referendum
the intent of the second amendment was never to allow private gun ownership, it was simply to give a guarentee that a federal force wouldn't attk individual states
"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."
AKA. we need local armies to keep the federal government in check, so on that basis the millitias shal have the right to have weapons if they are sensible with them
the phrase "the people" is used rhetorically throught the onstitution, and is used to mean
A. individual people
B. all people individually
C. all people collectively
d. representative elements acting indirectly or directly for the people
>>79728214
Damn I guess you only have free speech on handwritten parchment letters too
>>79732393
missed the point
you agree with enshrined laws existing, but only when you like them
when enshrines laws don't suit you they are oppressive, tyrannical, and you should defy them
>>79728877
>straya spewing retarded bullshit about a country of which she is obviously completely ignorant
sounds about right
>>79728214
>the government now instead of line infantry and hussars have tanks and planes
>the civilian instead of muskets have assault riffles and in some cases better equipment than the common infantry soldier
I see nothing wrong
see the battle of Athens
>>79728855
Machine guns are definitely not banned. There is a lot of regulation and paperwork to jump through, plus the ATF's feet dragging 6-12 month wait period.
>>79732731
You are objectively wrong. The law's intention was unquestionably to allow private gun oiwnership and the Federalist Papers spell it out explicitly. It was precisely their intention and it is the law.
>>79728877
Morons, don't respond to Australia
>>79732548
>the federalist papers
something that was the oppinion of some people
the intent of them is very clear, but how can you claim the intent of the essays and the constitution is the same?
>>79732731
>what is so hard to understand about "intent"
intent is subjective, i interpret the intent of the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing the ability of anyone to own any weapon.
>>79732731
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
>the people means the milita
Wrong
See you libshits the next time congress fails to pass any gun reform. I'll be laughing at you. It won't matter how many are slaughtered in gun free zones, more guns will be sold and gun right will expand.
>>79732731
>we need local armies
All able bodied men of qualifying age are in the militia by default.
>>79733018
the federalist papers arn't the constitution, nor are they contined in the constitution
and it would be a very long bow to draw to argue the federalist papers can be used to infer intent in the authorship of the constitution
at the point where the papers are evidence of the intent, so would be any other documents with te same kind of connections to people involved
nd even if it WAS the intent, why should the intend of deal lawmakers be a barrier to living elected ones?
>>79732731
Ironic you should mention "intent" while being seemingly oblivious to the blindly obvious intent upon which the 2nd amendment was predicated. The real reason it exists has little to do with the tools in question but with what those tools can do. This is patently obvious to anyone who has so much as skimmed the writings of founders like Thomas Jefferson but I wouldn't expect a contrarian and uneducated faggot like you to have actually done the due diligence needed to properly partake in the discussion.
>>79728214
>>79733123
Yes. This is unfortunate for cucks like you, since the wording of the amendment is unambiguous and and your only conceivable hope to justify your idiotic stance would be if the Federalist Papers somehow contradicted the amendment--which they do not.
>huffingtonpo...
disregarded your post imediately
Muskets were military grade at the time
Why should we not apply it to current times?
>>79733368
You wanna change the right of the PEOPLE to the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms? that's fine.,,, amend the 2A
It only takes 2/3rds of the house and senate and 3/4ths of all the states.... good luck :)
>>79730791
>do the citizens of 1900 get to vote for president?
They do in Chicago and other strongholds of the democrat party.
>>79733145
well that is a grat opinion to have, good for you
so does everyone get to interpert the constitution on an individual level however they want?
get real, you disagree withe the majority of Americans on gun control, and with the interpretation of the constitution
why should anyone listen to what you, the minority have to think?
americans are unsure what gun laws they want, yet they are largely united agianst the views of the gun lobbys
>>79733235
more people were shot this month in america than have been shot here in maybe ten years
police here don't act like cowboys, people arn't afraid, lunatics don't shoot places up very successfully (one guy attacked a coffee shop for some reason and killed like 2-3people)
we have guns here, criminls have guns but don't use the much and almost never on non-criminals
in america kids get shot on their way to school for crossing gang zones
>>79733368
>why should the intend of deal lawmakers be a barrier to living elected ones?
The institutions of society are social machines designed to perform certain functions. Any alteration to our institutions must be intensely vetted or the whole apparatus could collapse.
>>79729090
I have a glock 23
>>79733889
>more people were shot this month in america than have been shot here in maybe ten years
In America a job in need of doing gets done.
>people arn't afraid
People are not afraid here either coward.
>>79733341
>All able bodied men of qualifying age are in the militia by default.
that is quiet a claim
all able boddied men were ABLE to joint the millitia, perhaps they COULD be compelled to AT THE TIME
you might try applying that argument to people who are currenty enlisted in well regulated millitias if you ignore historicl context, but it's foolish to simply claim becuse people back them could be in the millitia that that somehow makes them part of a millitia
if people in bike clubs can own a bike, that doesn't mean anyone eligible to join a bike club can own a bike
>>79728329
fuck, came here to post this.
>>79733235
If there are no guns, then there’s no gun violence. It’s logical, but not practical, because then we devolve to sword violence, sharp stone violence, he-who-has-the-biggest-muscles violence. Violence will never cease to be; either you have a tool to put you on part with the biggest and toughest guy, or you get mauled by the biggest and toughest guy…or a bear. This is why I can’t stand liberals: they don’t follow logic passed the first fucking conclusion.
>>79734141
>if people in bike clubs can own a bike, that doesn't mean anyone eligible to join a bike club can own a bike
Yes it does
Everyone can own a bike here :)
>>79728214
>Consistent with prior precedent
Its funny how liberal dont care about precedent when it comes to Pace v. Alabama Plessy v. Ferguson or Bowers v. Hardwick
>>79728214
>men't
Gun grabbers in a nut shell.
>>79733492
I belive it has little to do with the tools
if automatic weapons were widespread and affordable back then I doubt the law would be written very differently
however it DOES have to do with the intent for that weapon ownership
I maintain the intent was to allow orderly millitias to uphold law and to protect states frm the newly forming federal government
now we have police and state garisons we don't need private gun ownership, and private gun ownership undermines both the police and the armies ability to uphold lw
>>79728214
>men't
What the fuck is this shit? It's a nice shitpost is what it is. The jew tank is a nice touch. 10/10 you've got yourself a thread.
>>79734141
Listen clown, all able bodied men of qualifying age ARE the militia in the glorious USA. Note that I did not say eligible to JOIN the militia but that they ARE it you son of a emu.
>>79733032
Why thank you, for the image relating to what I just typed. You are a paragon of virtue.
>>79728214
At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, both American militiamen and British soldiers pretty much matched eachother in terms of firepower. The Second Amendment was also drafted with the idea of the populace fighting a tyrannical government in mind, so ideally that would mean that the citizenry should have access to weaponry that can match up against current US Military equipment.
>>79733889
>so does everyone get to interpert the constitution on an individual level however they want?
that's what your doing, isn't it? isn't that exactly what you argue for when you say it should be put to a popular vote? you kind of missed my point there, bud.
by the way the constitution can be amended and if the majority of america did want to amend it they could. but the majority doesn't.
>>79731713
>the right for the militias to remain protecting their towns while we sort things out
I'd love for you to cite a source for that claim, because the Federalist papers clearly state that it is for national defense and a buffer to an oppressive government.
>>79729705
I hate ameriturds for being fat and stupid but i love this attitude of yours. Yoy are nowhere near as cucked as gayropeans
>one post by this ID
REEEEE STOP REPLYING OR AT LEAST SAGE
>>79733889
>so does everyone get to interpert the constitution on an individual level however they want?
Yes its a contract with the people
If they keep twisting it eventually they will rebel
>>79734260
>If there are no guns, then there’s no gun violence.
have you ever heard of mexico? how about Chicago? banning guns doesn't do shit. Australia has no gun crime because they are all white.
look at white gun crime in america, its lower than almost every country in the EU.
>>79734809
>americans are fat and stupid
You know that's just a meme, right?
Like anything else, the statistics are skewed by a certain portion of the population.
>>79732861
Well our country was founded upon the right to popular sovereignty. Of course we oppose international law and regulations. We believe in the right of a people to govern themselves, through the process of electing representatives of their state to a federal congregation to discuss and resolve issues of the union.
I love it when people use the "hur dur muh muskets" argument. Do you all seriously believe not one person thought technology would ever advance past muskets way back during the founding of our country?
>>79734444
>I belive
Irrelevant what you believe
>if automatic weapons were widespread and affordable back then I doubt the law would be written very differently
yeah the shall not be infringed part would have been underlined
>the intent was to allow orderly millitias to uphold law and to protect states frm the newly forming federal government
funny, it says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms
>now we have police and state garisons we don't need private gun ownership, and private gun ownership undermines both the police and the armies ability to uphold lw
Who polices the police if not an armed population
>>79734881
I know, but I was speaking on it as though it were to be an inherent liberal truth that: if there were no guns in the world, gun violence wouldn't be. But violence still would.
>>79728214
>5th circuit court of appeals kicks can down the road to a Supreme Court that has deliberately avoided gun rights questions for years.
Nigga did you even read the article or the rulings discussed? HuffPo BTFO for slanting an irrelevant article as a win for lefties.
>>79734648
I have a million of them
>>79732861
You do realize that liberals can change the second amendment if they have enough support to do so right? The truth is they don't have that kind of support so they chip away at it with bullshit court rulings.
>>79728214
>links huffington post as a source.
>>79729090
But them a beer when they're done?
>>79728214
Like amerilards wont get kornets and even bootleg javelins from unlce Vlad in 5 minutes. Shut the fuck up
>>79728214
>Mfw everyone still replies to 1 post by this ID
>>79728214
Why do they even want to live in the United States ? they seem to hate everything it stands for, why not live in Europe ?
>>79735640
This so much. So many illegal Russian weapons are in this country and in the hands of drug gangs and niggers.
Fucking modern liberals..
>>79735673
Fffffuck the leaf is right, I forgot to check.
ABANDON THREAD!
>>79734444
Go read some literature written by the authors of the bill of rights.
It is very clear that they wanted weapons of war in the hands of the common man so that the common man could fight back against any oppressive government entity.
It is a huge problem for a totalitarian government to let the citizens obtain weapons. It challenges their power and authority and we should never ever give up our weapons.
>>79735676
They see free people and they can't have any of that,
>>79735799
>It is a huge problem for a totalitarian government to let the citizens obtain weapons. It challenges their power and authority and we should never ever give up our weapons.
>>79735889
>>79735579
>>79735889
>le if jews had ar15s meme
guns were not banned in the third reich
>>79736137
For jews they were
mexico and the usa have been to war three times.
canada has been to war with usa.
can you imagine mexicans and canadians trying to stab and shoot you? no, you can't. because people died to setup a border, which you now disrespect.
those people, not the usa military, setup the borders. they used their own weapons. cannons. war ships. the usa military needed to borrow those weapons and ships, and this lead to the usa winning.
all of this before 1776. so no i wont accept anything less than the same equipment that the mexican military has.
>>79736197
Are you saying terrorists should be allowed guns?
>>79736137
>guns were not banned in the third reich
I'll not dance around the issue.
I have and need an ar-15 to kill people, should I need to.
Convicted felons have a right to carry arms. Does any person, regardless of their past, not have a right to defend their lives? There should be no "concealed carry permit" which I own one, that is an infringement. All are aloud to carry a weapon.
I should be able to buy a machine gun, rpg, and scud missiles should I choose to. I should have unfettered access to every weapon that the federation of our states have access to. For the very reason of over throwing them if I choose to.
I don't shoot up fag bars because it's illegal. I don't rob people or banks because illegal. I don't do those things because it's outside of my moral compass.
For those people or government entities that find taking life, property, or liberty within their moral compass... I am here to stop that, if I so choose to.
third reich banned guns for jews. also banned was homeschooling for anyone, because hitler wanted to teach children before their parents could.
homeschooling is still illegal today in germany.
>>79736331
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
These were consifered 'terrorists' by the British empire
>Machine guns aren't legal in the United States
get rekt fucking retard
and even if they were, the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment in case another revolution was required
>>79736432
well said. foreign invaders don't care if you have a criminal record and can't own guns.
>>79736331
Obviously not since if they are terrorists they have already committed a crime.
>>79734500
Based granny.
>>79728214
Can you fucking archive that you asshole?
>>79736776
>implying he's not trying to give hits to that shill rag
>>79736542
But they are legal. Just not any manufactured after 1974 or 64. I forget which.
>>79735889
question still remains: how many non-jews did own a firearm during or shortly before ww2?
>>79737039
They are legal, yes. But ownership has been infringed.
>>79736883
I swear they do it on purpose.
I'm not giving a single shekels to that "'"'"'"'"news"'"'"'"'"'" site.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160701233954/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/machine-guns-second-amendment-ruling_us_57769b2ee4b09b4c43c03f30
>>79737153
That's not really the point
A unarmed population is easlier controlled by a totalitarian government
Without a means of resistance, you're as good as shoved into a box car if they want.
>>79733368
>Alexander Hamilton
>James Madison
>John Jay
Yeah, these guys had nothing to do with the constitution or the foundation of this nation.
It's pretty obvious you have not read nor even googled what the federalist papers are.
>>79728214
I heard merkava tanks were going on sale soon. Would love to put in the paper work to get the cannon working
>>79737235
Of course they do
I'd be surprised if they're not paid to do so but I'm sure there are enough true believers that just try to spread that shit for free
>>79728214
Arms ment arms, you bloody kike.
>>79728534
Pay your debt you zaziki drooling lazy bummer
tell me where to buy a musket instead of a current fire arm
you cant
stfu
>>79728214
I always thought that arguement was shit because the drafters of the Constitution knew everyone was similarly armed: musket for musket. These days it's the same thing, just everyone upgraded.
>>79737546
I do find it rather amusing that Germans took away Jews rights to own arms, and pretty much interned them and killed a bunch (probably not muh six million) and now we have kikes trying to do the same thing now
>>79728214
arms means weapons of any sort - including a sharp stick or a rock
your dewy-soft "claws" will not be needed as most of you have never been under fire and will likely go into shock at the first sight of blood
You know it will start a coup if they tried to take our guns from door to door. I hope they try. After the coup, I'll rewrite the 2nd amendment to read laser beams, mind control machines, terminator drones to be sold at Walmart. Every man woman and cold can own, possess, and carry any weapon known to man regardless of race, criminal status, or sex.
>>79728214
Actually
The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Supreme Court ruling, Caetano v Massachusetts
>>79737833
We found that rather amusing as well.
Well desu, guns would have enabled them to have at least an more honourable death or kill themselves but it would not have saved their lifes since they were only 0,5% of the population but still better to have a gun than not to have one. Or more than one.
>>79737486
federalist papers are a crock pot of bull shit. shits like the hadith, it's a hodge podge compilation with an agenda.
no need to reference them, each person in them has their own collection of writings.
>>79732731
Let me tell you something about the intent of the law you Emu war losing shill:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. This is a principle which secures religious liberty most firmly."
Zechariah Johnston, Ratifier of the Constitution
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee, Framer of the Second Amendment
"No citizen shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."
Thomas Jefferson
"The advantage of being armed the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . In several Kingdoms of Europe the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Framer of the Second Amendment
You see? The very people who invoked the second amendment disagree with your fag opinion. In fact they would shoot you and shit in your mouth. Maybe.
>>79729792
>doesn't understand between a personally anonymous opinion on a hermenuetically asian graphics exchange website and something published as being attributed to a particular person who publishes with their name attached.
You need educatin
underage detected
>>79728877
Because people are idiots and will do what is popular instead of what is right.
Those laws were meant to prevent tyrants and preserve freedom.
>>79730288
i-is t-that a-another sh-sh-sh-shitp--p-p-ost?
>>79728214
Arms mean anything you need to kill soldiers, police, and government officials to maintain your freedom. These rights were written after the overthrow of the world's most powerful military in order to codify the rights that achieved that freedom.
The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or protecting your house against burglars (although those are two benificial side effects) it's about killing government jackboots.
>>79738912
Thanks Hans
There were more than muskets in 1776.
Rifles, blunderbusses, and pistols.
Plus, gun powder existed, too. A crook could have planted five hundred pounds of gun powder underneath a building and set it off. It's not like mass murdering is a new invention.
>>79739700
Like a guy named Guy?
>>79739561
:-)
>>79732861
wow
not a shitpost
I'm feeling faint a bit faint
>>79738337
You are literally retarded. Without the federalist papers the constitution would not have been ratified.
>comparing fed papers to a toilet paper hadith
Nevermind, you're lost, just end your life for the betterment of the republic.
>>79731713
yes, please abbo, tell me what the history of our laws are.
>>79739856
Exactly. A "terrorist" who loved his people and believed in freedom, but hated his government. Instead of using guns he used something much more dangerous. That was one of the many events that inspired revolution against the British empire, and oligarchies in general.
>>79740128
lulz you need a centralized collection of super important papers?
if you think the only reason the constitution was ratified was because someone made a collection of all the "super important" documents, you're mistaken and have zero faith in humanity.
>>79740330
Do you think he should have succeeded?
>>79739700
One of the worst school massacres was a bombing in bath, michigan.
>>79728214
>Huffington Post
Don't forget to sage
>>79728214
If I understand America correctly the courts can rule whatever they want, the problem is enforcing the ban on tens of tousands 'muh Constitution' heavily armed people who often fantasized for decades about standoffs against "the Government" as a part of their 'Don't tread on me' ideoogy. Anyone actually trying to disarm the american masses is asking for a bloody shitstorm even if every court in the country ruled it legal.
Plus a good argument is that the musket was the heaviest peronal infantary weapon they had at the time so the ammendment basically says a private citizen should have a right to be properly armed to protect himself not lierally "armed with a matchlock" no matter what
>>79728726
Pretty sure they can even be more lethal and damaging, with the fuck huge lead ball it shoots, with black powder. Muskets are also military weapons. BAN THE BLUNDERBUSS! BAN FLINTLOCKS!
>>79740598
I think history unfolds exactly the way the way it is supposed to.
>>79729918
I really, really like this argument
>>79742398
>tens of thousands
You mean millions my polish plumber friendo
>>79732390
That's a nice Pepe. Can I save it?
>>79732909
Don't give the Aussies (you)'s!! They feed off of the buthurt of others, and only grow stronger! The vile inhuman beasts won't stop until the Internet is completely plagued by ignorance and stupidity, where shitposts are the only posts.
>>79742398
future of our planet
>>79734141
Nice spell check you dumbfuck dingo dicker
>>79742398
In the age of 3d printing the government is fucking doomed. They have done everything in their power to place the people under their evil boot and those bastards know their time is fleeing before them. Also the number of armed "outlaws" in America number in the millions not including actual bandits and such.
>>79728214
Doesn't it mean the general populace has the right to be armed with the same equipment as the military? You know to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government.
>>79744777
Christmas present gets it.
>>79735733
I know, why cant these illegal russian weapons be in my hands, so I can do stupid shit with them? I'm tired of my semiauto ar15. I want a full auto ak74
>>79728877
usa is a republic that elects democratically
republic = law rules
democracy = mob rules
>>79740034
Dude, it's obviously a proxy. Aussies only know shitposting. That's it. They only live a few short years in their adult lives soley to shit post, until they either away to insect bites or being eaten by dingoes
>>79731173
>but in a democracy it's the majority who should have power,
Nope. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. Even if most people don't like you doing something, if it's a protected right, you get to do it.
The alternative is mob rule, which our forefathers feared as much as kings.
>>79728214
>Huffington post
Gtfoutta here nigggggaaaaa
>>79736593
>Government calls everyone with a gun a terrorist.
Now what burger?
>>79732731
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
that comma is not in the ratified version
>>79748374
We a-lot-uh snack bar the place.
>>79732861
>you agree with enshrined laws existing, but only when you like them
no, thats you
>>79728214
I still have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of what the bill of rights or the courts say because they're called constitutionally protected rights, not constitutionally granted rights.
Also...
>Huffington Post
>>79728214
Arms meant firearms you fucking retard.
Guns are firearms.
Eat shit and kill yourself.
>>79728329
Have you ever seen a puckle gun? It's slower than a single action revolver by a huge margin :-/ It's literally slower than a bow and arrow well aimed.
>>79734367
A gun that is matchlock, unreliable, and generally considered a shit firearm even in it's time. You had to prime each shot individually after rotating the barrel and then matching it.
>>79728214
>men' t
You must be black
>>79742398
>If I understand America correctly the courts can rule whatever they want
Yeah, now they can since the courts have turned into judicial activism that reinterprets the law and constitution into whatever it wants.
>the problem is enforcing the ban on tens of tousands 'muh Constitution' heavily armed people who often fantasized for decades about standoffs against "the Government" as a part of their 'Don't tread on me' ideoogy. Anyone actually trying to disarm the american masses is asking for a bloody shitstorm even if every court in the country ruled it legal.
That's why I believe we'll never see large scale confiscations. They'll just instead outlaw the transport, use (even in self defense), sale, and transfer of firearms. Thus all the firearms will just rust to death in their owners homes who will never rise up against the government because they technically still have their firearms.
>Plus a good argument is that the musket was the heaviest peronal infantary weapon they had at the time so the ammendment basically says a private citizen should have a right to be properly armed to protect himself not lierally "armed with a matchlock" no matter what
The second amendment of course is about why firearms are legal, not which firearms are to be legal.
>>79749619
Not an argrurument
>Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Thus they'll say "Any firearm made with a machine is a machine gun, thus all firearms are not protected by the second amendment."
>>79749772
Of course it is, it shows the low intelligence of people who take this position.
I don't care one way or the other.
But fuck the NRA.
>>79730288
>democracy
There's that word again. How do you have such a hard time getting over the small mental hurdle that the USA is a republic?
Besides the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that democracy fails because one of the ways to garner votes is to reproduce faster than your opponents. If you can outbreed your political enemies because you have kids at age 13 (or lower) then you have to capability to create a mob army. Which is what we see happening for hispanics, arabs, Chinese and Indians.
>>79750121
>I don't care one way or the other.
If they can take your firearm rights they'll take all your other rights.
>But fuck the NRA.
lmao. Why? Because it's an organization that fights for the rights of people?
Free speech meant scrolls and quill pens, not computers.
>>79728214
Slippery slope. This will go to the Supreme Court and if Hillary is elected, it is the death of the 2nd Amendment. DC versus Keller is something the Leftist traitors want to overthrow more than anything.
>>79728214
The Second Amendment references a right, implied to be commonly understood and established in the common law, it doesn't fully define one.
What is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that shall not be infringed?
It's not a right for everyone to be provided with arms at public expense, as the Sixth Amendment provides a right for the accused in a criminal trial to be provided with a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, counsel in their defense, and compulsion of witnesses. All of those must be provided at public expense, so why not arms to keep and bear, if people have a right to them?
The Second Amendment references a right. You can't just read it in isolation and know what that right is.
The right to keep and bear arms referenced by the founding fathers did have limits, and enforcing those limits is not infringing on the right. Furthermore, its applicability to things which didn't exist yet is a complicated legal question. The common law right to keep and bear arms could be expected to evolve with developing technology, irrespective of federal legislation.
>>79750820
>This will go to the Supreme Court and if Hillary is elected,
What, you don't think the Republicucks won't cave to Obama after the conventions and approve his Jewish nominee?
>>79728214
>>Arms men't muskets not machine guns
Arms were kept vague as technology advanced numbskull.
Those arms also included cannons and mortars so let me say it again.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
>>79750556
the founders were classically trained. they knew what happened to the roman democracy.
>>79749377
How about this then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
A repeating rifle invented during the time of the revolutionary war, capable of firing 20 shot sin rapid succession before it needed to be reloaded. If such weapons were too terrible for common men to own then surely the founding fathers would have specified so in the constitution.
>>79728945
Write an article.
>>79748374
Durka durka muhammad jihad!
0.04 shekels have been deposited into your account.
>>79751390
>they knew what happened to the roman democracy.
You mean the roman republic?
>>79728214
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
>>79728214
Arms means weapon.
>>79734141
>>All able bodied men of qualifying age are in the militia by default.
>that is quiet a claim
its in our law you dumb nigger.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>>79751092
The second amendment doesn't say jack shit about making sure the government's bans keep up with the times.
>>79751522
>If such weapons were too terrible for common men to own then surely the founding fathers would have specified so in the constitution.
See: >>79751092
>The Second Amendment references a right, implied to be commonly understood and established in the common law, it doesn't fully define one.
The Second Amendment does not strike down or forbid those reasonable limitations on the ownership and carrying of weapons which were generally understood to be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
Anyway, the repeating weapons of the time, including the Girandoni air rifle, were costly and impractical curiosities. The air rifle was underpowered, fragile, difficult and time-consuming to reload, and maintenance intensive.
>>79753179
Maybe you should just listen when the adults are talking.
The second amendment doesn't specify anything on its own, but references a highly nuanced and complex notion of a natural right to keep and bear arms.
>>79751092
>The right to keep and bear arms referenced by the founding fathers did have limits
What were the limits?
>>79729328
The Founders were certainly aware- Thomas Jefferson, President by then, had one purchased and issued to Lewis and Clark for the expedition.
Pretty tough design to keep in service with the manufacturing tech of the time though.
>>79753618
>reasonable limitations
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>79753618
>Reasonable restrictions
>Shall not be infringed
>>79754973
Well, for a start, if you couldn't afford arms, the government wasn't generally obliged to provide you with them, not as part of the "right to keep and bear arms" at any rate. It was acceptable to disarm prisoners, and to forbid going armed into certain places or while participating in certain activities.
They accepted laws against things like "affrighting" which was open-carrying of unusual arms in public, causing a reasonable reaction of alarm, and against "brandishing", which is holding weapons in such a way as might be reasonably interpreted to suggest that violence might be imminent, and "assault", which is approaching in such a way (especially armed) as to put people in reasonable fear of imminent violence.
They accepted almost unlimited regulation of safe storage and discharge. In early America, it was unlawful in many jurisdictions for any firearm to be stored in loaded condition, and in some places it was required to keep all significant quantities of powder in a public storage facility. It was common to limit the quantity of powder which could be stored in an individual household to a few pounds, so while people might have been allowed to own military weapons such as cannons, they would commonly be forbidden to privately keep the quantity of powder necessary to make them useful.
Their experience being with the tactical realities of muzzle-loading weapons, the founding fathers might have found restrictions on ownership and storage of assembled and primed cartridges quite reasonable. Carrying a loaded weapon or two for personal defense is one thing, carrying such an array of pre-loaded rounds that one is prepared to decimate a crowd in moments is quite another. I wouldn't be surprised if they were split over the issue, if it had presented itself at the time.
Statewide laws forbidding concealed weapons were accepted in some states as early as 1813, with the Second Amendment having been adopted just 22 years earlier.
>>79728214
In 1993, four niggers ILLEGALLY armed with R4 assault rifles and M26 hand grenades attacked a church in Cape Town with the aim of massacring everyone and burning down the church.
But fortunately, a guy called Charl van Wyk, armed only with a six round .38 special revolver, wounded one and forced them to flee the scene.
11 people were killed in the incident, but a Bataclan body count was avoided by a single law abiding citizen carrying a revolver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James_Church_massacre
>>79759004
>>79756921
Are you just idiots?
First of all, this doesn't appear in the post you're replying to:
>Reasonable restrictions
It's "reasonable limitations".
Anyway, I've explained at some length how the right to keep and bear arms was a concept which they understood to have limitations. Recognizing and respecting those limitations is not the same as infringing on the right.
If you honestly think "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means everyone must be allowed to have whatever weapons they want all the time, then you must think it means that every prison cell should have a gun rack between the bunk and toilet.
Disarming prisoners was part of the limitations on "the right to keep and bear arms", not an infringement on that right, and so was limiting the amount of black powder that could be stored in a home, forbidding weapons to be stored while loaded, and telling people not to bring guns into the courthouse.
>>79754027
No, there is no nuance or complexity. The government isn't permitted to tell me what firearms I can own.
Try to keep up, chug.
>>79728214
how the fuck is this argument?
lets say tyrants have the best equipment there is that the muskets cant do shit against
wow how useful was to have that mendment
get real, all the weaponry is required, only tyrants try to take the modern guns away from free people way or another
if nuke is only thing to keep tyrants away, then the free men shall have their nuke. if not then expect rebellion and you know the tyrants will lose it and executes start to happen all around
>>79760214
I read this just moments after my neighbor fired off his cannon, sending shock waves of ground reverberating freedom through the earth. I guess losers have always wanted to boss everybody around in every era but that cannons report is testimony to their failure. We are still free and others may become that way again. What the hall rule monitor tribe of sissy's could not accomplish overtly they now attempt a little at a time and in every domain. It seems even the past is not safe from their agenda.
>>79761372
>The government isn't permitted to tell me what firearms I can own.
Sure man. You're a sovereign citizen. You're travelling, not driving. The federal government has no lawful authority to tax your income. The fringe on that flag makes this an admiralty court.
>>79762317
>5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
>>79728214
>>79753618
>The Second Amendment does not strike down or forbid those reasonable limitations on the ownership and carrying of weapons which were generally understood to be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
If the founders wanted "reasonable restrictions" on weapon ownership they would have said so. They could have said that citizens were limited to buying weapons of a particular power, or prohibited from owning field guns, but they didn't.
>Anyway, the repeating weapons of the time, including the Girandoni air rifle, were costly and impractical curiosities.
Automatic weapons of today are costly and impractical. the air rifle was costly, but it wasn't impractical. It was a legitimately good weapon to own.
>The air rifle was underpowered, fragile, difficult and time-consuming to reload, and maintenance intensive.
Don't make shit up you dumb nigger.
>>79762317
>Sure man. You're a sovereign citizen. You're travelling, not driving.
Lay off the listerine.
>The federal government has no lawful authority to tax your income.
The constitution doesn't declare any restrictions on the federal government from levying taxes.
>>79728877
If strayan had guns, they'd revolt from Brits since penal era.
