To the best of my understanding, the point of 2A was to allow the general populace to maintain to the best of their ability the same weaponry the government itself was able to keep. Would that mean any restrictions on non-felon firearm ownership are unconstitutional?
Yeah dude. Shall not be infringed. But for a few decades gun owners got burned for being complacent.
Since when has a thing being unconstitutional ever stopped the feds from doing it?
>>30306978
1/4
>>30306996
2/4
Not in your lifetime and certainly not now with all the impending gun control legislation
>>30306999
3/4
>>30307003
4/4
>>30307000
Nice quads.
So what would the logical response be? It's a constitutional right, but the government seems to disregard it as such. If someone ignored it, would the ATF case make it to the Supreme Court?
>>30307022
>quads
I'm, blind, nice trips.
>>30307022
I was just typing up a similar question. Suppose someone built an unregistered NFA item; a FA, SBR/SBS or a can. Got caught with it and arrested.
COMMITTED NO CRIME OTHER THAN POSSESSION.
Could you fight it? Would it make it higher than the local court? Could you fight it using the 2A as an argument? Or would you just find yourself disenfranchised and in prison and debt?
>>30307022
>>30307073
Mind you, Supreme Court just L O V E S to not hear 2A cases. It's their way of railroading 2A matters to state rights (where they can perpetuate harmful gun laws with each blue-majority election cycle). If it were to be heard on a federal level, the sheer amount of FACT that the gun community's appointed lobbyists would bring to bear would be a sure, permanent federal ruling on the matter. The left knows that, and thus just refuses to hear them. Better to plug your ears than face reality. Fits their usual pattern pretty clearly.
>>30307587
*state courts
Not state rights
>>30306978
Nowhere in the 2A does it say you should be as armed as uncle Sam.
WELL armed, not better armed or evenly armed
the only hope we have, is for rampant inflation to occur, paired with a complete overhaul of mfa stamp processing, for nfa jail to last only q few minutes
>>30307609
Just like how it doesn't say anywhere in there you SHOULDN'T be as well-armed as the government.
I see how it might be hard for a European/Australian vassal such as yourself to understand, but we've more or less operated on reciprocity with our governing body. By the people, for the people, et al.
Is this anywhere near what the founding fathers had in mind in terms of civil liberties or governmental transparency? No.
But I can walk down the street with a Scary Black Rifle, throwing stars and a Bowie the size of my huge head like some sort of edgelord miniboss and not get thrown in the slammer for endangering some imaginary people. And I can go down that street without having to think "I sure hope those immigrants aren't planning on beheading or bombing me. It sucks not being able to lawfully defend yourself."
Go back to /int/, and give my regards to your kangaroo wife.
>>30307701
And the highest court in the land has taken it upon itself by the powers granted to it by the PEOPLE to say that you're wrong and your interpretation is flawed. You can say I'm wrong though but the NFA says I'm right
>>30307733
I'd argue that even the SC can be wrong, it's just much harder to contest them. NFA is very clearly an infringement.
