Ask the most Pro 2nd Amendment anon anything.
>>71991644
Are any weapons not covered by the 2nd Amendment in your view?
I'll bet I'm on par with your support, and I don't even have the bias of owning a firearm.
>>71991699
Nope everything is Fine
>>71991928
Mah nigga.
>>71992066
Machine guns
Cannons
Missile launchers
Rail guns
Tanks
Warships
Fighter Jets
Nukes
Spaceships
Orbital lasers
Everything is covered by the second amendment.
Is there any way to slip futuristic laser type guns into the second amendment?
>>71992268
Stop... stop!! No, don't stop..
>>71992268
So some rich saudi muslim could come to US and buy a nuke ? Think about it, anon
>>71992349
Already covered.
Now whether or not our nobility class will still allow it, remains to be seen.
Nukes aren't covered by the second amendment yet because they can't be used to preserve any freedom, unless you count foreign invaders which is what the Army is for. Guy breaks into your house, you blow up him, yourself, your city, etc. That a quite criminal.
>>71992466
Nope, only for US citizens. If he does use a nuke then I can use one against him as well.
Mutually Assured Destruction applies.
>>71991644
are 223 rem barrels more accurate than 556 or is that a myth
>>71991644
We're petitioning and writing our representatives that we're against tightening of our gun laws, indeed, we are asking if they cannot become more lenient instead.
What are the odds of the US throwing its weight around to help us there? Probably nill, but still.
>>71992730
Wrong. They can serve as a sword of Damocles for freedom lovers in that if the government tries to go against freedom than they will rule over nothing.
MAD rules applies
>>71992730
Sure they can.
What are sub kilo-ton nukes?
You can stop a whole company of Muslim technicals in one artillery shell and save all of Mayberry.
Commie faggot.
>>71992268
But are those arms bearable? Doesn't one need to be able to bear an armament in order to have the right to bear it?
>>71992861
Trump might.
Literally every other candidate is cucked to hell and back.
>>71992782
Only slightly.
>>71992861
The liberal west governments will never help and Pro Gun organizations are too busy in their own states.
Sorry but you're on your own.
>>71992874
I'm a professional cowboy and I use catheters. Been cowboyin' for 25 years. I've had 14 broken bones, 2 concussions and a punctured lung. I know pain and I don't want any more of it. Especially when I cath.
>>71992782
.223 Wylde, yes.
>>71992874
Nope, you don't have to technically wield it.
>>71992979
Wat
>>71991644
>>71992861
DC (Federal Government) is the only government capable/allowed to influence foreign governments.
Most of our States, individually, would back you. Especially Texas, we're doin a lot of muh dick gun pumping these days.
But you can't count on Washington. Even the Republicans there are communists.
>>71991644
Should absolutely everyone be allowed the right to bear arms?
Felons, mentally ill, illegal immigrants, other non-citizens like tourists, etc.
>>71992874
Private citizens had cannons and frigates loaded with mortars (and cannon) for decades and nobody in the government batted an eye about it.
Gun control didn't really start up in any great measure until after the Civil War.
I am looking for a compact DA/SA 9mm with a hammer....any ideas?
Never liked having a loaded striker fired pistol in my pocket.
>>71992863
>>71992866
You can't protect your freedoms by blowing yourself and property up. You also can't irradiate and destroy innocent people's property to protect yourself. If you have a private island, or living in space or something, then nukes can apply. But if you can't use a nuke without becoming a massive criminal then youre a threat to everyone around you.
>>71993219
Prisoners and institutionalized mentally ill (ie prisoners) have their rights temporarily suspended by due process.
However, once a person is released, they should have all 2nd Amendment rights restored.
That's the way it used to work.
>>71993156
>>71992941
>>71992912
Alright, thanks. No worries, we'll keep on pushing.
>>71993274
Sig p239. It's got a little heft to it, but it's slim.
The extra weight from the frame helps with recoil though.
>>71993274
Sig P239/P938
Heavier steel construction is great for recoil/followups. Single stack, and pretty slim profile with the right grips.
>>71992469
Nobility class? Redpill me cause I would really wish death ray type "guns" to be backed by the 2nd amendment
>>71993487
>>71993519
>>71991928
Atomic bomb?
>>71992863
no offence but no civilian organization has the ability to build/purchase nukes and then house them in a ready state for use against your own governement. It's not viable economically logistically and i dont think they'd be much use to you tactically. Not unless the civilian organization posseses the sophisticated command/control/targeting/launch capabilities necessary to actually defeat goverment countermeasures and attack their assets.
Otherwise all you ve got is the ability to hold your own population hostage against the government, at which point you're both as tyrranical as each other.
Should I start with a 1911 or a revolver as a beginner? I like the history behind both guns, but I have limp faggot wrists.
>>71991644
How do you refute the "well-regulated militia" argument liberals always use?
>>71993543
We have an elite class of politicians and plutocrats that can 'work around' the Constitution when they want to.
So, ultimately, our masters would need to allow us death ray guns if we were to enjoy them.
They only allow stuff if we get cranky enough in large enough numbers.
How is it that certain states have passed legislation infringing on the 2nd amendment. I understand that the states have a certain amount of power delegated to them that is beyond the power of the federal government but such state power is never suppose to override constitutional rights. How is it that state have and continue to get away with this unlawful power grabbing? Is there any case law that shows any victory to the contrary?
>>71993593
Uh, all US nuclear weapons are manufactured by civilian companies.
>>71992979
kek what the fuck is this shit?
>>71993617
If you have lady wrists, go with a .38 or .357 mag and get gud.
Then get a 1911 just for the sexy oldfag factor.
>>71993716
nice aswering of all the other points i made buddy.
>>71993651
well regulated meant effective at the time of signing, not bogged down with regs
>>71993593
>at which point you're both as tyrranical as each other
If you kill your enemies, they win
>>71993274
CZ P01
>>71993295
The founding fathers were terrorists, your argument is irrelevant.
>>71993363
THIS 100%
>>71993565
Yup
>>71993593
Price is the main barrier that prevents people from having Nukes.
>>71993617
REVOLVER whatever you do don't get a 1911 For a first gun
>>71993257
Because niggers were roaming free all over the country for the first time.
>>71993698
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
There are victories here and there, here is the biggest recent one.
Commie states are allowed to infringe on the 2nd A because challenging the laws all the way up to the Supreme Court takes a long time.
Only in extreme cases is a law blocked right after it's passed.
Some citizens in certain states simply hate freedom. That's why this continues to happen.
>>71993828
>>71993617
22 rifles are fun first guns, you can become well prepared for an aluminum can uprising
>>71993651
Every able body man is part of the militia.
>>71993698
The states that have infringed on the rights of the people need to be punished.
>>71993828
>Yup
I draw the line at atomic bombs, but I think everything else is okay.
>>71992782
Depends on what ammo you're using. .223 through a 5.56 barrel will fire fine but will be less accurate due to .223 having a slightly different neck and lower powder load.
Though as poster below stated .223 Wylde is supposed to cure this.
5.56 will go through a .223 rifle but you might end up paying for it through premature wear on the gun.
>>71992741
He could gain US citizenship.
Also that's the thing with sandniggers, some of them don't care about being destructed
>>71993784
That's all there is.
Civilian organizations do build nukes, missiles, guidance systems, communications systems, etc...
All the things you would need to deploy an effective nuclear strike.
All reasonably priced within the range of some individuals, groups of individuals and local towns, depending on the desired options.
Even the necessary periodic maintenance of warheads is widely known, though it would take a bit of convincing for a qualified tech to confirm even the existence of nuclear weapons...
>>71994052
Where is he going to get the billion dollars for the nuke?
>>71993882
That's exactly right.
Next time a lefty pushes gun control, remind them of the anti-free black history of gun control.
Not that they would bat an eye or not immediately cry rape... but it's worth a shot.
>>71993828
Doesn't matter what the FF were. You can't own a nuke for the same reason you can't point loaded firearms at innocent/random people. It's taking people as hostages/a reasonable cause for retaliation. It's not owning the nuke that's the problem. Like I said if you keep it on your personal island or spaceship it's fine.
>>71994002
MOAB bombs have a bigger yield than Mk-54 Davy Crockett nuclear warheads.
So there's nothing inherently taboo about nuclear weapons if you're fine with big conventional weapons.
Nukes just have a wider range of blast yield possibilities as well as the potential for many additional secondary effects.
>>71994197
everytime you hear "saturday night special" recall that the full phrase was "niggertown saturday night special" and democrat racists were afraid of armed blacks
>>71991644
What is the Difference between U.S. Citizenship and Nationality?
>>71994401
They still are t b h
You don't need Glock tier quality to make a 25 acp revolver, and low cost guns get in the hands of those who need them most
Can you give me a gun, anon?
>>71993617
.22 revolver or semi-automatic. Get the basics down and try not to shoot your eye out, then you'll be better equipped to handle something with recoil like a 1911 or Python.
Once you're accustomed to handling, then the choice is really yours. Assuming its mostly for range use, try to find a range where they rent weapons, try them both and then go with whatever suits you.
For carry weapons, both are good but not necessarily the best choice. A revolver is dependable by nature, but a bit bulky by nature as well.
The 1911 is slender which is a plus, but it is also a full-size, all metal handgun so its still on the heftier side compared to more modern options.
>>71994361
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=0.01&lat=40.72422&lng=-73.99611&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&zm=16
Blast radius on a 10 ton nuke is pretty small.
There are ranches in Texas where you could set these off and some neighbors may never even know it.
>>71993487
those sig models are single action only though. I like having the hammer down with a round in the chamber.
i'll have to take a look at that cz p-01....looks sort of big though.
>>71994454
a lot of people don't want to admit it, but a lot of free people who need protection get it from kel-tec, raven arms, phoenix arms, hi-point, and so on. Dems fucking hate this
>>71994714
>>71994382
If you have a small nuke, sure (as long as you take into account the fallout, too) When people bring up the nuke argument they usually talk about city/country sized, though.
is the chiappa rhino a meme gun
i've heard talk about them but have never seen someone shooting one
>>71994107
They're contractors for the government. They're RnD is paid by public funds. They make stuff to order under government control. They aren't civillian as much as they are the millitaries paid manufacturing auxillaries. They get profit as a reward for making stuff to spec. They arent going to make stuff for civvies even if they pony up the cash - its not their contract and what they do is classified.
No one outside government control knows exactly how h bombs work - probably not even the manufacturers themselves. Im not here to support that - im just here giving you the reality.
>>71994773
Nope, P239 has SA/DA with a de-cocker lever options.
>>71994916
Yes it is.
>>71994493
What if I do you one better and teach you in this very thread how to build your own?
>>71994993
woops i was looking at the 239....238 is ok, but 8 rounds compared to a slightly larger cz with 14 rounds. I would have to hold both....hardly any models in this market. DA/SA too old school now I guess.
>>71994913
Fallout from an airburst is very short lived.
I'm not aware of any city/country sized nukes... some very large nukes that would be very cost-ineffective to maintain can do a lot of damage to a large city, but not flatten it.
Regardless, there are scenarios where nukes of various yields would be useful for defense or even just old fashion commercial blasting for engineering projects.
Especially once we start spreading out into space or manning Trump's great wall.
>>71992979
>>71995275
I would stick with a compact single stack for most carry situations.
14 rounds is useless if you get tired of carrying because it sucks lugging that fat bastard around everywhere you go.
Just carry some extra mags on a 7-8 compact single stack.
If you need more than 3 mags, you need to be retreating to your vehicle for your battle rifle.
>>71991644
Opinion on gun laws prohibiting felons and crazies from owning firearms.
I'm in favor of every good citizen owning possessing the means to defend his life and property. But a criminal has forfeited those rights and a crazy (i.e. someone whose mind is clearly unsound) is more likely than not to be a good citizen.
>>71993127
>Oakland A's
Either he's living out of state or those are illegal.
Are you as hyped for pre ban plasma guns as I am?
They aren't technically firearms.
It will be some years but still
>>71994943
They would sell to civilians if it was legal for them to do so. We're discussing theory here, not our current regulatory/legal situation.
>>71995413
meh, the weight doesn't really bother me, it is just the length/protrusion issue, so I would have to see both of these in person. I have carried a Beretta 92 for years.
>>71994052
It could be heavily regulated, and also require annual inspections as well as have a cap on the number you can own, etc.
>>71995455
The problem with this is it allows the government to permanently remove fundamental human rights. This is reserves for only the most extreme punishments - ie. execution (so the point of restoring rights is moot...)
It should never be easy for the government to permanently remove rights in one final decision.
Rather, any suspension of rights should be as a result of due process.
If someone is still a threat, and enough of a threat to suspend their human rights, let a jury make the call to imprison them.
The bar for suspending someone's rights should be very high, not something we trivially toss around for any crime or hint of mental instability.
>>71992268
You, sir, are a goddamn patriot. If you were a ruler that let me have any of that shit, I'd use it to help destroy our enemies.
>>71995642
Cool. I would also advise you invest in a good holster and heavy leather belt designed for carry if you don't have any already.
Makes a huge difference when you're carrying all day.
Milt Sparks is like getting a Ferrari... but they are fantastic accessories.
>>71993651
Militia service used to be mandatory for every freeman in the US.
Virginia had the most notable example of this.
From 1607 until the end of the Civil War, every free white man was required by law to serve in the state militia and could be called up into service at any time (as they were suppressing slave rebellions, fighting Indians, Bacon's Rebellion, and both the American and Southern wars of independence).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia#17th_century
>>71995515
Just call them tools and everything's fine. We'll be needing them to harvest asteroids and planets once Muslims destroy the Eastern half of Earth in the 2100s.
>>71995515
^This
>>71992466
Who do you think manufactures and maintains our fucking nuclear weapons? I'll give you a hint nuclear weapons engineer isn't a MOS for a reason. Right now as we shitpost there are nukes in private hands. Also tanks and fighter jets are legal too. Some rich guy from Romania donated half a dozen MIGs that he owned to my local air museum. It's a shame March doesn't have the money to keep them air worthy. Poor place had to beg borrow and damn near steal to build a hangar for their SR71.
>>71995942
When the mass immigration of Russians happen are we gonna force them to mine in space?
>>71995946
they lost entirely because they didn't have a space b52 on hand
Still best character of the whole movie is Quaritch, rest is just hippie fucks, shitty representation of jamestown natives (shoulda been murdering colonists unprovoked), and a jew
>>71995736
That is true.
I consider the permanent revocation of civil rights for crimes, even long after the person's sentence has been served to be wrong.
I will also say this.
One of the reasons gun massacres are a frequent occurrence is the intersection of the right to bear arms and the right of doctor-patient confidentiality. Although on paper, there are laws against selling arms to mentally unsound people, it may not be possible for the gun dealer to tell unless they had access to that person's mental health record (which is of course, private).
This leads me to my next question.
What is your opinion on proposals to require potential gun purchasers to either submit relevant mental health records/submit to a mental health evaluation?
swords and muskets, the guns of the real men
>>71996293
I am against requiring gun purchasers to submit any mental health records or to submit to a mental health evaluation.
The only criteria I accept for the suspension of fundamental rights is via due process in a court of law before a jury on an individual basis.
I am all in favor, however, of government being more responsible about imprisoning dangerous individuals.
But they need to make a strong legal case on an individual basis. The burden of proof should be on them and a high bar must be met when talking about rights.
>>71996709
>I am all in favor, however, of government being more responsible about imprisoning dangerous individuals.
lol good luck with that.
We spend so much money and resources imprisoning people for stupid shit like drugs that prisons wind up letting out violent felons prior to their release dates, often without proper supervision.
On top of that, the mental healthcare system is an utter mess, so a lot of people who in prior decades would've been receiving treatment in mental hospitals are either left to fend for themselves (often winding up homeless) or are warehoused in prisons, which only amplifies their violent tendencies.
All of this winds up leading to high crime rates and more people demanding gun restrictions in turn.
>>71991644
Should a citizen be able to own an aircraft carrier fully loaded with weaponry and nuclear devices?
>>71997043
Can't disagree with those conclusions.
Hope it gets better, but it'll probably get a lot worse before it does.
>>71997213
Mmmmm... keep talkin...
What kind of carrier are we talkin... ramp or cat assist? What kind of air defense systems does she have on....
Does the crew do naughty things to her.. oh I bet they do...
>>71992979
Why do I keep seeing this in threads? And why are you putting a tube in your dick?
>>71993651
>well-regulated = well equipped and trained
>>71997213
as long as its all semi-auto and not above .50 cal
>>71991644
You can't be the most pro 2nd anon, because I'm the most pro 2nd anon.
>>71997213
citizens already do own those things the are the super rich and they control the strings behind the scenes. They are the reason we are at war in the middle east they own the aircraft carriers and the weapons. They hide behind a false democratic system and the normies eat it up because they can vote for a half black man or a vagina and be progressive and feel good about themselves.
The bank themselves are too big to fail meaning that if they ever failed they would do as much collateral damage as possible when they went down.
>>71994002
>I draw the line at atomic bombs, but I think everything else is okay.
Fucking gun stealing communist lib. Don't you have a Bernie rally to go to?
SHALL
>>71995996
>Poor place had to beg borrow and damn near steal to build a hangar for their SR71.
>SR71
>"hangar"
It pisses me off that these birds will never fly again. I wish some super rich fag could twist the governments arm into letting him restore and fly a couple.
>>71993651
The first clause has no bearing on the legal understanding of the latter.
>>71997213
If that can afford it? Sure. They still have to obey the law. How many people can do that that aren't Saudi princes (who already have control of a military)? How many people would waste their money on such a thing?
>>71997455
No ramps, real carriers have no curves
Should you require training to use a weapon before you can own it?
Should anyone of any age be allowed weapons? I don't think a 5 year old with a shotgun or LMG would be very good.
Good thread :)
>>71997213
Absolutely
ABSOLUTELY
