![ar15-tw-m15-ruger-682x382.1426183524[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/20GvzEv.png "ar15-tw-m15-ruger-682x382.1426183524[1].png")
It may be true that I don't NEED a high powered rifle but the second amendment says I can have one.
It is also true that I don't NEED to hear whiney bitches cry about guns but the first amendment says cry babies can cry all they want.
What I wonder is why people actively want to give up their rights?
If they succeed in hindering the 2nd what will come next?
The same people ready to give up their second are also trying to impede their own 1st with hate speech regulations.
50 years from now we will have no guns, no expression, no trials, and we will all be slaves housing military personnel.
>for the record I only own a couple handguns and a couple shotguns. No Automatic Rifle, 15 clip per second, military assault rifle with baby seeking bullets.
>>77299197
Justifying homosexuality is like trying to justify eating shit.
>AR-15
>high powered
>>77299197
second amendment doesn't mention AR-15's
Doesn't say that random disorganized citizens with automatic weapons counts as militia either.
should make an official militia group sanctified by government to own automatic weapons
vigorous testing and requirements for joining official militia
all non military and citizens not officially recognized by militia are not allowed to own anything better than a shotgun
>>77299197
>the second amendment says I can have one.
The second amendment doesn't give you your rights.
The government doesn't give you your rights.
The only thing that gives you your rights is your firearm and being enlightened about your freedom to fucking use it on redcoat cowards.
>>77299807
According to the gungrabbers it is the highest powered, most deadly rifle ever made.
>>77299197
But I do need it for more power.
>>77300076
Actually, it does. The right to bear arms is guaranteed to the people, not to the militia.
>>77300076
Constitution doesn't say you need to belong to a "militia" to own guns, it says because militias are important to a free society the people have the right to bear arms.
>>77300261
/thread
Why have a second amendment and MUH GUNS if the government keeps eternally fucking you in the ass whether you have them or not?
Wasn't the point of the gunst to stop the government from pulling bullshit on you?
Thinking a 200 year old paper gives you anything.
>>77300923
Don't sweat it.
The "Day of the Rope" is coming.
And this time, the cowards can't survive without electricity and water being pumped into their homes.
>>77300261
I think your confusing the word AR-15 with firearms.
Notice how I said that civilians should have weapons?
>>77301218
See:
>>77300114
Come and take it, you cowardly fuck.
And if you pay the government to do it for you, well...
See:
>>77301218
>>77299197
i hope they get rid of that dam 5th amendment
>>77300271
I didn't say that?
Or are you implying that the second amendment says that we have a right to bear automatic firearms?
>>77301360
Err...
See:
>>77301272
instead
>>77301423
Yes.
>>77299197
>the second amendment says I can have one.
No, you have the right to have one.
The 2nd Amendment says that the government cannot infringe on your right to have one.
>>77301218
It's not the paper, it's the words and their meanings, DIPSHIT
>>77301272
So you're saying it doesn't matter whether you have guns or not?
In a "day of rope" scenario i guess everyone having guns makes it a full PvP zone, so if your plan is for everyone to exterminate each other then it may work out.
>>77301423
>Or are you implying that the second amendment says that we have a right to bear automatic firearms?
The 2nd Amendment does not limit what arms we have the right to. Nothing in the wording limits the action type, caliber, or capacity.
It doesn't even have an asterisk and then at the bottom of the page say "*I mean, you know, within reason."
>>77301423
Automatic weapons were being developed soon after firearms were invented so I'm going to go with yes.
>>77301694
Words mean shit! We was kangs and shit. You sound like a fucking retarded nigger.
>>77301218
>Thinking a 200 year old paper gives you anything.
A 200 year old paper from which the federal government derives it's authority to this day, yes.
>>77301723
The gun isn't leaving my possession until my hands cannot hold it.
Here in glorious 'Murica, we can collectively tell the existing government to go suck cocks in faggotland.
>>77299197
>AR-15
>high powered rifle
This is false.
All memes aside, there is no reason an ordinary civilian should be allowed to buy an AR-15.
>>77302119
>because I can
Yes there is, you fucking cuck.
>>77299663
that it's some people's fetish?
>>77299197
>.223
>high power
choose one
>>77302119
More power.
>>77302119
There is a reason, the government fears its people.
>>77301980
>we can collectively tell the existing government to go suck cocks
So, why haven't you stopped the foreign intervention all around the world and ME? The cold war mentality and unwillingness to cooperate with Russia? Obamacare? The obnoxious support to Israel? The crisis with illegal immigration? The outsorcing of jobs to foreigners? The ever increasing debt?
The fact that Trump rose the way he did means that people are absolutely fed up with the government. It also means that even if they were fed up no one bothered to do shit, and i guess their guns were put to great use in shooting ranges and coffins under your bed.
Sure, hold your guns all you want. I guess they look cool enough to make for a good decoration.
>>77299197
Everyone read this.
Learn it.
Link it in all anti gun threads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Police are not here to protect citizens, according to Washington DC high court.
>>77302505
He was probably using high powered 5.56 NATO military grade exploding ammunition
>>77300076
>official militia group sanctified by government to own automatic weapons
>vigorous testing and requirements for joining official militia
It's called the Army, idiot.
Anybody else can own non-auto weapons except for certain regulated and taxed & licensed firearms.
Gun ownership is a fucking right that you have, simply by being smart enough to be an American. You wouldn't give up your right to free speech, would you? Because that is the next right you'll lose right after you give away your right to bear arms.
Fuck off, shithead.
>>77300076
First amendment makes no mention of the internet, dumbfuck.
>>77302119
There is no reason to have more than one car or different pairs of shoes. If you are a law abiding citizen then I can spend my hard earned money on whatever the fuck I want too
>>77302119
>there is no reason an ordinary civilian should be allowed to buy an AR-15.
Luckily there's a thingy that says I don't need to be "allowed" to buy it.
Also, self defense is a valid reason. Lightweight, accurate, larger capacity could be important so that you don't run out at an inopportune time. And, you know, beyond cosmetics, an AR-15 with a 5 or 10 rd magazine is much like any other semi-auto rifle commonly used for hunting.
>>77302710
Ah, green/red/beige tips.
>>77299197
The first amendment does not protect treason and I highly doubt that the same Founding Fathers who passed the Alien And Sedition Acts would tolerate a vocal minority of culturally foreign avtivists agitating to undo our foundational law.
I do not think the First Amendment protects Michael Bloomberg's perpetual, multi-named anti-freedom campaign.
At the very least, politicians in office should not be allowed to criticize the Bill of Rights at the same time that they are supposed to be upholding and defending it. If they care so much they can step down first.
>>77302505
I saw some article written by some dope that said the 5.56 round can go "unusually fast at 3000 feet per second, unlike the typical 750-1400 feet per second of most handguns."
>comparing rifle round velocity to handgun round velocity to determine the rifle is "unusually fast"
>>77303555
interesting
>>77299197
>50 years from now we will have no guns, no expression, no trials, and we will all be slaves housing military personnel.
That should be OK by you because then you can safely go to your favorite gay bar.
>>77303555
"Outrageous acts of science" had a piece where they said a 12 gauge slug has higher muzzel velocity then a .223 round....
>>77302859
You don't know shit, junior. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't defame or libel someone with impunity. Same for guns: you can't take a fucking gun legally into a private place that says no to your dick extender being there. You fucking liberals think your fucking gun rights are invincible. Just like in your favorite gay bar you just got "Vince-ed".
>>77299197
People afraid of freedom need to GTFO. You don't like the foundation of the country, GTFO.
>>77303723
Not if they take away the 14th.
>>77301218
Nowhere in the constitution are the terms "give" or "grant" used. It mainly tells the federal government what it can NOT do. Americans rights are "endowed by their creator". Even without the 2nd, gun ownership falls under "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property).
the point most people fail to understand, and that I see so much energy and breath wasted here about, is that every law is a law of limits.
that is to say, that you can HAVE an abortion until a certain date. you can OWN a car that goes a certain mph, likewise, you have the freedom of owning a weapon TO A DEGREE.
notice that americans don't have the "right" of owning a tank or rocket launcher. there is A LIMIT TO THE FREEDOM. that being said, the only sensible energy that should be spent is in discussing the "limits" of said freedom. to harp on and on and debate endlessly the merits of "a particular gun" is a useless exercise. every law is made "in abstract", meaning, it defines limits that do not subscribe to A PARTICULAR WEAPON.
that being said, all those ITT who claim they are in favor of gun rights and ownership, what do you believe to be a sensibly described "limit" the this freedom of citizen owned weaponry?
if people truly understood this concept, these threads would have 1/20 the replies that they do.
drop the accusations, drop the defense, and simply describe and define the proper and reasonable limits of said law.
I feel like im a founding father or some shit being so detached and logical when the chaos surrounds me......
>>77302620
You gotta get people motivated.
As of now, people are just trying to keep their family fed.
It's going to take something ridiculous to get them out of their comfy routines.
>>77304920
What potential political power does this grants citizens against an illegitimate government?
>>77305097
You actually can own a tank, I'm not sure about a rocket launcher though, maybe with the correct permits.
>>77299197
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little goyim? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Harvard, and I've been involved in numerous secret pyramid schemes in the USA, and I have over 300 million dollars. I am trained in economics and I'm the top jew in the entire society of intellectual hebrews. You are nothing to me but just another customer. I will bankrupt you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of bankers across the USA and your bank account is being drained right now so you better prepare for the eviction, maggot. The eviction that kicks out the pathetic little thing you call your ass. You're fucking broke, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can extort money from you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my holocaust stories. Not only am I extensively trained in ripping you off, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the JIDF and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable trolling off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking goyim tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the unreasonable price of 10% above market value, you goddamn idiot. I will overprice items all around you and you will drown in them. Oy vey, kiddo.
>>77301521
So you're saying that because of the existence automatic weapons prior to the second amendment MUST mean that when they said firearms they meant that
"any laws that prohibit ANY sort of gun is unconstitutional."
No they said firearms with no specifications because they knew that that was a right we should have, it doesn't matter what kind of guns were allowed to own all that matters is that we have them.
We already have regulations about certain guns that aren't allowed to be owned by civilians I don't see you guys complaining about that.
>>77305377
It leaves it up to the citizens to overthrow that government.
>>77305380
>>77305478
again, you all are missing the point.
forget the 2nd amendment
forget anything besides the ACTUAL THOUGHT OF WHAT IS A REASONABLE LIMIT
knowing said situation, knowing people, the united states, WHERE DOES THE LIMIT LIE AND HOW DO WE DEFINE SAID LIMIT
BY WHAT CRITERIA IS IT LOGICAL TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A WEAPON FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP
....I swear people point to papers AS IF they hold some power over "logic", obviously, if the constitution had said "you have a right to own slaves" we would logically would have "amended" that. stop pointing fingers to a goddamn document and start discussing the actual issue
>>77305377
>political power
It gives them actual physical power, not political power. The only political power is the power to vote. Tyrants don't accept the power of the vote, then you have no political power. You can still shoot them in the face, but that's not political power.
>>77299197
relevant
>>77305779
>BY WHAT CRITERIA IS IT LOGICAL TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF A WEAPON FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP
Citizenship.
Law-abiding status a bonus.
>>77299197
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment says complete and unhindered gun freedom. Nowhere does it say background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, and restriction of certain weapons are illegal.
>>77305780
>]
Who is the "government"?
>>77305377
The declaration of independence gives us the right of revolution.
>>77302119
Just like cars, you don't need a corvette, they are impractical, environmentally damaging, and very dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's a car just the same, uses the same kind of fuel as other cars. Ok, so insert tactical rifle in there, uses the same ammunition as wooden stock rifles, same velocity, same killing power, and in certain hands can fire just as rapidly. It's a gun, guns are legal, no need to justify anything.
>>77305915
Oh, my bad, I thought you meant the suitability of a person to own a weapon.
The suitability of the weapon itself for civilian ownership:
Discriminant fire?
If yes, it can be used responsibly thus should be allowed.
If not, it cannot be used responsibly thus should not be allowed.
By that standard, full autos and most conventional explosives A-O-Kay and nukes/biological no-nos. Even some larger explosives would be no-nos.
>>77301801
clearly you don't understand how laws work.
All it says is that civilians have the right to have firearms.
The fact that it doesn't specify means that laws prohibiting certain types of firearms (laws that we already have and have been in affect for years) aren't unconstitutional.
If it said "have the right to own any type of firearm" or "there shall be no laws restricting the ownership of any type of firearm" then you would have a point.
But because it doesn't specify the right to any and all forms of firearms or weapons there is nothing unconstitutional about future and CURRENT firearm restriction laws.
and fyi I'm not actually for or against proposed laws to restrict firearms, I see both sides as reasonable but people saying that they're rescinding our constitutional rights is just going completely overboard.
>>77306022
No, it just says "shall not be infringed."
Infringement = limitation.
Background checks violate my presumption of innocence.
Waiting periods delay a right, a right delayed is a right denied.
Mental health checks would have a dubious standard at best.
Restricting certain arms is a limitation on my right to arms.
>>77305915
again you miss the point.
the only logical question to ask, if what limits you wish to ascribe to the citizens in terms of what they can and cannot legally purchase.......
I can't buy a nuclear warhead. I can't drive over the speed limit.
HOW DO WE DEFINE THE LIMIT OF A WEAPON IN REGARDS TO THE LEGALITY OF CITIZEN PURCHASE
i.e. what is the criteria to determine the suitability of a weapon FOR purchase by civilians?
this was has been and remains the only logical question in the whole debate
>>77305097
>>77305779
Bill of RIGHTS, not needs.
You can own a decommissioned (obviously) tank, you can own a rocket launcher, you can own fully automatic weapons. Just follow the laws, get the permits and pay the fees.
If you don't appreciate ALL your rights then move to a totalitarian oppressive shithole and leave the people who appreciate freedom be free.
>>77302602
Until you're allowed to own tanks, land mines, SAM platforms etc I don't think the government will ever fear you anon
>>77306241
It seems to me that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
>>77301801
It's true, if I form a militia, even if I am the only member, I should be able to have grenades, bazookas, fully automatic weapons, whatever I want. The amendments that have restrictions say so within those amendments. The 2nd has none.
>>77306296
Arms are infantry/army weapons.
>>77306290
So just let any wannabe mass murderer/terrorist buy guns? Is that what you want?
>>77306241
>The fact that it doesn't specify means that laws prohibiting certain types of firearms (laws that we already have and have been in affect for years) aren't unconstitutional.
Except, you know, it prohibits the government from limiting my right to arms.
Deciding what arms I can't have is kind of limiting.
>If it said "have the right to own any type of firearm"
Then it wouldn't make sense since the right is assumed and the 2nd is just a prohibition on government infringement.
>"there shall be no laws restricting the ownership of any type of firearm"
Right, a general prohibition on government infringement. Clearly what you speak of would fall under that penumbra.
>and fyi I'm not actually for or against proposed laws to restrict firearms
Fyi, you are. You just think you're not because you assume the moderate position is "not for or against." When the moderate position is really "a little infringed."
>>77302859
clearly you don't know what the word militia means...
Hint : IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE MILITARY YOU IGNORAMUS
>>77306455
>Is that what you want?
I want their rights respected, yes.
I also want their potential victims to have the ability to drill them in the face if they actually try some shit.
>>77300076
are you baiting or is your reading comprehension really that bad?
>>77305779
It is a "living" document, not some old piece of parchment. No one will ever agree an a limit. How about discussing opening mental health records and immigration records to background checks. Uh oh, that's a pussy sjw trigger, isn't it?
>>77306570
>Deciding what arms I can't have is kind of limiting.
wow. so you assign no upper limit? you can buy an atomic bomb right? why not?
why wouldn't an atomic bomb be considered an "arm"?
seriously genuinely curious about your simultaneous intelligence and delusion
>>77306432
>if I form a militia
You don't have to do that. The right belongs to the People, not the militia.
>>77305377
See:
The American Revolution
>Everyone on God's green earth is absolutely free.
>You may not like your options, but you're always free to choose from them
>If you choose to live in cowardice, then you have to go back.
>If you choose to be a free man, then you have a responsibility to defend your own rights against infringement.
>It's not the government's job to do that for you, nor is it anyone else's.
This is the meme magic spell that gave birth to this country. This is all it took for men to become enlightened, and the Founding Fathers and company walked the field with their fellow free men just to prove to them how fucking free they were. This was what they camped out on the sidelines of a battlefield waiting to "explain" to the redcoat cowards.
If the feds refuse to honor your constitutional rights, you have the freedom to march onto the White House lawn and evict them. We even have the freedom to toss the existing constitution in the trash and draft up a fucking new one.
That is what is meant by the American Enlightenment. The Constitution doesn't tell YOU what you can do. The Constitution is "We, the People," telling the government what they can do.
>>77306670
>I want terrorists and murderers to be respected and be able to kill freely
Well, at least you admit you're anti-America.
>>77305380
Can own a tank but you can't own any tank shells.
That's an important distinction.
>>77306455
You sissy liberals are the ones opposed to opening mental health and immigration records
>>77306807
Atomic bombs are generally ordnance, considered separate from arms which would be man-portable discriminant fire weapons.
But no, mere ownership of an atomic bomb hurts no one. Irresponsible use of an atomic bomb hurts people. And should be discouraged and the irresponsible party be held liable.
>>77306928
>and be able to kill freely
You kinda ignored the "shoot him in the face is he actually tries anything" part.
>>77306995
>you sissy liberal are the ones opposed to opening mental health and immigration records
Who are you talking about?
>>77306994
>but you can't own any tank shells.
Yes you can. They are federally regulated under the NFA of 1934 and each shell is subject to its own registration and taxation requirement as a Destructive Device.
>>77307019
>no, mere ownership of an atomic bomb hurts no one. Irresponsible use of an atomic bomb hurts people.
so, hypothetically, if it were proposed that atomic bombs could be sold on the open market with no restrictions, you would have no objections from a legal point of view? no qualms whatsoever?
>>77306424
I don't think that means what you think it means
>>77307109
Well then, the government should just hand out guns to every single citizen so we can all protect ourselves from anyone crazy with a gun. There are some people who can't afford a gun and we wouldn't want to create an inequality.
This will definitely lower gun deaths.
>>77299197
>AR15
>high powered rifle
good one
>>77299197
>No Automatic Rifle
these are illigual in the US
>why people actively want to give up their rights?
The same reason merican christians worshipe asrashit, they were rise to do so; immagine if you were told something is so since you were born, you would believe it as that; your people were rised to be a they are; look up denazification of the germans.
>>77307268
atomic weapons exterminate hundreds of thousands of people, it isn't something used by infantry or armies, if so then yes.
>>77299197
>slippery slope
shit thread matie
>>77299197
See your problem here is the assumption that any of these people calling for gun bans own a gun. They don't. To them guns are probably spooky boom-blasty-go-dead machines. I swear they're like the Native Americans the first time they saw the Spanish with cannons and muskets.
>>77307268
I would be hesitant, but I mean, the government already has them. Other governments already have them. Any of those could be used on you at any minute. What's a few more gonna hurt?
But there is a world of difference between a firearm, even a full auto with explosive incendiary rounds, and an atomic bomb. As a thought experiment, I would reluctantly err on the side of freedom. Should I die, I die a little freer than the alternative.
>>77306570
limiting the right itself as in saying "you can only own a gun if you served in the military" or "you can only own a gun for a certain amount of time"
Limiting what types of guns WHICH WE ALREADY DO
(do none of you realize there are certain guns you are not allowed to own in any state whatsoever or are you too busy looking up the invention of automatic weapons?)
however does not go against the second amendment
>>77307340
Get your socialism out of here. There are private charities that give guns to the less fortunate who apply.
And I don't necessarily want lower "gun deaths." I'd like lower homicides of innocent people. Don't care if a criminal kills a criminal or a homeowner/innocent kills a criminal. Fuck 'em.
Why the fuck would a normal American need a AR-15?
>>77307710
I thought you were somewhat smart but this is an absolutely outrageous conformity to ideology my friend
>>77307821
>(do none of you realize there are certain guns you are not allowed to own in any state whatsoever
GUNS? Haha. No. Some state will allow you to own ANY "gun." With proper regulation, but still, let you own.
And just because the government IS infringing on the second amendment with the SCOTUS's blessing does not mean that it isn't against the 2nd amendment.
>>77307185
please give one example of a citizen who owns a fully functioning tank with a full stock of shells.
>>77307825
according to the typical conservative wingnut they are mighty useful for "hog hunting" and other suspiciously human like prey
>>77300076
>the government needs to pass a constitutional amendment to allow the army to have guns.
This is bait. Don't WEW me or my wife's lad ever again.
>>77307822
>I want lower homicides of innocent people
>everyone should have a gun so there's less deaths
>there's no way a normal person might have a extremely stressful day and flip out and kill someone with a gun
>>77307825
Because it's a proven weapon platform chambered in a cartridge that has many civilian applications and is also highly modable, affordable, and with a very large aftermarket.
It's tailormade for American interests.
And I say this as an AKfag. Why, why shouldn't Americans own them? What are you getting at?
>>77307890
>to ideology
If a weighing of freedom vs security is "ideology" then I suppose so.
In practice, of course I don't want people to have an indiscriminate killing ordnance of that magnitude.
Discriminant fire weapons, up to and including fully-automatic arms, though, I have no problem with. Before 1986 they were available and relatively cheap. Regulated, but allowed. Now the only ones you can legally get are 30 years old and a small fortune.
What was I talking about?
>>77308018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvkLaa9bogU
>>77308194
>there's no way
I mean, sure, there's a way. But generally, "a stressful day" doesn't make a "normal person" kill someone.
Now, if you're projecting your insecurities about yourself onto the general populace, I suggest you petition a court to get you adjudicated mentally impaired and place you in a mental institution to reclassify you as a prohibited person.
Or maybe commit a small felony. Drug possession maybe.
>>77308272
>indiscriminate killing ordnance of that magnitude
ah thank you, you have boiled down the whole debate to a simple phrase.
"Of what magnitude discriminate killing ordinance should we tolerate?"
Why am I relating this question to someone defending driving faster than a lunatic because he is "discriminate" in his driving?
Is it not true that race car drivers can control a vehicle well past 200 mph?
and YET SURPRISE OH MY GOD!!! we have SPEED LIMITS!
Its almost like we live among OTHER PEOPLE and have to ESTABLISH LIMITS of what IS OR IS NOT DISCRIMINATE BEHAVIOR!
>>77299197
>What I wonder is why people actively want to give up their rights?
The problem is it's not only their own rights they're trying to give up. It would be for all current and future generations and they don't seem to understand that once it's gone we likely wouldn't ever get it back. It's horribly backwards thinking that by eliminating rights we'll somehow be freeing everyone from oppression and intolerance.
Holy shit the nu-/pol/ in this thread is real
>>77308709
please refer to my post
>>77308595
we have given up our right to drive as fast as we want to......
>>77308506
I'm afraid you'll take your hatred of Jews and normies out on the public with your guns.
>>77308595
>Of what magnitude discriminate killing ordinance should we tolerate?"
I think I said it somewhere. Allow arms. Restrict ordnance. (allow guns, restrict bombs)
>we have SPEED LIMITS!
We also don't have a right to cars, or to speed.
>discriminate behavior
No, I mean literally, the ability to choose a target vs. an area affect where you cannot effectively choose your target.
>>77308595
The limit is WMDs, I'd say.
>>77308884
But I don't hate jews. Or normies.
Except the ones who want my guns.
>>77308791
>we have given up our right to drive as fast as we want to......
Driving is a privilege whereas the choice to own guns is a constitutional right.
>>77308791
I would argue that's a good thing though, especially with so many fucking retards playing on their phones while driving.
Jesus people. It isn't very hard.
>>77308966
Yeah, but I don't trust you.
>>77308920
I am somewhat in awe to the degree that the constitution attains a "sacred cow" status over things like reason or logic.
the finger pointing to this "document" is entirely absurd and overused in "excusing" someone out of a logical argument,
however,
"the ability to choose a target" could be applied a mounted machine gun, it could be applied to literally anything that can "choose" a target, like a missile launcher?
for some reason I find you response of "the ability to choose a target" severely lacking in detail ....
>>77309274
And I don't trust you. Looks like we're just a big ball of distrust.
Stay away from my guns, communist.
>>77309274
Nor do I trust you.
Luckily we both have guns to use against each other, should either of us attempt to deprive one another of life, liberty, or property.
>>77307497
You can legally own full auto machine guns in the US and they have never been illegal to own. There are just more hoops to jump through.
I couldn't make much sense of your second comment. But I'm going to assume brainwashing and you are probably right.
>>77309449
Sounds more like we'll just end up killing each other.
>>77309853
Keep your filthy commie hands off our guns and we won't have to kill you.
Shall not be infringed.
>>77300076
good thing AR-15's aren't automatic
>>77309342
>over things like reason or logic.
You seem to misunderstand the concepts of reason and logic if you think they can only arrive at 1 conclusion. You see, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you, may not be right for some...
>document
Hey, that document has force of law. Even without it, I'd be fine with machineguns. That's just me.
>logical argument
Just because my logic differs from yours doesn't meant it isn't logic.
>"the ability to choose a target" could be applied a mounted machine gun, it could be applied to literally anything that can "choose" a target, like a missile launcher?
Area effect weapons (explosives) get dicey on whether you can truly choose a target without incurring unintended casualties.
>severely lacking in detail
Relates more to the projectile than the launcher. If the projectile will kill the thing you aim at, and not kill the things around it, projectile and launcher are good to go. If the projectile kills the thing you aim at, and everyone around it, nah. Regulate that.
If the launcher can be used to launch something that doesn't kill everything/one around, then regulate the ammo but the launcher is fine.
>>77309983
Of course you'd have to resort to violence to have your ways. You're just the same as Omar.
>>77308920
But at what point can a gun be so effective it is considered AOE.
Take the Colt-Browning machine gun as an example, which fires 450 rounds per minute.
Assuming you spray in a full circle, range of 20 meters, with a spray lasting 18 seconds, we have the following calculations.
This means that in 18 seconds (time it takes to rotate 360 degrees) , assuming a constant angular velocity, you can fire 135 bullets, with each bullet being .93 meters apart.
Very clearly enough to do AOE damage on par with some ordinance
>>77309853
I'll do my best not to kill you until you give me reason to.
Don't give me reason to and nobody has to die.
Ball's in your court.
>>77310259
If by 'having my way' you mean preserving a fundamental human right that has been recognized on this continent for more than 400 years, then yes, I would gladly kill you to preserve that right if it came to that.
My advice is to don't make it come to that.
>>77301521
That thing sucked and was hardly if ever used. Yes, feel free to own a repeating musket that you have to crank by hand. A more obvious argument would be the cannon instead of this pea shooter.
>>77310279
Sure.
Probably won't be a problem. People can get out of your way, someone will shoot you fairly quickly.
That MG still needed to be manually aimed, unlike a bomb.
>>77310449
>fundamental human right
If the law changes and you don't want to live in America anymore because we as a society decided on something you hate, then you're free to die in your dumb rebellion or move to some island.
>founders couldn't have imagined modern technological advancement
>therefore our founding documents clearly don't apply to modern innovations like the ar-15
>just like the First Amendment doesn't apply to radio, television, or the internet
yet here we are anonymously posting lewd photographs on a vietnamese customer-service forum. I bet ben franklin is rolling in his grave.
ANOTHER.
1 POST BY THIS ID.
SHILL.
SAGE
Feels good to be a gun owner.
Suck my dick liberals.
>>77310519
Or the Girandoni air rifle.
24rds before reload, approximately the power factor and caliber of a .45 ACP. And air powered so basically flash/sound suppressed.
The only problem was the way the air was pumped into it. Impractical due to their inability to compress air easily.
Also, possible they didn't know about it, it only predates the BoR by like a year.
>>77310588
Pipe dream. It's never going to happen. The only way to change the law is to repeal the Second Amendment - all other means are illegitimate and acts of aggression. And to repeal an amendment you need to pass a new one. To do that you need 2/3rds of both houses of Congress AND 3/4ths of the states.
You can't do it. You never will be able to.
>>77310805
Nothing is impossible. If it happens, you better nut up and die in a hail of bullets.
>>77311189
>nut up and die in a hail of bullets.
Why not nut up, kill your enemies in a hail of bullets, and win?
>>77311266
>enemies
If you think Americans are your enemies, then you're living in the wrong country, habibi.
>>77310706
That is the one Ruger I would never buy
>>77311189
Do you understand that the South alone, all by itself, can block any and all attempts to amend the Constitution? Not even including states like Montana and Utah and Arizona and the Dakotas, etc., who also would never sign on. Don't even need them. The South by itself can block your attempts.
How do you expect to convert the South to your unamerican anti-gun ways?
>>77310608
This
>>77311437
It's a great gun actually
>>77311331
>If you think Americans are your enemies
Some of them. Political enemies for sure. And if they decide to attempt to murder me because they abuse their authority, well, that kinda makes them my enemies.
>>77311592
Because you're clearly special and have special rights none of us other citizens have. The laws don't affect you at all.
>>77311437
Why's that?
/k/ approved of my purchase. worst comment I got was "adequate" since it's a very standard AR. I did quite a bit of research before buying too. Apparently it sells out the second it comes in stock, which is proven since it's oos right now on the site I bought it from. 60+ 5-star reviews. 2 different popular youtube reviewers gave it a good rating; worst they said was the mil-spec trigger was a 6/10.
>>77311551
Have you shot other AR-15s? I'd love to hear how it handles
what is a high powered rifle?
>>77310675
Here is number 8 just for (you)
At least check before you '1 post by this ID'
>>77311516
The South tried to block gay marriage, integration of races, abortion, etc. It's only a matter of time.
Also, I don't think you get to call others un-American when you despise our union.
>>77311886
an 'assault rifle' with a turbocharger
>The bill of needs
>>77311715
>Because you're clearly special and have special rights none of us other citizens have.
No, we all have the same rights.
In this scenario, you're just trying to take mine away from me because you don't think you have them and are more willing than I to give them up.
can anyone give a good reason to purchase a mini 30 over sks/ak. i can't figure this one out
>>77312148
No, you think you're above our democratic process and thinks if our society decides to instate any law you don't like, you can ignore it and kill anyone that tries to enforce that law.
>>77311930
We're talking about amending the Constitution. Those things were not achieved by amending the Constitution.
Once again, to amend the Constitution you need 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states. Forget the congressional requirement for a moment. 3/4ths of the states. That means, only 13 states can block any attempt to constitutionally repeal the Second Amendment.
>Virginia
>North Carolina
>South Carolina
>Georgia
>Florida
>Alabama
>Arkansas
>Louisiana.
>Mississippi
>Tennessee
>Texas
And let's throw Kentucky and West Virginia in there, because CSA or not, we know where their true loyalties lie.
And again, that's not even including other states who would never, ever play along, from Alaska to Wyoming.
Math is a stubborn thing.
And you're the one who hates our union friend. If you suggest defying the very constitutional structure that makes our union exist in the first place, then you are willfully withdrawing from said union.
>>77300076
It doesn't mention the AR15, true. How very astute of you, faggot. It does mention arms, though. As in all forms of weaponry.
>>77312269
>above our democratic process
Our constitutional republic requires that you use the democratic process to get 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states to change the law so that it can legally infringe on my rights.
>kill anyone that tries to enforce that law
In defense. The stroke of a pen shouldn't lead to a shootout (or a thousand+), but that's what you want.
And "I'm" the bloodthirsty one.
>>77312302
>you're the one who hates our union friend
Nah, I hate our current gun laws but I'm not saying I'll kill anyone that's in favor of our current gun laws.
I acknowledge our government will do things you or I may not like, but I won't resort to violence to get my way.
And you're right, in the current status quo, it's gonna be hard to pass a federal gun control law. But I won't give up.
>>77311832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdSz_UQLmlg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXmf5bNLcc
>>77312302
The problem is that people view presidential memorandums as law, even if they're illegal.
GET IN HERE AND STOP REPLYING TO SHILL THREADS FAGGOTS
>>77310833
>>77310833
>>77310833
>>77310833
>>77312832
You're going to willingly murder innocent people that are trying to do their job. You think your murders will be righteous. You don't want a society. You want your own tyranny.
>>77313288
Resistance to tyranny is not my own tyranny.
And the "murder" should it ever come to it is only by the legal definition. The legal definition of tyrants, but yes, my attempt to defend myself from a tyrant who made a felon with a stroke of a pen will be at minimum a felony murder.
Righteous or not, they will not be my fault. I reacted. A tyrant acted.
>>77300076
Militias were formed out of necessity.
Only after the French invaded did the majority of able bodied men grab their squirrel guns and meet at the local tavern to form a militia to defend their country.
THIS is what the 2nd protects.
Its the common man coming forward- and having the means to do so.
If you don't understand this, then you're an idiot.
>>77313475
We're all using the same democratic process for laws. We elect our representatives; those representatives will vote on and introduce bills that reflect our desires. You and I are equal. There's no tyranny here.
You're just a spoiled brat who wants everything your way.
>>77313802
I'm just a spoiled brat who wants your democratic process restrained to protect certain rights. Almost like some sort of constitutional republic in which government power is outlined and certain rights are protected from government infringement.
There's a process to decide a right isn't legally a right anymore. Get your democracy in gear and do it. THEN I'll just be a murderer. A guy who just wanted to be left alone and afforded his rights, but still. A cold blooded murderer.
Well, even then I'd still be defending my rights, which precede the BoR and are merely protected BY it from government infringement.
Still, murderer.
>>77313802
Don't confuse "democratic process in a republic" to democracy...
>>77314098
At least you admit you're just a wannabe edgelord.
>wants your democratic process restrained
Yep, freedom for you but none for me.
>>77314254
Only a wannabe edgelord until the situation arises and we see whether I actually follow through or not.
>freedom for you but none for me
Actually, my position is "more freedom for all." Yours is literally "We can vote for less freedom."
>>77314406
Nah, your position is "ME ME ME FUCK EVERYONE ELSE."
>>77299807
Lol this. 223 is like baby bullets. 90% of gunshot wounds are recoverable. Now a musket ball, that'll put a basketball sized hole in someone.
>>77299197
>and we will all be slaves housing military personnel
Because after getting rid of the first and second amendments, why not kill the third?
>>77314501
>ME ME ME FUCK EVERYONE ELSE.
I mean, I guess, if its 320+ million people having a right (my position) vs 320+ million people not having said right (your position), then yeah, I mean, I guess it's ME ME ME FUCK EVERYONE ELSE. It could be read like that. I think.
>>77314653
>Because after getting rid of the first and second amendments, why not kill the third?
And the 13th if you really want to make a dent in crime.
>>77314540
Stop posting you idiot
>>77314656
Nah, it's some people agree with you and some don't. But you think your opinion supercedes everyone else's desires. And should there be a law you disagree with, then you're just the perfect snowflake who's never wrong and can kill anyone you want.
>>77314911
>But you think your opinion supercedes everyone else's desires.
>EVERYONE ELSES
Should be real easy to get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states then.
>should there be a law you disagree with
...because it violates the rights protected in the document from which government derives it's authority...
>you're just the perfect snowflake who's never wrong and can kill anyone you want.
But I'm not perfect, I'm completely capable of being wrong, and I don't WANT to kill anyone.
Still, you and your theoretical tyrannical majority that rights are enshrined in the Constitution specifically to protect them from are the only ones who are being selfish and limiting rights.
>>77315193
I'm not the one killing innocent people because I think I'm so special.
>>77315463
Tyrannical government agents acting on unlawful orders aren't innocent people.
>>77299197
Your shilling and false flag hoax actors can go suck a dick.
Come & Get It
>>77315760
Because all your opinions and world views are objective facts.
