>>28603182 >>28603192 It's never ever ever going to happen. The beuracracy is too tainted and "progress" advanced too far to save America by legal happy means. Best you can do is form a (legal) local militia,raise a strong family, and create a community that can survive without government interference. For now the guns you need to do that are probably legal in your state.
>>28603058 >Why are fully automatic and selective fire weapons banned in the U.S.? they aren't. they are very specifically and heavily regulated. they only ones outright banned are ones made after 1986 - and those are only banned for private transfer.
>>28603088 there is never a situation minus blind fire where you need full auto. buying full auto has almost singular relevance to suppressing other armed forces, which is ultimately your right to be vigilant against tyranny (tyranny itself being a buzzword to justify any disliked governance), but generally the only argument you can make is shall not be infringed. as much as i hate the "outdated amendment" arguments 'kek arms = musket' i do believe that civilians should not be exposed to advanced weaponry, especially when advanced weaponry in this day and age has the endgame of being world ending. i do believe there is a line where arms stop
>>28604065 It's amazing how bad they're at logic, and skepticism.
I was talking to my sister and her cuck over the Christmas season about trump and she started making shit up like "he's Hitler, he wants to ban all muslims!" - I acted for souces and all she could pull up with motherjones and huffpo.
She's a smart girl, but fuck man... suffrage was a bad idea
>>28603111 because liberals and leftists have an innate lack of understanding of logical things (like guns, which are tools/devices), and base all their policies on emotion and good feelings.
immigration? it FEELS good to let in all the poor starving people of the world. is it actually good? fuck no. But it FEELS good, so they support it, and if you don't, you're a racist.
welfare programs and affirmative action? it FEELS good to give tons of free shit to poor people, especially poor black people. Is it actually good? Fuck no, it makes them dependent on the government and basically keeps black people as slaves to the democrat party. But it FEELS good, and getting free stuff feels good.
transgender shit? because it FEELS good to be loving and wonderful and inclusive and accept everyone no matter what. Is it actually good? fuck no. suicide rates among post-op transgenders is the same or higher than pre-op. It's a mental disability, but it FEELS good to say that a man who puts on a dress and lipstick is a full-fledged actual woman, rather than saying that person needs psychological help.
gun control? semi-auto is way more effective than full-auto anyways for 99% of purposes. Even for suppressive fire (except for LMGs and heavy weapons, but we're talking rifles here). foregrips and shoulder things that go up and flash suppressors and muzzle brakes and all that shit make no fundamental difference to the gun. But it FEELS good to ban scary assault weapon baby killer machine guns. Some autistic faggot shoots up a school and everyone is sad, and the solution is to ban something that makes them all FEEL good and FEEL like they're accomplishing something to fix the problem.
>>28604065 the issue is that they got the vote without all the civic responsibility.
little-known fact, 70% of women in european countries opposed being given the right to vote, because they assumed it would mean they'd then be held to the same responsibilities of military drafts, work, legal issues, etc.
but those women were stupid. They should have known they wouldn't be stuck with all the extra burden.
>>28604028 concerning modern tyranny, a gun is no more effective than throwing rocks. its because i know so much about tyranny that my opinion is more relevant than your own. the reason we still 1911's is because 1911 was the last year it was relevant
the same people that say a bunch of murricans with AR-15's and AKs wouldn't stand a chance against a tyrannical US military, they're the same people who chortle about the US "losing" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
insurgency is a bitch anon.
Also, if you think that a large portion of the US military wouldn't defect and rebel, you're mistaken. Imagine if just 5-10% of the US military defects when ordered to round up and kill "rebels". They take their tanks, rockets, ATGMs, machine guns, mortars, planes,etc. with them. Now that's a very dangerous insurgency, something like that happened in Iraq (with the remnants of Saddam's Revolutionary Guard joining the insurgent forces from other countries)/
>>28604242 my point being infantry and superior firepower are not the primary tool of modern control systems. i wasnt saying militias couldnt defend an equipped military, i was saying the concept of an armed militia itself is dated. todays militias are software companies. i know /k is a weapons board and the demographic here are ones that enjoy ww2 history and etc, and i myself wish i was born in a different era, but the war environment has changed, and no, not to urban warfare. im not saying armies and infantry are obsoleted in the scope of things, but to argue civilians need full-auto to prevent tyranny is a huge laugh, and i cant help you if you dont know why
>>28604254 it does have an affect on other people where now the dude who says he's a woman has to be treated like a woman by everyone else, and gets to use women's bathrooms and changerooms, and everyone is supposed to properly refer to them as "she" or its a hate crime, etc.
You're right, it doesn't affect other people if the guy down the street identifies as a woman, or a dog, or a tree. But the minute he then demands that someone else put him on a leash and pick up his shit in a bag or it's a hate crime, then it IS affecting other people.
They did the same thing with gay marriage. First it was "what do you care what other people do in private". They won that point, because it's true. If some dude wants to take it up the ass, who cares. Then it changed to "it doesn't affect you or your marriage to let two gay people get married. what do you care?". And they won that point as well.
Except now we have gay people forcing others at gunpoint to participate in things that are against their beliefs, we have gay people forcing their beliefs on other people's children, etc.
So sure, what difference does it make if someone is doing something in private. The problem is that it never stops there. They want you to not only allow them to do things, they want you to fully embrace it and participate and celebrate.
Sorry, I won't ever celebrate a man putting on a dress and chopping off his dick.
>>28603058 I have heard that no one in the United States has been killed by a criminal with a registered full auto ever since the NFA was enacted. Is this true?
Because if it is, it would seem to suggest that stringent regulation, harsh penalties, and high prices are in fact effective at making it harder for retarded dealers/gangbangers/fudds to get their hands on dangerous shit while in no way impeding decent, hardworking people.
>>28604242 now the major dynamics havent~ changed. the white coats make the weapons and the black coats shoot them, but the black coats arent shooting rifles in this age. so unless your goal is to use rifles to fight drones, be my guest, but ultimately the civilians right to bear arms can only reasonably be used in inter-civilian conflict, in which case full auto is cruel, crude, and unnecessary. that being said, im making an argument, and in no way disagree with shall not be infringed, minus the definition of arms
>>28604369 >muh rifles vs drones the simple fact is that an insurgency armed only with rifles and IEDs can be a major pain in the ass for the most powerful military in the world. None of this nonsense about "but how is you gonna shoot drones and fighter jets with a rifle hurr hahaha"
It's bullcrap that civilians right to bear arms can only be used in inter-civilian conflict. Total bullcrap. >>28604381 And you think the average afghani goat fucker is some well-trained commando? They're old men and young teenagers who spend their life humping goats in mountains. They may have the edge in physical fitness over an american insurgency, but gun owners in the US are probably much better with their firearms.
>>28603734 What is covering fire or suppressing fire?
2A keeps the government wary of the people. If and when the people rise up, they need every advantage they can get, select fire included.
If you plan to use any modern manual of arms in your firefight tactics, select fire is a priceless asset.
To this end, I believe individuals should have unrestricted and unregulated access to weapons. At the very least they should have unrestricted access up to the same kind of armaments their military has. Think of a sovereign nation without a military. They have no clout, no leverage on an international scale. It's too easy to subjugate a disarmed populace, and even if it is the intention of no one it will happen passively. When you have to deal with MAD, actual negotiation can occur where equal footing truly exists.
>>28604432 but yes, i dont disagree with armament. it is our exact history with armament that has made america so powerful. with superior firepower and lush land, a country cannot go into debt in the world market. if anything, it is our military and 2A that is one of the pillars of the nations success. all being true, i cannot argue in favor for civilian owned full auto. i can agree with burst fire, as that supports the untrained which is the majority of we the people, and semi, as thats the only necessary, but full auto i cannot defend
>>28604359 Key thing you said was registered. Loads of people are killed with auto weapons, they are just unregistered. You're right, I think a registered NFA item has been used in crime maybe 4? times. But that is because the thing is registered. If someone wants to commit a crime they would just illegally use the gun. Look at Paris
>>28604482 also, unless you are well equipped, semi is the best suppression fire, as suppression is supposed to be either extremely frugal or extremely frivolous. if a civilian has the ability to be extremely frivolous with suppressive fire, i would argue the law of full auto does not apply to that entity in the first place, as it would imply clout
>>28604413 >but gun owners in the US are probably much better with their firearms
You mean all of those ex-military POGs who barely shot their guns at all and yet think they're hard as shit? Or maybe you mean all of the ghetto scum who insist on holding their guns sideways when they shoot and causing misfires because of it. Or perhaps you were talking about your typical prepper hick who doesn't understand how his weapon actually functions and whose weapons spend more time in a safe than on his person. Or were you actually talking about /k/, the board where you regularly get threads by people who shot themselves in the foot, or shot their guns into their neighbor's house on New Years, or committed felonies and are searching for loopholes about how to get guns.
Your unjustified optimism about gun ownership in America is practically liberal.
>>28604490 The same "untrained" argument is used against concealed carry with the proposition that it requires little to no experience for a civilian to obtain compared to the "much more experienced police officers".
The problem is that you are denying someone an option to defend themselves and the alternative has no adverse effect. It's just a facade of civil disarmament.
Not to mention the authority figures alluded to as being better trained is a joke in and of itself. I would rather trust a civilian firearms enthusiast than a federal or state grunt with select-fire.
>>28604581 GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.
>>28604522 You can't put down nearly the same volume of fire, and the amount of training required to provide suppressing fire with a semi-auto firearm is unreasonable for the average firearms owner in the US.
You have neither the magazine size, the rate of fire, nor the construction to support sustained full auto fire in most if not all of your firearms.
>>28604523 When is the last time you've been to an outdoor range? Do you have any idea how prevalent competitive shooting is?
>>28604432 >Think of a sovereign nation without a military. They have no clout, no leverage on an international scale.
The same thing happens to a sovereign nation when its government does not have a monopoly on force. I would also like to remind you before you say otherwise that a monopoly on force =/= entire populace being disarmed.
>When you have to deal with MAD, actual negotiation can occur where equal footing truly exists.
And what happens when those negotiations break down?
>>28604636 Prevalent compared to what? There are as many guns as there are people in the United States. Consider how many of those guns are being used in competitive shooting. Then consider how a large proportion of that small subset of guns belong to a small handful of competent people who are statistically irrelevant compared to all of the other incompetent gun owning demographics out there.
>>28604692 >"For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of one's self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority. This obviously contradicts directly with enlightenment principles of individual sovereignty that delegates power to the state by consent, and concepts of Natural Law that hold that individual rights deriving from sapient Self Ownership preexist the state and are only recognised and guaranteed by the state which may be restricted from limiting them by Constitutional Law." Why wouldn't they be internationally relevant? Fortunately the US wasn't formed on the principle of "monopoly on violence". You are free to lead your own nation if that is what you want, but I'll remain to defend the principles on which this country was founded.
>And what happens when those negotiations break down? Absolutely nothing can happen to either party directly. We've already had a Cold War. You should know. Proxy battles.
That's for the best. I maintain that you can't have equal footing without MAD.
>>28604776 You're implying that a country has to be ruled by a single ubiquitous formal government :^)
For a government like that to be effective obviously they'd need a monopoly on several things such as power and resources but using this is an argument is basically saying "but the government does it so its right!"
>>28604766 it is cruel and unnecessary in actual combat, as its real role comes in suppression and man vs machine. neither of which are relevant to civilians minus SHTF scenarios, in which case i add that people vs government scenario; semi and full auto are both irrelevant vs modern weaponry. breakdown of law/people vs people, full auto remains to be cruel and unnecessary. the only combat that justifies full auto is militia vs militia, and both having full or both having semi tares out, so i cant see much argument there
>>28604947 cruel and unnecessary referring to full autos general random nature and is to be used exactly for collateral damage. in every relevant scenario, collateral damage is unacceptable. if you do not know what you are shooting at, you should not be shooting, hence machines and suppression
This is the problem, genius. Let me give you a hypothetical example to demonstrate a problem with the system you have proposed.
Suppose there is a total war going on against a dangerous external foe. During the course of the war, the working class becomes disaffected due to the politicians' reasons for initiating the war, the army's conduct of the war. and the sacrifices they have to make in order to keep the war going. As a result, they stage a nationwide sit-in strike with all of their armaments. Said armaments are, as you suggested, exactly what the military has, from small arms to fighter jets. Their demands are that the current political leadership is replaced by a clique that the workers have vetted and approved. Production is greatly disrupted by this strike, and the government can't simply send in scabs due to the workers being holed up inside the factories.
Both parties (ie the government and the workers) try and negotiate with each other, but, due to the fact that they are each representing opposite and irreconcilable viewpoints, they are unable to reach an accord. Meanwhile, the war is going south for the nation due to the strike having greatly disrupted production, to the point that complete defeat seems likely unless all of the factories are immediately restarted.
The normal United States government would, as they did during the Blair Mountain uprising, simply have the military/police crack down on the strikers, install the scabs, and get production restarted ASAP. That is not an option in this case due to the threat of MAD. How does your government handle the situation apart from hoping that everyone will decide to put aside their differences and sing Kumbaya before it is too late? Also, assume that the war with the aforementioned dangerous external enemy is a total war with stakes no less than the destruction of the side that loses.
>>28604912 Is no one else going to say it? Fine I'll say it. You insufferable little shit, no one is buying your argument for limiting our selection of arms. Your arguments have been nothing more than "because feelings" and appeals to authority. We get it, you just got out of your political science class and want spread this new wisdom of how the state can do no wrong to the rest of us. Full auto is "cruel and unnecessary" my aching ass, take your deer rifle and fuck right back off to Reddit where you belong.
>>28605124 you blame me of my feelings, but its actually your feelings that prevent you from entering any meaningful argument. should guns be regulated at all? because that question alone is going to fuck you regardless of how you answer. but instead you are likely to meme more. i have never visited reddit, and rarely visit 4chan. i dont believe in politics but i do believe in democracy, but not when its controlled by the very media that allowed you to say "unsufferable little shit" like some teenager trying to act tough and unopposable. gun ownership should be regulated, but by the collective and communicative masses, and not by 3/5s voters
>>28605208 Seems sensible, there really should be no ban on fully automatic weapons and burst fire weapons. And all this taxation shit on it to discourage buyers should also not exist, it should go too. It almost feels like a Communist tyranny with all of these insane strict gun laws, the American Constitution is pretty clear when it says "shall not be infringed"
>>28604875 Would you prefer a return to the days of the Articles of Confederation? It is precisely because local and state governments were unable to respond to even comparatively minor threats like Shays' Rebellion that Henry Knox urged George Washington that drastic measures had to be taken and, after some further discussion, all of the country's men of influence got together and replaced the Articles with a Constitution that both guaranteed the rights of the citizens to bear arms as well as establishing a federal republic that had the power to promulgate nationwide laws and effectively arbitrate internal and external disputes.
>>28604381 Yes, even better if they are fat fucks because then they are unassuming in a crowd. What makes an insurgency difficult is that you cant tell non-combatant from combatant. I know my entire family would be great insurgents since we all go back packing whenever we can. Last summer I did a amazing trip in idaho.
>>28604523 >muh pogs god yourr such a faggot, being unable to perform a more mentally challenging task does not make you hot shit. I couldve just as easily signed up to be combat arms instead of SATCOM. Compare that to your "decision" where it was infantry or nothing. No one is impressed that you did what anyone else couldve just as easily done.
no, he means all the people in the US with an education beyond the standards of second grade. Unlike Afghans who walk right in front of MRAPs and have death fights over a single shoe, US citizens are insanely more intelligent. You think every Afghan is whipping up their own special IED? Fuck no! Its the few smart ones (who were more than likely trained by special forces a few decades ago) that come up with simple, reproducible designs that they then introduce to impressionable young men, who then use them against enemy forces.
>>28605904 please do not imply what anything to me is. are you trying to force me into a demographic construct you created in your head then attack the ideals of that construct? because thats called a strawman and is nothing new
within my community, i would prefer the land owning males to make democratic decisions, those decisions including the limitation of weapons toward those deemed unable to use them. why? because weapons were made to be used, and if you do not know how to use a tool for its intended function, you simply learn or dont use it. you may have the right to own that tool, but you are not allowed to profess equal standing as those that use this manmade tool the way and reason it was constructed. so yes i believe in firearm regulation, but no i do not believe in the systematic and politically motivated complete destruction of my ability to operate as such. i do think military enlistment should be encouraged solely to teach young men how to be independent and brave, and how to operate machinery, and .... im not going to continue the ramble. i do believe in accreditation and regulation, and im offended that you would be fuckwitted enough to apply such a strawman toward my request at your argumentation
>>28605346 So why is a vetoing a thing? We have hundreds of elected officials who spend millions of dollars to come to a decision, based on the desires of the people. Then 1 fucking guy gets to be like, "Nope, I know what is best, not the collect voice of the people." In theory, if congress votes on behalf of the population it represents, that is the ultimate will of the people. Why does 1 person, who could side with the minority of congress, get to deny the bill? It defeats the whole purpose of congress. "Majority rules", unless the presidebt belongs to the minority (the people who do not want the bill to pass), then it just dosnt happen.
God fucking damn it, vetos are literally completely pointless, why do they exist? The executive and legislative branches are supposed to be two entirely independent entities. So why then, does the executive leaderhsip get any say in the passing of a bill?
>>28606923 Del-ton isn't bad, I bought one as my first gun before I knew anything and it worked well. The barrel started key holing after 3k rounds for some reason. I slapped a Daniel Defense barrel on it and it is still going strong.
>>28607143 Checks and balances. Theoretically the majority party, while representing the will of the people, aren't allowed to infringe on individual liberties. The veto is supposed to stop mob rule through elected representatives in order to protect natural rights.
>>28603335 They're illegal bro. Grandfather clause doesn't make them any less illegal. There's a little gambling den on county land about thirty minutes away from where I grew up. It's been on that plot of land since the 20's. That doesn't make building a casino anything else but illegal in my state.
Because late one night despite both the voice and the electronic vote being NO. Charles Rangel declared the Hughes Amendment as being passed and so it was forced into the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.
Despite the Hughes Amendment being illegitimate as fuck, the FOPA was passed because of the need to protect our other gun rights from registration and other bullshit.
Now the Democrats say we shouldn't have passed the FOPA if we didn't want the Hughes Amendment, rather than acknowledging it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
And that's how a generation of Americans was fucked out of fun switches.
>>28603079 Pretty much. Gangsters, as in real gangsters, not this fakes we have today, fucked up some serious shit with automatics back in the day that the government fealty it was reasonable to restrict them.
Of course some of the more notorious ones stole those fully automatic baby killers from national guard armories rather than actually buy them. But that doesn't fit into the government narrative that only they should have guns.
>>28603058 compromise made in 1986 to minimize the ATF overstepping their boundaries and needlessly persecuting FFLs on technicalities. Yes it was a damn compromise, look at what the bill actually gave to gun owners. still bullshit tho
Because of the crime wave in the 20s and 30s machine gun kelly and the like are the reason also for most part u aren't gooing to need such a high volume of lead in home defense setting period. I'm fine with that. On the other hand I would love to see caliber restrictions removed . Get to use a punt gun. Ducks won't know what hit em
>>28608454 The gangs also gained power because the government thought it was a good idea to ban alcohol with Prohibition. And with that power, came influence. And with influence, came the ability to obtain superior firepower than the average citizen though illegal means.
>>28605283 And what would you need a fully automatic weapon for. Seriously that's the one gun restriction I'm fine with. Want ap hand gun ammo I'm cool with it barrels as short as u want em cool want that 25 caliber anti material rifle cool. Want that semi auto shotgun with clip reloading system cool fully automatic guns why in home defense setting that just increases your chance of shooting through a wall and hitting a non opfor
>>28604912 All combat is cruel your killing people limiting weapons in combat makes war seem more viable as the associated risks go down its the reason why large scale wars have decreased in frequency as civilization advances
>>28608059 It was the Supreme Court who found that the NFA was constitutional to begin with, despite ruling that in order to be covered by the 2nd Amendment, a weapon must have "military/militia application", which to any sane person means ALL weapons ever made, or at the very least exactly the kind of weapons that the military possesses at the time.
>>28608454 >u aren't gooing to need such a high volume of lead in home defense setting The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with home defense, you fucking foreign retard. It says it in the very first sentence, the purpose is to preserve the security of a free (non-tyrant) state, as they had just experienced british tyrants demanding The People to hand over all their weapons.
None of it had anything to do with shooting deer or with gangs.
>>28603734 >but generally the only argument you can make is shall not be infringed No, there are plenty of other arguments that don't appeal to a specific wording of a specific law. You can argue for the universality of natural rights theory, which in part forms the basis of the 2nd Amendment.
>>28603058 They aren't, its just supper restrictive to have them, having to come check up like 2 times a year to make sure you don't have any illegal purchases and are not mentally ill if you get a class 3
>>28615100 they are legal for normal folks in most states if you have the cash. thousands of dollars for the cheaper guns (mac10). most guns are going to be in the tens of thousands. if you are a certain type of FFL you can produce new machine guns
>>28609246 >Don't vote for the candidate you believe would be best because he probably won't win
Well damn, why have an election at all? Let's just put whoever seems the most popular in office and be done with it. I certainly wouldn't mind my afternoon TV programs never being interrupted by political ad after political ad.
>>28604324 The gay mafia is alive and it is real. If you don't believe me just wait. Give it another month or so and we will have another Gay couple crying oppression for some perceived discrimination.
>>28617910 >full auto is retarded In rifles yes, in machine guns no.
>>28618380 This kind of cycle of retardation is infuriating. >I support X Party, but they never win because not enough people vote for them, and I won't vote for them because they never win.
>>28618465 >also not something a civilian would ever reasonably need I don't get how politicians use this reasoning when the Supreme Court argued in Miller that of all weapons available, it is military weapons first and foremost that are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
>>28618539 More like >I support X Party >Oh boy, election day! >Vote for X Party >Y Party wins because people flock to them like a high school popularity contest >Wow! 1 vote really DOES make a difference!
I say this as someone who's experienced this, and now has a living meme as a Prime Minister.
>>28618643 And odds are, he won't even live up to his dudeweed namesake. After all, it took Harper 6 years and a private member's bill to remind him that he campaigned on ending the LGR; had he not been reelected, we'd still have it to this day. And that was a quick and easy domestic policy change, whereas legalizing weed also requires diplomatic action and the balls to go against the US crusade on drugs. And I think nobody, not even Libs, can claim that Trudeau has more balls than Harper.
Still, I get a kick out of people who hold democracy up as some sort of golden ideal that allows everyone to have a voice. If the person you support doesn't win, how can it be said that you have representation? If I go to my MP and ask him to force the CFO to give out ATCs, he'll tell me to fuck off because he doesn't support evil guns on the streets.
actually this post is the right one >>28604029 FA is illegal because women got the right to vote women then voted with emotion instead of logic or a working concept of personal responsibility and when they did the women temperance movement outlawed booze which created a blackmarket which created crime syndicates which used FA weapons to fight each other for control women then voted with emotion instead of logic or a working concept of personal responsibility to outlaw the weapons that outlaws used...
women created the circumstances that led to the rise of gangsters and eventually the ban of full autos
Cases v. United States, 1st Circuit Court of Appeals:
"In the case last cited the Supreme Court, after discussing the history of militia organizations in the United States, upheld the validity under the Second Amendment of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236, in so far as it imposed limitations upon the use of a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches long. It stated the reason for its result on page 178 of the opinion in 307 U.S., on page 818 of 59 S.Ct., 83 L.Ed. 1206, as follows: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go."
>>28622113 "At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.
Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."
This is the logic of the people who decide which guns they allow you to have. Enjoy.
>>28622202 >It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result." This is literally a >muh muskets argument, except that it was made by an actual court and is now enshrined in case law.
Bear in mind this was back in 1942, so those gun owners suggesting revolution if Obama comes for are gunz have sorely missed the boat, because the blatant attack on gun rights started a long time ago.
What I think is stupid about that argument is theoretically you could just ban almost any guns indefinitely. This would also apply to other rights as well like freedom of speech outside of printed text and the government invading your privacy.
>>28622126 >under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. > It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.
in·con·ceiv·a·ble (ĭn′kən-sē′və-bəl) adj. 1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster. 2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable: an inconceivable victory against all odds.
>>28622246 >the blatant attack on gun rights started a long time ago. A long time ago indeed. I wonder how the proportion of fudds & authoritarians to freedom lovers has changed over time.
>>28622366 >like freedom of speech outside of printed text >according to it Congress would be prevented by the First Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any press organization, of distinctly media equipment, such as high-volume printers, computers, radio transmitters, cellular telephones or film cameras, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such an item.
>>28618733 Yeah, it feels pretty bullshit, I'm not the biggest fan of democracy. Sure, it's easy to champion it as the greatest, least oppressive system out there... when you're the one on the winning side. If you're 49% or lower, then fuck you, you're the minority and your wants and opinions are worth as much as garbage.
Fuck, it's going to be a rough several years with that retarded fuckwit in charge, especially with this marvelous start he's had. Seems he can't go a single day without saying something incredibly stupid.
>>28623008 I don't understand why they would ever do this. If they feel like the opposite sex, and they want to dress that way in order to feel better, how could they possibly feel better about themselves when they walk around looking like Dr Frank-N-Furter? If I look like shit, I won't feel better about myself by going out in public and letting everyone see that I look like shit. If I were a tranny, I wouldn't switch to female clothes until all the hormones and shit kicked in, because I wouldn't want to look like a fucking freak.
>>28604324 >They want you to not only allow them to do things, they want you to fully embrace it and participate and celebrate. This is the problem with modern social "liberalism." Specifically, that it isn't liberalism, based on the notion that private rights are supreme, at all, but rather the notion that public rights trump those of the individual. When we passed the point of "let's let everyone do what they like" and moved into the territory of "we must like what everybody does" we failed as a liberal society.
Thread replies: 195 Thread images: 21
Thread DB ID: 452637
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.