ITT things that kill the gun grabber. >in the founders ti

>>28860737
The funny thing is that a pneumatic assault weapon is legal in most gun-grabber jurisdictions.

>>28860737
>in the founders time there were only muskets, not high capacity firearms like today
By that logic free speech should be restricted to books, newspapers, word of mouth, and public speaking with no amplification. Why are they so fucking dumb?

File: Puckle_gun_advertisement[1].jpg (51KB, 812x596px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 812x596px

>>28860865
this argument comes up basically every single time the other argument comes up. I've never seen a grabber counter either that or op's.

>>28860737
>air rifle
Big fucking deal. My BB gun holds like 100 rounds. This thing just shoots bigger BBs at probably much higher velocity.

>>28860956
In 1803, 12 years after the bill of rights was ratified. The same year the guy who wrote the declaration of independence was president, and 6 years before the guy who wrote the constitution and federalist papers became president. Lewis and Clark returned to St Luis in 1806, still 3 years before the guy who wrote the constitution became president. That guy almost undoubtedly would have learned about the gun considering it is mentioned multiple times in each volume of Lewis and Clarks diaries. So, if the founders knew of a gun that could fire 22 rounds in like a minute and thought the second amendment applied to that then the argument "they never could have imagined 30 round clips" seems like a load of bullshit now doesn't it?

>>28861045
Yes, but you have to consider that a 7.62x51 round is significantly more powerful than a .46 ball fired out of an air rifle, and is probably effective at a much greater distance. It's also much easier to carry 5 or 6 magazines on you to reload super quick than it is to carry a sack of large steel balls and have to reload your tube magazine one by one.

I'm not at all in favor of taking any guns away from the people, but let's not pretend a modern assault rifle is even in the same class as this thing.

>>28860891
>round shot for Christians
>square shot for Mohammedans
Goddamn, that's the most /pol/ gun ever. Even death, the great equalizer of man, is segregated.

>>28861140
Someone could sandy hook a whole school with one and when their argument is that people should only have muskets so they can't sandy hook a school, pointing out the rate of fire of the Gerdini, Enfield, and the fact semi automatic pistols are over 100 years old dampers their argument

>>28861175
>pointing out the rate of fire of the Gerdini, Enfield, and the fact semi automatic pistols are over 100 years old dampers their argument
This is true. And thinking about it more, my BB gun still only fires one shot at a time, so aside from the means of propulsion, the two don't really have that much in common.

>>28861140
>Yes, but you have to consider that a 7.62x51 round is significantly more powerful than a .46 ball fired out of an air rifle
do they kill things more dead?

>I'm not at all in favor of taking any guns away from the people
>uses terms like assault rifle

>>28861225
like it or not, "assault rifle" is the common term. Boo hoo, I used a scary word.

>>28861243
I bet you call magazines clips, don't you, you faggot?

>>28861243
By definition something in 7.62 nato isnt an assault rifle

>>28861264
What is it?

>the founders never wanted people to own military weapons

>Brown Besses and Charlevilles were very common for colonists to own. Other rifles and muskets owned were functionally the same thing.

>>28861288
a battle rifle retard

>>28861264
What's the politically /k/orrect name for it then?

>>28861288
A select fire rifle capable of feeding from a detachable magazine firing an intermediate cartage

>>28861202

you do understand that pneumatic rifles are very much a real weapon and are strictly regulated in most of the world exactly like firearms? there are air rifles in production today that can rival the most powerful firearms.

airsoft is exactly that-soft. real pneumatics are serious shit

>>28861298
Not to mention the privately owned warships with cannons.

>>28861303
A semi automatic or select fire rifle with a detachable magazine firing a full rifle round (7.62 nato or x54r) is a battle rifle

>>28861288
A rooty tooty point and shooty

>>28861308
>you do understand that pneumatic rifles are very much a real weapon and are strictly regulated in most of the world exactly like firearms?
Yes, but there's still a significant difference between an air rifle and an assau- no, sorry "battle rifle". As if there's any functional difference in that term.

>>28861288
Wouldn't you like to know you faggot.

>>28861243
>like it or not, "assault rifle" is the common term
clip is also the "common" term for magazines. "shoulder thing that goes up" is the common term for barrel shrouds. just because retards misuse it, doesn't make it right.
an assault rifle is automatic by definition. ar15s are not assault rifles.

>>28861347
>assau- no, sorry "battle rifle"
it's okay, retard. you got told you were a retard. you don't have to be upset. m1 garands aren't assault rifles, regardless of how much you want them to be.

>>28861471

he's right. an assualt rifle is any rifle with features designed to improve it's utility in small arms CQC.

pistol grip, hi cap mags, shrouds, ghostring, SBs, rails and rail accessories, tactical features are all what make an assualt rifle an assault rifle. the selective fire definition is pure strawman and the only sources for it are a bunch of tacticool gun authors.

A battle rifle is is a military long arm firing a full power cart. M1 Garands are battle rifles

>thread derailed

>>28861570
>an assualt rifle is any rifle with features designed to improve it's utility in small arms CQC.
no it's not. an assault rifle is a magazine fed rifle capable of automatic fire that uses an intermediate cartridge.
and anon seems to think assault rifle and battle rifle are interchangeable, which is just fucking retarded.
an m1 carbine isn't an assault rifle. an m2 carbine arguably is.

>>28860737
>in the founders time there were only muskets, not high capacity firearms like today

This pisses me off to no end, can we please look at historical things in a historical context?

True, firearms technology was much less advanced than it is today, but that's a moot point. Muskets were pretty much the pinnacle of modern firearms technology at the time. Every "modern" army in that time period was armed with muskets, a muzzle-loading flintlock musket with paper cartridges was the equivalent of an AR15 today.

Furthermore, the stated purpose of the Second Amendment is for the populace to have the capacity to raise an effective, well equipped militia. Seeing as militias at the time were expected to provide their own gear, we can take this to mean that the founding fathers intended the civilian population of the United States to have access to current military small arms technology. By this logic, any US citizen who is of sound mind and has no felony charges should be able to own a select-fire M16A2/A4 rifle or M4A1 carbine with standard capacity 30-round magazines. While it is up to some debate whether or not the NFA tax stamp required to own a select-fire weapon or SBR is unconstitutional, it is certain that bans on "high capacity" magazines, "assault weapons" and select-fire weapons ARE unconstitutional.

>>28860737
>in the founders time civilians could own any weaponry the military could have

>>28861745
hey, guy, why are you calling 30 round mags standard capacity? don't you know those are actually baby killing high capacity ghost gun clip holders only designed to provide more thrust per squeeze?

>>28861781
Because they are the manufacturer factory standard capacity

File: Drehling_GNM_W1984_ca_1580.jpg (2MB, 3648x2052px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2052px

>>28860737
Things that should kill the gun grabber, but that they will overlook, ignore or deny:

>From a historical study of weapons and political dynamics, Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy.[10][11] Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use.[12] This explains why democracy occurs so rarely in human history.[13]

>In the 1800s (peaking in the 1880s), guns were the best weapon available. In America, almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments couldn't do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns[12] (Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and of democracy[13]).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Weapons_and_democracy

>>28861814
no, but I was told those were actually high capacity, and standard capacity is only 10 rounds. who should I trust, the president, or some random guy on the internet?

>>28861905
>who sould i trust, a nigger that does a shit job as a president and cries trying to ban something protected by an amendment or someone who knows about the topic you are inquiring?

>>28861905
But it is the manufacturer, imagine if you could only put 2 gallons of gas in your car when ford said it should hold 10 gallons

>>28861905
Quaility troll right here.

>>28861905
you should trust that the standard magazine capacity of assault rifles and submachine guns has been 30 rounds since the 1940s, 20 for battle rifles because bigger boolits

>>28861924
you're not saying we should have high capacity gas tanks too now, are you? I could run over a lot more people if I had a 30 gallon tank than if I just had a 10 gallon tank.

>>28860865
It actually is. That's why the FCC exists.

>>28861323
>tfw you'll never sail the high seas as a privateer
>tfw you have no face

>>28861960
Well yes, but television, radio, Internet, ect didn't exist in the 1700s, and if the grabbers try to outlaw modern weapons on the basis that they weren't what the founders had in mind, then they should support the same regulations on free speech.

File: Hakim3[1].jpg (144KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 800x600px

>>28861938
>tfw I live in a shit state that doesn't allow me to have maximum fun with my hakim

>>28861570
no, that is not correct
see
>>28861306

>>28861982
They do.
You really aren't going to win this path.

>>28861140
>Yes, but you have to consider that a 7.62x51 round is significantly more powerful than a .46 ball fired out of an air rifle,
hurr the first cars were shit, and just because they were continuously improving doesn't mean that anyone expected them to continue to improve.


>It's also much easier to carry 5 or 6 magazines on you to reload super quick than it is to carry a sack of large steel balls
>have to reload your tube magazine one by one.
Hurr tubes, springs, and mechanical indexing are modern inventions.

>I'm not at all in favor of taking any guns away from the people, but let's not pretend a modern assault rifle is even in the same class as this thing.
Hurr how could anyone have expected the 'micro'tranisitor to go beyond basic logic circuits? (literally everyone did because they weren't retarded)
Hurr how could anyone have expected the vaccine to work for anything other than cow pox?

>>28861922
Obama is objectively obe of the most successful and effective presidents invmodern history especially given the unprecedented levels of dysfunction in the legislature for 6/8 years of his term

>>28862207
git that weak bait back to /pol/
dis here a weapons board

File: 1419441570052.jpg (243KB, 883x1072px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 883x1072px

>yfw rapid fire weapons existed centuries before the founders were born

http://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

>>28862255
I'm sorry that objective facts are hard for you. Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are real, yo. don't be sad