How far does the Second Amendment go?

>>33817780

SHALL

>>33817922
NOT

>>33817926
BE

>>33817926
BE

>>33817932
>>33817933
INFRINGED

NIGGERED

File: 1493600865415.jpg (19KB, 491x488px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 491x488px

>>33817951

>>33817922
>>33817926
>>33817932
>>33817933
>>33817951
It would seem that /k/ has spoken.

File: 11657262_10204835861484332_116147680_n.jpg (64KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 540x540px

well done, lads

>>33817780
If you can afford it you should be able to have it (weaponry wise)

Weaponry includes any device capable of destroying things.

So even weaponry capable of generating black holes and Destroying whole universes should be legal as long as you can afford and store it.

>>33817970

Beautiful.

>>33817997

As do I, but my father argued that the state guard's arsenal is sufficient to deter federal tyranny, and that potentially untrained, unhinged individuals shouldn't have ready access to extremely lethal military ordnance. He also argued that the wealthy would have an unfair monopoly on artillery and armored ordnance, leading to anarchic neo-feudalism. How do I refute that?

>>33817780
more freedom exacerbates the problems we have that haven't dealt with, such as the war on drugs (gang crime).

It's a bullshit system fucking us out of more of our freedom, one way or another we've got to destroy the gangs and give the people better weaponry.

>>33818082
>anarchic neo-feudalism
This is unironically what much of /k/ and /pol/ wants

>>33818082
>the state guard's arsenal is sufficient to deter federal tyranny
I'm sorry, your father has stage four retardation. If he's ever in a life or death situation that depends on him using his brain, he'll surely die.

>>33817780
>How far does the Second Amendment go?
All the way.

>>33817780
As deep as you insert it.

>>33817780

Dude, fucking American's own tanks. Your dad needs to chill. Besides, mother fucking National Guard, and police depending, exists with way better equipment than a average civilian.

>>33817780
Only white people should have access to any and all weapons.

If the military or police can own it, so can k/. If they can own tanks I fuggin want one too. And as soon as lazer weapons become a thing, you better believe its our right to have those too.
>"It aint me" playing in space.

>recreational nuke

>>33818082
The national guard is under no legal obligation to protect the state from the federal government if it is called on by the state to do so, in fact quite the opposite they would be put under the command of the regular Army/Air Force and turned against the "rebellious" state.
If a national guard unit chose to fight for their state and lost, survivors would be legally executed for treason.
Surely your father can see the issue here?
Guardsmen should not be able to be imprisoned/executed for treating their governor as their highest commander.
Until they can do that they should be considered a federal force.
Under your fathers logic regular forces stationed in your state would totally be on your states side no matter what just cause they're there.

>>33817780
I'd say it's okay to own a gun as long as it's a smart gun so you can't shoot at POC

>>33817780
My figuring on the language of the second amendment is that the militia part refers to the most magnificent role of an armed population: that weapon ownership is to empower individuals to the point of a citizen's militia that can legitimately stand on its own and any role less violent than that. To the Founding Fathers, a militia should be able to stand against a professional army. Even if the Founding Fathers could not predict the rise of chemical weapons or nukes, I think they wanted equity on principle. In a real-world situation, I'm conflicted. I'm not comfortable with the idea of radicals being able to legally own chemical weapons or nukes, something that could kill hundreds, thousands, or millions without a fight. On the other hand, I know weapons technology will never stop advancing and if citizens stop taking advantage of that on principle the gap between them and the feds will only increase. I can see value in the perspective of nuclear disarmament for that reason, if nukes and chemical weapons are illegal then the feds won't have that advantage. On another hand, I think MAD has saved lives and I don't really think it's dramatically more crazy than any other bit of hawkish geopolitics in history. It's just on a bigger scale. I don't have a solid answer, but I definitely believe citizens should be able to own all the way up to military artillery batteries, including ships and planes, no question.

>>33818097
It's hard to predict the future. Maybe if citizens could access more lethal weaponry, gangs would be a thing of the past. Maybe they would become so lethal that they'd wipe each other out as soon as things heat up because they're no longer trying to wage war with pistols and homemade bombs. Maybe they would become too dangerous for spooks to try and manipulate so there wouldn't be rogue elements within the federal government preferring their existence.

>>33819389
This. Don't want civiies to own explosives, machineguns, tanks and helicopters monted weapons, police can't have it. The military is something else obviously.

File: EVERY_20_YEARS.jpg (280KB, 513x618px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 513x618px

>>33817780
Serious answer, a citizen should be able to arm themselves with at mininum comparable equipment to modern infantry.

>>33819636
Consider too that the same approach may effect different populations differently. Perhaps in rural Wyoming, complete deregulation of weapons would change very little while in NYC it would be a fucking disaster.

>>33817780

As you get older, you will meet a lot of retards, some rich (normally from inheritance), some poor, and over time you stop trusting people you don't know to not be retards all together. I see where your dad is coming from, I'm slowly reaching it.

If I had my way, biological and nuclear weapons would be illegal but everyone during their high school years would have to pass a firearms training test that one could take at any point before or afterwards in their lives if they failed it earlier or want to get it out of the way sooner. If you passed, you're considered an able bodied member of the militia and can buy any small arm you wanted. After that class, you at least have to attend another for explosives and how not to be a retard with them but it isn't required to pass high school. Anyone who can't pass the firearms class can't join the military or law enforcement. That way you can't be singled out for owning a license and nice things aren't limited to the rich or powerful.

Before "shall not be infringed" is shouted at me, I agree that's what the 2nd ammendment states and it is the next best way, my idea would never be implemented anyways.

>>33817780
>private militias unrestricted access to anything more dangerous is a public safety hazard.

Ask him what he thinks of the ANTI-FA militias that we see nowadays.

>>33817780
Theoretically, as written. it has no limits. If it was rewritten today, it would probably be sane to put a select few items beyond its scope - here I'm thinking genuine "weapons of mass destruction" like crop dusters set up to spray anthrax, 1000-pound fragmentation bombs, and nukes. Sorry, but the fact that the left abuses phrases like "common sense gun control" doesn't mean that there isn't actually any common sense limit on not only gun rights, but on *any* right. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't perform human sacrifices even if your religion says you have to, and you can't have a super soaker filled with ebola. Yes, I know that the left uses any inch we give them to take a mile, so giving them an inch is generally something we don't want to do, but being an absolutist who refuses to acknowledge the need for flexibility when it comes to extreme edge cases is just retarded.

>>33818082
>>33818098
>anarchic neo-feudalism
Yeah, unironically sign me up for some of that.

>>33818082
>How do I refute that?

A monopoly of the wealthy doesn't matter. It's the same argument as "The guvment has tanks and jets"

>But muh state guard
That's bullshit for a very dangerous reason. The Governor has control of each state guard, but the Guard can be nationalized in an emergency, thereby falling under direct federal control along with the other branches. His idea is very weak on the balance of power that our country is supposed to have (I.E., WE THE PEOPLE).

>>33819684
Maybe it would be a disaster, maybe it wouldn't. In our modern world, unless you live in the Southwest, gangs consist of the poorest people in society. They would arm themselves only slightly better than a penal battalion. Meanwhile a very large portion of law-abiding citizens could afford rifles and the wealthy few could afford vehicles and could probably arm any business they own with serious defensive weapons. Any gang trying to really organize a brawl would get easily trounced.

File: recreational.png (208KB, 614x672px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 614x672px

>>33817780

>>33819682

Agreed with this one. I have no personal problem with permits being required for heavy weapons.

>>33819389
>tfw you will never remove Space VC with a Laser M14
"IT AINT ME echos in distant space"

But can't you own a nuke provided the ATF paperwork clears and you can properly store and maintain the weapon in question?

How much would that cost altogether, several millions to start up and thousands upon thousands to maintain?

>>33817780
I want everything below nukes and large bombs

Basically nothing that makes cities too scary to live in.

>>33819769
Finally some fucking sense in a sea of retardation.

>>33820257
The ATF, NNSA, and probably the EPA would likely just build offices next to your house, assuming you could afford it, and find a place to purchase it that wouldn't instantly make you an enemy of the state.

I guess you could build one, but just getting the materials, let alone the expertise, would cost millions. The maintenance would likely be more than "thousands," too.

Also, you'd need a delivery method for there to be any point to owning a nuke, and that, of course, has its own costs.

>>33817780
RECREATIONAL NUKES FOR ALL!

>>33819769
>You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post on its face, but this is retarded and it's time to stop.

Not being able to "shout fire in a theater" has nothing to do with limiting speech in the way most people who use this argue. Prohibition of "shouting fire in a theater" isn't a "common sense" limitation of 1st amendment protections because it's not a restriction on the content of the speech. What is actually prohibited is inciting a panic through the action of "shouting fire in a theater". But this requires both intent and capability. In this case intent would be shouting fire purposefully to cause a panic knowing there is no fire, and capability would be the existence of a theater full of people.

You can shout fire in a theater full of people if you truly believe there is a fire. You can shout fire in an empty theater even if there is no fire.

You must have both components, intent and capability.

This is without going into the actual origin of the "shouting fire in a theater" rhetorical device, which was in a SCOTUS decision to allow the prosecution of people protesting conscription during WWI under the sedition act.

File: 18052497_10155177278979477_693931152_o.jpg (47KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1620x1080px

>>33817780
The second amendment says "arms"
This covers everything from clubs/knives up to and including motherfucking WARSHIPS.
We know this because at the time of the Revolutionary war, knives, swords, firearms, CANNON (capable of killing scores of people with a single shot) and motherfucking WARSHIPS (privateers were civilians authorized to act as pirates, nothing more) capable of shelling other ships, towns, etc into submission.

>>33818082
The National Guard was federalized, his argument is moot. If it was still solely the domain of the States he might have a point.

This anon >>33819682
has it right. We should have grenades, C4, FA M4's, M203's, Javelins, RPG's, RPK's and M249s, and mortars at a minimum.

In all seriousness, the individual revolutionaries were armed with their own weaponry by and large, and it was on par with the British regulars of the time. This is a large part of why success was possible That is what our founders wanted to preserve with the second amendment.

Not a standing army under federal control.

>>33821420
accidentally deleted part of the last post

***CANNON (capable of killing scores of people with a single shot) and motherfucking WARSHIPS (privateers were civilians authorized to act as pirates, nothing more) capable of shelling other ships, towns, etc into submission, were OFTEN privately owned.

>>33818098
>>33819774

Yeah, that sounds fucking badass. Sign me up.

You should be allowed to effectively defend yourself. But no, there should be regulations when it comes to private ownership, and especially PMC's. Since they dont serve a nation, you might be building up an enemy force within your own country. The larger the scale, the more regulated it should be.

>>33819468
the national guard is not the governor's army. the state police is.

>>33821747
got anything to support your libtard bullshit position, or are you just wasting words

>>33821777
Do you have an argument against it? I just told you why I believe why it should be like that. Just because you disagree doesnt mean I'm a libtard, this isnt /pol/. Regulations are good, to a certain extent.

>>33817780

If it can destroy a mid-sized city in under five minutes, it should require prior military experience, a background check, and a lifelong permit. Otherwise, anything other than completely unrestricted access is unconstitutional and morally reprehensible.

>>33819755
>implement this
>libshits de facto kill 2A using their fully levelled bureacrat powers, making the test cost $30,000 in fees, require 12 years of tax records, and a 4 year waitlist

>>33822588

Fuck everything. I just want to legally own a .50 caliber machinegun for home defense and recreational purposes, is that too much to ask?