To all the 2nd Amendment supporters on Cred Forums:

Well they certainly believed that the average american citizen had the right to carry small arms which were equivalent to what the military used, that we can say for sure.

All that other fantastical bullshit you mentioned though, probably not.

>Landmines
They existed for about half a milenia when the constitution was written
>Flamethrowers
Greek fire is roughly as old as the land mine
>Hand Grenades
They where a main staple of combat during their time
>Stinger missiles
Why would a guided shot matter?
>Apache Helicopters
Why would they matter?
>Nerve agents
Plague warfare existed before
>Nukes
Technically you can own them in the US
>More BS

You do realize that the founding fathers allowed people to arm and man their own frigates and I imagine they would also allow man of war's. Which is like allowing now people to own aircraft carriers.

Yes. Cannons, ships, and fortresses were all mentioned as being included under the right to bear arms.

The founding father didn't think of the Internet , therefore the first amendment doesn't apply.

>Did the founding fathers consider it a basic American right to own bombs?
>Landmines?
>Flamethrowers?
>Hand grenades?
>Stinger missiles?
>Apache helicopters?
>Nerve agents?
>Nuclear warheads?
>Genetically-engineered viruses, bacteria, and fungi?

Yes, they used the generic term "arms" very purposefully.

The issue here though, is that it IS illegal in the USA to build bombs, but you never hear about the NRA wanting to defend bomb-owners and our right to own bombs. You never hear rednecks complain about "dang liberal bomb-grabbers." When Ahmed Mohammed was being interrogated by police, nobody said it was his constitutional right to build a bomb.

So... Can I just say that the gun lobby are hypocritical self-serving cowards?

Weren't a lot of Colonial cannons made of bronze, as well?

I'm surprised no 2nd amendment haters haven't specifically said anything about that.

You have the right to own all of those. The reason why you don't see people with tanks driving around is because most Americans don't have millions of dollars to throw at something like an m1 abrams which is at best a novelty item.

Yes

Yes they did. At the time of the creation of the bill of rights private citizens could own man-o-wars with cannons on them that had explosive shot.

>is that it IS illegal in the USA to build bombs
No it's not.

Can you cite the law code that makes it illegal?
If you want to manufacture explosives there are licenses and zoning restrictions you have to comply with. But it's not at all illegal.

Most of our weapon systems are manufactured by private companies. There's a huge fireworks company in Pennsylvania. The Construction industry uses explosive all the time.
You can mail order Tannerite by the bucket full and get it shipped to your house.

The founding fathers owned weapons tho

But then again they also owned niggers

>is that it IS illegal in the USA to build bombs

It isn't.

>but you never hear about the NRA wanting to defend bomb-owners and our right to own bombs.

Because BAFTE supplies tax stamps for explosives, like most other severely regulated things. That in itself is already a violation of the 2A, of course.. But they're not illegal.

>You never hear rednecks complain about "dang liberal bomb-grabbers."

Because bombs aren´t being grabbed, you fucking imbecile.

>When Ahmed Mohammed was being interrogated by police, nobody said it was his constitutional right to build a bomb.

He wasn't charged, was he? Exactly.

>So... Can I just say that the gun lobby are hypocritical self-serving cowards?

No, you just don't understand the 2A very well and you're strawmanning hard.

The priority is guns. What about that is self serving?

I agree. I have every right to anything that would contribute to a well regulated militia, which covers a lot more than machine guns.

>Mexican intellectuals
>Mexican education

lmaooooooooooo

Abhorrent straw man Pablo Burritochalupa. Also you're not fooling anyone with that proxy, we all know Mestizo scum are too retarded to understand basic Engrish.

Yes. When the 2nd was put in, people owned cannons, and ships. They put said cannons on said ships.
Cannon balls went from solid metal to explosive hollows to grape shots.
A ship armed with cannons could level an entire coastal town. WMD of their day

>Landmines?
>Flamethrowers?
>Hand grenades?
>Stinger missiles?
>Apache helicopters?
>Nerve agents?
>Nuclear warheads?
>Genetically-engineered viruses, bacteria, and fungi?
Yes
However in many of those cases it's a moot point since there is no way for any individual to acquire them.

Yes. People could buy bombs, cannons, and warships.
Of course most people didn't because it was prohibitively expensive. And most people didn't have a use for that stuff.
For that same reason it wouldn't be a problem in modern times.

dont try to use logic on americans when it comes to guns

they weren't retarded, with inventions such as pic related they saw where firearm technology was going.

The 2nd amendment says that the people are able to have militias on par with the military. If the military can have such weapons, then so can the populous.

Yes.

"Of, by, and for the people."

The US government doesnr serve the people anymore, it's an international institution. They might as well fly a different flag. When do I get to vote in bombing Syria?

>Brits
>Guns
>Logic

lmao pls... your gun laws are the worst in the Union, yet you have one of the most violent societies of Western Europe..
>B-but at least we don't shoot each other
Fag.

they'd have probably argued that if the military can in fact operate and deploy such systems, a civilian should be able to as well

what makes the difference is the difference in logistics needed between maintaining a ground attack plane and simply cleaning a gun

>shill thread
>sage

you'd think someone who lives in a country where a single cartel murder in one day is peaceful would understand the need to have the means to defend yourself

Actually americans can own flamethrowers without any regulation whatsoever, even in states that require you to get a gun card you don't need it to own a flamethrower and make napalm

have you binned a blade lately, chap?

The founding fathers literally endorsed private ownership of canons and battleships.

Also you can own flamethrowers, mines, grenades, missles, helicopters and associated machineguns with the right papereork. All of which have been used in basically zero crime even before regulation. Flamethrowers still aren't regulated at all. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are not arms, they are useless in a domestic context.

>Then what makes you think the 2nd Amendment applies to semi-automatic and automatic rifles?

The fact that they existed and were available to gentlemen like them already.

Also the fact that private citizens owned most of the nation's cannon and almost all the navy.

Oh and the fact that the 2nd makes no classification or limitation.

And the fact that the Constitution can be amended for unforseen circumstances. Feel free to try and amend the Constitution if you think you're right.

Yes. Shall not be infringed
Saged

Yes you fucking idiot. Reading ain't that hard.

Best part is militaries at the time saw this thing as a terror weapon and ordered any enemy combatant holding one to be immediately executed. It was objectively BETTER than what the military was using so if anything we should be allowed everything the military uses plus more.

Flame throwers are legal.

They considered it a basic right to own arms. It's pretty clear, man.

epic strawman

Nra is the national rifel Assosiation not the national bomb assosiation

congratz for being the only person ITT to post the truth

fill out paper work with the ATF be fucking lucky and you can legally buy explosives

>the thinking and reasoning you lost to us.... lets march in ranks while we get gorilla warfared

bin that kitchen knife!

Shouldn't you be trying to sneak into my country? Fuck off sanchez

Cannons and warships.

Fuck off.

yes

FUNFACT: flame throwers are perfectly legal in the U.S =)

you know this only enchances my interest, I always wanted a flamethrower and a bazooka.

Yes.

Dude barely the ATF, just apply for a demolitions license or join a construction company that does demolitions and you get free access to buy as much explosives as you want.

they could own battleships so i assume helicopters and flamethrowers would be acceptable

Trump will find a way.

>Start thread making demands based on misunderstanding of american law
>Americans correct you
Y y yeah well you aren't being logical!
Everyone of the examples of weapons OP gave is legal for individuals to own under the second amendment.
OP is a fag and so are you.

This

SHALL

Yes to all.

> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It's not hard to understand

also, hand crank gattling guns are also legal, you just can't attach a motor

Spoiler alert: if you can afford these things, you can own them in the USA.

This guy gets it.

You don't need any of those things to protect your home and family from an invasion.
But you do need a gun.

>bear
You cannot bear helicopters or nukes on your arms, so no.

>Apache helicopters
Legal, just really expensive

>Viruses, bacteria and fungi
Pretty sure conducting biology research is legal too

>Everything else
Classified as destructive devices, not firearms. Also, not really useful in self-defense

Keep dreaming.
You won't ever be able to invade until we get disarmed.
Even if the laws change to ban all guns we will still have armories hidden for us to use on you.

Technically there no laws on the books preventing private ownership of nukes

We've had this thought process before

Its easier to buy a 105mm howitzer + ammo than it is to buy a machine gun

We can literally own anything but machine guns (unless they are built before '89)

>Then what makes you think the 2nd Amendment applies to semi-automatic and automatic rifles?

The same idea that the 1st Amendment applies to modern technology as well. It isn't limited to quill pens and printing press technology from a couple of hundred years ago.

>Did the founding fathers consider it a basic American right to own bombs?

yes

thats complete different I'm talking about hunter S thomson tier shenanigans of
>why is there 100lb of tnt in the basement

It has more to do with contracts then law.
Apaches for example can only be sold to the united states military since they are the ones that commissioned them and one of the contractual obligations was that they must be exclusive to them. And since the military isn't selling them the only way to get one would be to steal it which would be illegal.
It's the same story with things like nukes and stinger missiles they aren't available for sale, and the means to make them are not available either.

>Mexican Intellectuals

The Constitution isn't what creates the rights of citizens. The rights of citizens are granted to us by nature. The Constitution merely guarantees that our natural rights are inalienable.

They didn't write the Constitution asking themselves"which rights should we give the people?"
They wrote the Constitution asking themselves "how do we protect these people's rights?"

>blah blah blah Americans can't own these things I know what I'm talking about because I'm not American checkmate 2A fags

trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?category_level1=Jets&make=MIKOYAN&model=MIG 29&listing_id=1740438&s-type=aircraft&gclid=Cj0KEQjwsai_BRC30KH347fjksoBEiQAoiaqsZYnoUhchnwI993Szr7zD80UHb6BlsRpQ1UyRFfkZ6oaArSx8P8HAQ

Stop making these threads.

You do realize automatic weapons did exist before and when the bill of rights was written, right?

The bill of rights was written in 1971.
In 1718 the Puckle Gun was patented, one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machinegun".
Not very later after the consitution was written machineguns started appearing all over the world, like the Gatling.

Had the founding fathers been against it, they might have revised the bill of rights, right?

And all the things you listed can be owned in the US with the right licenses in the states that require them or without license in the states that don't require it. It is only some weapons branded destructive devices that are highly restricted, however that designation is quite arbitrary as something like an Armsel Stryker is classified as such, but a M1 or Harrier are not.

tl;dr fuck off Mexican """"intellectual"""
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
GOD BLESS THE US OF A

If the citizens can't own it, the government certainly shouldn't be allowed to own it.

Yes. /thread

> sound in garage
> 3:45AM.
> wake waifu and teenage son
> grab air rifles
> ninja attack home invaders

>>Nukes
>Technically you can own them in the US
I don't buy it

There are no laws against owning them because they are cost prohibitive to own.

God Bless America.

I got a crazy idea.
Gun ownership should be restricted to people with fulltime jobs and/or health insurance, who are registered voters, and who completed a high school diploma (not a GED). These are all markers of good mental health and judgment.

Before you reply to me by flying off the handle, think hard about what kind of people would and wouldn't be able to buy guns under these conditions. It might...color your response to me.

>Gun ownership should be restricted

No

While it would be nice, that would be a direct infringement on the 2nd amendment, as such it can not be tolerated.
The 2nd amendment applies to all US citizens, unrestricted.

There is only a case for those clinically mentally unstable or otherwise unfit to carry and use a weapon for other medical reasons.
You like it or not, niggers are also citizens of the US and entitled to bearing arms.

Considering they didn't know what any of these things were I doubt they did jackass

there is no way to get weapons grade plutonium without access to a nuclear reactor and you sure as hell aren't buying that off the street but somehow I can't imagine if you somehow managed to get it and started making a bomb out of it the FBI wouldn't let it fly if they got weather of it

Hand grenades yes. Nothing else listed existed at the time. Well maybe primitive land mines so I guess those too.

Personally I would draw the line at bio weapons and nukes.

>hurr durr only muskets existed in the 1700s

IEDs are a huge problem for armored vehicles and personnel in the middle east, and I myself can build a cannon capable of killing a man with one potato. Add in the undeniable likelyhood of defectors from the military giving civilians access to base equipment and we have a pretty damn good resistance force.

They would probably stick you with threatening national security or some terrorist charge or something, but the weapon itself is not technically illegal.

The type of weapons available were not the concern. The concern is that citizens should be able to defend themselves against an out of control authority.

But Mexico wouldn't know anything about unchecked tyranny.

>technically illegal
i think you're stretching the term to meaningless here m8

>The issue here though, is that it IS illegal in the USA to

It's also illegal in the USA for you spics to show up and pic fruit without the proper credentials. Hasn't stopped you yet, has it?

Keep picking my fruit for cents per hour. I'll keep growing my arsenal.

So am I, if you own a demolition company whose gonna tell you not to have a hundred pounds of tnt in the basement and another 300 in the barn

NOT

The founding fathers were aware that weaponry would advance when they wrote the second amendment.

Now go get your trowel and work boots ready. You've got a wall to build.

Fun Fact: All of the fissile material (weapons grade) used by the military is produced by private companies. Honeywell being the largest supplier.

The only thing that is illegal is non-government sanctioned transit of fissile material across state lines or across the national border. If you want to do that the red tape is many miles long since obviously you need special Hazmat classifications.

There are however no laws prohibiting you from building a nuclear weapon so long as you could accomplish every step required within a single state WHILE complying with zoning laws. That's what the private companies currently do.

If you want to setup such a business and compete with them, you just need enough money and political influence to make it possible.

The medical industry is scrambling to find much more affordable producers of lower grade radioactive materials for a wide variety of medical uses and it's ongoing research at several universities. They just have to comply with labor safety standards and HAZMAT regulations to do so.

Is there a law against it?
>No.
Then it's not illegal.

Mexico preaching about guns?

Fuck off Beaner...

i own several canisters of nerve gas

You're aware there were privately owned warships and artillery pieces at the time yeah?

Furthermore, if the second amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms, why the fuck should the first amendment apply to modern forms of communication?

SHALL

if the government banned anyone but them from buying gunpowder* and would respond harshly to anyone breaking that monopoly without a literal ton of red type and oversight would you consider your rights infringed?
*note "gunpowder" is catch all term here for all materials for getting a bullet flying

this gave me an image of a society where everyone has their own warships in their backyard port and use them to legally feud

Of course it's an infringement, but you were arguing legality. And it's not illegal. Don't conflate.

Fucking this. Furthermore, the Constitution addresses our rights to "bear" arms. To bear means to hold or to carry. You can't carry a nuke, you can't carry a tank. If technology reaches a point where these things can be carried than yes, you should be able to.

Of course it does. I really want some hand grenades.

You can buy a tank though. And though out of the budget of a single citizen, privately owned power companies have the capability to make nuclear weapons.

>Did the founding fathers consider it a basic American right to own bombs?
>Landmines?
>Flamethrowers?
>Hand grenades?
>Stinger missiles?
>Apache helicopters?
>Nerve agents?
>Nuclear warheads?

yes to all,

The second amendment is absolute. The constitution is a set of rules the government is supposed to follow not the people. The people's rights are enumerated first and foremost. Goverment's powers are granted by the people with plain language that cannot be interpreted in any other way. If we or the government want to change something or clarify then pass an amendment. It's that simple.

INFRINGE AT MY WILL

>is that it IS illegal in the USA to build bombs,

no is isn't, hoe else are we supposed to deal with weaponized gophers

Yes to all of the above.
>Not knowing about Detente and Mutually Assured Destruction.
Shall not be infringed. Get fucked Paco.

Its illegal to build a bomb for harm or profit

Hobby use of bombs is protected

Learn our laws if you want to debate

and this is where you never posted again

shill

OP is a retard

The supreme court does not make law! The alphabet agencies are utilized by the regressives to enact laws they couldn't pass if it was voted upon. They will use the judiciary or these agencies to enact societal change. These people are authoritarians and are traitors.

Its not illegal to build bombs so long as you detonate them immediately. The popular reactive target Tannerite works on this principle as the two components it is made of are completely inert when unmixed. Transporting or storing explosives requires special permits though.

The 2nd does allow you to use any weapon to see fit to defend the constitution, the people and the country from enemies outside and inside.

Right now the biggest concern is just protecting your life from criminals, ergo handguns and rifles are the most important group of weapons.

But in a theoretical situation where the government turns on its people, you have the right to garb a bomber and flatten their bases. If you somehow obtain nuclear launch codes and can use them to destroy a tyrannical government, it is your duty to do so.

The 2nd ammendment allows you to escalate a conflict, that's the real purpose.

Myth 01

It does apply to those things, stupid. You're responsible for what you do with them though.

It's not like you have to buy explosives or flamethrowers. This stuff is completely viable and cost-effective to manufacture yourself. Same goes for guns.

Myth 02

Myth 03

Myth 04

Myth 05

>you can buy a tank though

And you should be able to. But the Constitution didn't say we have god given rights to drive vehicles, thus why our driving "privilege" is revoked if we don't pay traffic fines. Regardless our rights are regularly trampled on and are almost meaningless anymore

Uranium is enriched and plutonium manufactured by private companies but aren't all weapons are assembled in government facilities? that's what I was led to beileve

>medical industry
uses materials like technetium, polonium, radium or low quality uranium, all of which are unsuitable for nuclear weapons
universities and hospitals all over the world, even in countries with strict gun laws, use radioactive materials for all manners of different purposes

also pretty sure the Nuclear Non-Proliferation act of 1978 is against it in spirit even if the absurd possibility of private nuclear weapons isn't mentioned specifically

...

We tried gun control already.

Yes, they did actually.

Let's look at the text of the constitution
2nd:
>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think it's clear that the Bill of Rights protects gun ownership. But the whole 'Militia' thing is mysterious to me. Isn't a Militia a state or township guard unit? This would suggest to me that certain restrictions on guns are permissible given that your local or state government has passed legislation to this effect. A 'militia' seems like grounds to say that while you have the right to have arms, you may not have privacy or absolute discretion on when you may use arms given that the order is from your state/local gov and not the federal gov.
4th:
>"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.."
But maybe there is a privacy right? Maybe the 4th Amendment secures a right to privacy for gun owners.
9th:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This seems to rule-out federal laws regarding weapons limitations. Together with the full faith and credit clause in the body of the Constitution, it would seem like authorities would need to be very careful arresting interstate citizens for having locally banned weapons. It does seem kind of bullshit that you can get arrested for a knife that is legal in one state will merely driving through a state where it is banned, particularly if you have no intent of residency.

If the government can use it against me, I can use it against them.

Did they know about those things back then?
No.
Would they support them today?
You bet.

We should be able to own all of those things desu.

Wait, looked it up
it is explicitly banned regulated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
private nuclear arms ownership is illegal in the US, you can't even own a patent for a design of a nuke

Arms means weapons you can reasonably carry

>The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
>shall not be infringed.

This means no infringements. Not even for felons or people on no fly lists or anything. That is why we should execute anyone guilty of any crime with a deadly weapon.

I know a lot of smart people who skipped out on a high school diploma and went for a ged that are making a lot more money than me.

I know it's anecdotes, and most dropouts are shitty people so it would grossly be better but it does kind of defeat the purpose of the 2nd amendment and when you start restricting firearms then it just inch-worms from there on what is 'a good marker of mental health and judgement'.

Last I checked, the atomic energy act of 1954 came after that. I think that's right.

We could do what they did during Jim Crow and allow people who couldn't past the requirements be sponsored by someone who could.

>Did the founding fathers consider it a basic American right to own bombs?
>Landmines?
>Flamethrowers?
>Hand grenades?
>Stinger missiles?
>Apache helicopters?
>Nerve agents?
>Nuclear warheads?
>Genetically-engineered viruses, bacteria, and fungi?
No. But if you showed those things to them in their time period, they almost certainly would've been very interested/excited about them.
>"Look at the barrel on that rifle! Where did you find such an amazing contraption?"
Reminder that private citizens owned ships armed with cannons back then.

the 1954 law makes provisions for peaceful private nuclear reactors but does not repeal the private nuclear weapons clause in the 1946 act

Yeah, I'm honestly not well versed in 18th/19th century history but I heard similar stories regarding calvaliers and maxim guns when it came to referring them as "terror weapons" Not necessarily "terror weapons" but treating combat as an event that requires much respect and self-dignity for all with very clear 'rules' so that the idea of 1 man being able to mow down hundreds of cavaliers was shocking and abhorring to them. I just find it interesting how much combat has changed not only with tactics, but the methodology and viewpoint of it all.

What makes you think "arms" refers to explosives?

Also, I wouldn't have a problem with those things being legal. The government has no right to tell us what we can and can't have if we're willing to pay for it.