← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64430069

21 posts 2 images /k/
Anonymous No.64430069 [Report] >>64430101 >>64430126 >>64430180 >>64430305 >>64430412 >>64430558
>The right to bear arms but you can't own the rifle military uses
sounds like a con to me
Anonymous No.64430101 [Report]
>>64430069 (OP)
Fuck ya
mudda
Anonymous No.64430126 [Report] >>64430172
>>64430069 (OP)
a gucci'ed semiauto or frt ar15 is far better quality than a standard issue m4a1
Anonymous No.64430172 [Report] >>64430203
>>64430126
>Semiauto only
Anonymous No.64430180 [Report] >>64430335 >>64430354 >>64430407 >>64430466
>>64430069 (OP)
Before Heller, it was an open question whether the right applied to individuals at all. The cost of getting five justices was reframing the right around sef-defense rather than militia service. Otherwise the Court would have found that there is no individual right to firearms.
Anonymous No.64430203 [Report] >>64430298 >>64430331 >>64430503
>>64430172
what matter is accurate shot placement
Anonymous No.64430298 [Report] >>64430306
>>64430203
and the fact that our guns are used as hammers, crowbars, or kept in shitty conditions for years with little to no maintenance
Anonymous No.64430305 [Report] >>64430337 >>64430407
>>64430069 (OP)
bearing arms does not imply ownership
Anonymous No.64430306 [Report]
>>64430298
ARENT. sucks to suck
Anonymous No.64430331 [Report]
>>64430203
Clearly the army doesn't think so
Anonymous No.64430335 [Report] >>64430348
>>64430180
That makes zero sense, of course it applies to individuals or it doesn't apply at all
Anonymous No.64430337 [Report]
>>64430305
Good thing the Constitution says "keep and bear arms."
Anonymous No.64430348 [Report]
>>64430335
Yes it doesn't make sense, but for most of the 20th century most judges, politicians, and legal scholars thought the 2A was a structural right protecting states--not indivuals--from the milita being disarmed. Scalia rightly noted that was a retarded read of history, but it took him nearly 50 years to convince the judiciary to act on it.
Anonymous No.64430354 [Report] >>64430400
>>64430180
>the right to freedom of religion only applies to churches
>the right to freedom of speech only applies to media companies
>the right to refuse quartering soldiers only applies to real estate management
Yeah, that is some very sound reasoning.
Anonymous No.64430400 [Report]
>>64430354
It's dumb, but in fairness the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until 1868 (and the 2A was only held to apply to the states in 2010). At the founding states did establish their own religion and did restrict the rights of certain people to bear arms (native Americans, Catholics, loyalists). Further, the framers probably did care more about preserving the states' militias than protecting an individual right to bear arms from the federal law. Scalia said while that may be true, the vehicle the framers used to protect the militas was enshrining an individual right to arms in the Constitution.
Anonymous No.64430407 [Report]
>>64430180
>>64430305
Liberals are such fucking retards.
Anonymous No.64430412 [Report]
>>64430069 (OP)
>army uses MIM sigslop
I'm good thanks
Anonymous No.64430466 [Report] >>64430544
>>64430180
>the right of the people
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Fuck ya
mudda.
Anonymous No.64430503 [Report]
>>64430203
Stfu nigger loving boomer-fud faggot
Anonymous No.64430544 [Report]
>>64430466
I'm just telling you the legal dynamics, champ.
Anonymous No.64430558 [Report]
>>64430069 (OP)
People don't want to be in a crowd when the next untreated mental illness goes to town with a fucking Maxim. Banning full auto is a reasonable restriction that doesn't actually impede the average citizen.
>But muh constitutional article from 200 years ago
Can fortunately be reinterpreted to only means "some arms, not all".