The faggots at the ATF would sure try. We need to disband them altogether, remove the 1986 NFA, and make it a free-for-all. You want a machine gun, you got it.
Would love to overturn the NFA. Unfortunately some of its biggest supporters are folks who sunk in that much $$$ already, as it devalues their property.
There may be a small handful of big collectors who might not support repeal of NFA1934 (or even just the Hughes amendment in FOPA1986,) but I can assure you that the vast majority of the (small) NFA community would whole-heartedly support repeal of either of those illegal laws. Even though the paper value of their stuff drops.
Nuclear and other WMDs also shouldn't be allowed. Frankly, I always wonder hardliners justify in their heads that average Joe should be able to own a nuclear weapon.
It's not because I don't believe in the second amendment -- I am increasingly pro-second by the day, in fact, and all the restrictions are stupid and I think people should stop giving those miles -- but because, unlike the argument being used for fully automatic rifles or heavy machine guns, nuclear weaponry is actually beyond any possible thought.
The founding fathers would not have condoned random people owning a weapon that can wipe potentially hundreds of thousands of lives out instantly.
It's a weapon beyond any scale seen before, utterly terrifying and totally destructive, with long reaching effects -- such as radiation making regions uninhabitable for years, or getting into water sources, or frying a large portion of the country's electrical grid if detonated high enough.
So I'll say it and accept the downvotes: Random people should be able to own any gun they want unless they violate someone's liberty (e.g. going out and killing someone) but should not be able to own a WMD.
No downvotes from me, I fully agree. That's just common sense. You can have restrictions on weapons to a degree and it doesn't make you any less pro-2A. it just doesn't make sense for a civilian to own a nuclear weapon.
Arguing about the size of the arms is NOT the intent of the Second Amendment. That is the argument of the Left. It is the argument of enslavement to argue that the 2A excludes weapons beyond a certain range.
The intent of the Second Amendment is to allow the average citizen with the means to arm up as comparably as any cartel or government could bring to bear upon the individual, to curtail crime, tyranny, and foreign invasion.
At the very minimum, the 2A guarantees the average citizen ought to be equipped as well as the average soldier of the nation of the time. Think of what weapon systems the average infantrymen have at their fingertips today - that's supposed to be citizen MILITIA level equipping.
Now, go back and read some history.
Most of the ship warfare in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 was done through...private warships.
Most of the artillery used up to the Civil War was...privately owned. Many towns combined their private funds and had cannon forged for them...for private militia usage. Many wealthy had their own supply of cannon.
So, yes, the 2A declares the citizen with the means ought to be able to procure those weapon systems any modern government can bring to bear upon that citizen.
Since our dear Democrat Presidential Candidate Swalwell declared he'd nuke gun owning societies...then it bears the intent of the 2A is to have the citizen be able to bring equal firepower against the would-be tyrants.
Swalwell would not have spouted those stupid words off so quickly, were nuclear arms owned by certain scattered wealthy across the States.
If our government can bring the weapon to bear upon us...then the 2A says we should be able to balance that terror with an equal one of the citizen's own.
The 2A covers everything from the slightest airgun to the ICBM, and beyond to the most powerful futuristic weapons systems only envisioned in Sci-Fi games and shows today.
"Vigilante justice": Just what we need, more retards out there attacking people who they deem as a problem versus adhering to any kind of law.
"Deputize private militias": Same as above. All you'd be doing is increasing the number of ineffectual, corruption-prone individuals all out meting out their own definition of "justice".
"Removal of any restrictions that civilians would otherwise be muzzled with": You mean like the very law itself? All you've done is justify these riots in the first place.
4chan supposedly found him first? It's almost like press releases come days after investigation results are confirmed.
If lots of people owned those then we all know that some company would take advantage and make RPG rounds that would mega explode with sparks instead of damage for the 4th of July!
The faggots at the ATF would sure try. We need to disband them altogether, remove the 1986 NFA, and make it a free-for-all. You want a machine gun, you got it.
Would love to overturn the NFA. Unfortunately some of its biggest supporters are folks who sunk in that much $$$ already, as it devalues their property.
Sucks for them.
Right? Our rights don't give a fuck about their "fEeLz".
There may be a small handful of big collectors who might not support repeal of NFA1934 (or even just the Hughes amendment in FOPA1986,) but I can assure you that the vast majority of the (small) NFA community would whole-heartedly support repeal of either of those illegal laws. Even though the paper value of their stuff drops.
That being said, If you have enough space to own an RPG without engandering innocent people, go for it.
Nuclear and other WMDs also shouldn't be allowed. Frankly, I always wonder hardliners justify in their heads that average Joe should be able to own a nuclear weapon.
It's not because I don't believe in the second amendment -- I am increasingly pro-second by the day, in fact, and all the restrictions are stupid and I think people should stop giving those miles -- but because, unlike the argument being used for fully automatic rifles or heavy machine guns, nuclear weaponry is actually beyond any possible thought.
The founding fathers would not have condoned random people owning a weapon that can wipe potentially hundreds of thousands of lives out instantly.
It's a weapon beyond any scale seen before, utterly terrifying and totally destructive, with long reaching effects -- such as radiation making regions uninhabitable for years, or getting into water sources, or frying a large portion of the country's electrical grid if detonated high enough.
So I'll say it and accept the downvotes: Random people should be able to own any gun they want unless they violate someone's liberty (e.g. going out and killing someone) but should not be able to own a WMD.
No downvotes from me, I fully agree. That's just common sense. You can have restrictions on weapons to a degree and it doesn't make you any less pro-2A. it just doesn't make sense for a civilian to own a nuclear weapon.
Arguing about the size of the arms is NOT the intent of the Second Amendment. That is the argument of the Left. It is the argument of enslavement to argue that the 2A excludes weapons beyond a certain range.
The intent of the Second Amendment is to allow the average citizen with the means to arm up as comparably as any cartel or government could bring to bear upon the individual, to curtail crime, tyranny, and foreign invasion.
At the very minimum, the 2A guarantees the average citizen ought to be equipped as well as the average soldier of the nation of the time. Think of what weapon systems the average infantrymen have at their fingertips today - that's supposed to be citizen MILITIA level equipping.
Now, go back and read some history.
Most of the ship warfare in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 was done through...private warships.
Most of the artillery used up to the Civil War was...privately owned. Many towns combined their private funds and had cannon forged for them...for private militia usage. Many wealthy had their own supply of cannon.
So, yes, the 2A declares the citizen with the means ought to be able to procure those weapon systems any modern government can bring to bear upon that citizen.
Since our dear Democrat Presidential Candidate Swalwell declared he'd nuke gun owning societies...then it bears the intent of the 2A is to have the citizen be able to bring equal firepower against the would-be tyrants.
Swalwell would not have spouted those stupid words off so quickly, were nuclear arms owned by certain scattered wealthy across the States.
If our government can bring the weapon to bear upon us...then the 2A says we should be able to balance that terror with an equal one of the citizen's own.
The 2A covers everything from the slightest airgun to the ICBM, and beyond to the most powerful futuristic weapons systems only envisioned in Sci-Fi games and shows today.
They would just say a rifle can kill more than a rocket launcher.
*1934 NFA
Thanks.
Only one correction amongst many.
"Vigilante justice": Just what we need, more retards out there attacking people who they deem as a problem versus adhering to any kind of law.
"Deputize private militias": Same as above. All you'd be doing is increasing the number of ineffectual, corruption-prone individuals all out meting out their own definition of "justice".
"Removal of any restrictions that civilians would otherwise be muzzled with": You mean like the very law itself? All you've done is justify these riots in the first place.
4chan supposedly found him first? It's almost like press releases come days after investigation results are confirmed.
Go kick rocks, the way it is now obviously isn't working.
Hey buddy, I'm in Chicago as well 👌 tough break living in this hellhole. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.
Our mayor is the worst. She claims the violence is unacceptable but doesn't do a thing about it aside from a scathing speech.
Just leave the gay AIDS that is Leftism there.
-Signed Everyone who lives somewhere as far the fuck away from there as possible.
If lots of people owned those then we all know that some company would take advantage and make RPG rounds that would mega explode with sparks instead of damage for the 4th of July!
ATF... what are totally fucking Antiquated name. It sounds so much like a Prohibition Patrol, it's 2020, all those things are legal today.