Current Events > If you think The Second Amendment is absolute, why not bombs and missiles?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Says keep and bear arms, not guns
They're arms, but not protected by the second amendment. If you think it should absolute, why don't they count?

And for that matter, why can't civilians own their own Death Star? The 2nd Amendment should allow this, shouldn't it?

This is the gotcha we needed, quick to the capitol

It is a lie anyways.

Once went into the mountains and chopped off thousands of bear arms. Game warden tried to arrest me.
Sham

Because bombs and missiles are well regulated.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

And for that matter, why can't civilians own their own Death Star? The 2nd Amendment should allow this, shouldn't it?

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN if you try to take our Death Stars

R1masher posted...

This is the gotcha we needed, quick to the capitol

This topic wasn't intended to solve the issue... so...
This is just CE, man.

GeraldDarko posted...

This topic wasn't intended to solve the issue... so...
This is just CE, man.

dang, Im putting my pjs back on then

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

Full_Pokedex posted...

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

are you saying they had no foresight?

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

And for that matter, why can't civilians own their own Death Star? The 2nd Amendment should allow this, shouldn't it?

For the same reason we cannot own our own Defiant.

They say arms... but not ammo. Outlaw the ammo. Checkmate atheists.

Full_Pokedex posted...

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

Wat

https://youtu.be/MeiSDF83mXo

For duck huntin

Constitution is worth about as much as TP anyway

R1masher posted...

are you saying they had no foresight?

Well, they were morons

GeraldDarko posted...

Says keep and bear arms, not guns
They're arms, but not protected by the second amendment. If you think it should absolute, why don't they count?

Bold of you to assume I don't think they should.

Full_Pokedex posted...

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

Actually, a trained marksman could manage three shots per minute. And a battle line tended to start at roughly 4 per minute to account for working in concert. Try again.

Also, look up "puckle gun" and "nock gun".

I think we should take our guns at least as seriously as we take our cars, which means licensing requirements and tests to demonstrate competency and responsibility.

We also need to give way less media attention to shooters and stop acting like shooters are in any way "interesting", they are pathetic people and we as a society need to treat them as such.

Everyone always seems to forget the part of a militia bit, but you can definitely buy missles and bombs with the right license and a background check.

hitokoriX posted...

They say arms... but not ammo. Outlaw the ammo. Checkmate atheists.

Reminds of the Chris Rock joke about making a bullet cost $500

Full_Pokedex posted...

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

The Kalthoff repeater was over 100 years by then, it had magazines of 5-30 bullets, you could fire a bullet every 1-2 second.

Full_Pokedex posted...

The Second Amendment was written at a time a gun took 5 minutes to reload and you got 1 shot per reload.

It was also written in a time where cannon shot was extremely effective and Napoleon was bragging to Austria that he could spend 30000 troops a month as a matter of course.

The idea that the founder fathers werent very aware of the killing power of weapons, even as it relates to the weapons of their time, is nonsense. In fact, it was precisely because a Napoleon could lose 30000 troops a month in combat that made them think, hmm, wouldnt it be nice if the states had the authority to defend themselves?

R1masher posted...

are you saying they had no foresight?

They had a ton of foresight

That's why it can amended and the Founding Fathers were all exetremely cynical of government. Thomas Jefferson famously joked in a letter that there should be a revolution and government overthrow every 20 years (hyperbole obviously)

All of them would be horrified by modern America for a vareity of reasons.

joe40001 posted...

I think we should take our guns at least as seriously as we take our cars, which means licensing requirements and tests to demonstrate competency and responsibility.

We also need to give way less media attention to shooters and stop acting like shooters are in any way "interesting", they are pathetic people and we as a society need to treat them as such.

See I liked we got taught gun safety in middle school. Didn't get to shoot but learned basic safety and state laws regarding them. The course was called hunter safety. Hunting was so big in that area first day of deer season was an excused absence.

indica posted...

Everyone always seems to forget the part of a militia bit, but you can definitely buy missles and bombs with the right license and a background check.

I believe with a well regulated militia we should be allowed tanks and whatnot. Just can't be taken off the militias compound without approval or time for civil war happenes again. Also I'd vouch for strict requirements to join said militia. Yeah time for war comes take anyone you can get but till then stick to people that should be able to be trusted

joe40001 posted...

I think we should take our guns at least as seriously as we take our cars, which means licensing requirements and tests to demonstrate competency and responsibility.

realistically the two arnt comparable though unless you throw meaningless padding to keep people out which is what most of the world does. a gun does not require the same level of thought and competency to safely use. there is a very real reason why there are more regulations for vehicles. you need to know a hundred different things to safely operate in public and can cause (and does) magnitudes more damage to the public if improperly used. even depsite all the extra regulations and safety features added cars still cause billions in damages and in the US millions of injurys each year. despite the 40-50% ownership rate of the US, guns are not even close.

not to say safety shouldnt be a requirement, but its all common sense as far as how to safely operate a gun (even the 4 main rules can be boiled down to only two). finger off the trigger unless you are planning to fire it and dont point it at anything you arnt intending to shoot. thats literally it. there, you now know hjow to operate a gun. now all thats left is some practice which can be done at home and at a range. anything else specific can be learned from a 3 minute youtube video.

Common sense
USA

Pick one.

Dark_Spiret posted...

realistically the two arnt comparable though unless you throw meaningless padding to keep people out which is what most of the world does. a gun does not require the same level of thought and competency to safely use. there is a very real reason why there are more regulations for vehicles. you need to know a hundred different things to safely operate in public and can cause (and does) magnitudes more damage to the public if improperly used. even depsite all the extra regulations and safety features added cars still cause billions in damages and in the US millions of injurys each year. despite the 40-50% ownership rate of the US, guns are not even close.

not to say safety shouldnt be a requirement, but its all common sense as far as how to safely operate a gun (even the 4 main rules can be boiled down to only two). finger off the trigger unless you are planning to fire it and dont point it at anything you arnt intending to shoot. thats literally it. there, you now know hjow to operate a gun. now all thats left is some practice which can be done at home and at a range. anything else specific can be learned from a 3 minute youtube video.

Fine, then it should be trivial for all responsible gun owners to pass such a test. But honestly I have my doubts that the people who engage in mass shootings could pass a basic gun safety/responsibility test.

If "no responsible gun owner" is going to hold the gun with their finger on the trigger or point it at others, it's all the more reason to have a test that would filter out everybody who would.

People act like gun ownership is this virtuous right for strong responsible adults, if so, people shouldn't act like babies and should be able to pass a few tests to demonstrate their responsibility.

When working in an outdoor lumber section of a store I had to be taught and demonstrate responsible and safe usage before using the band saw, I had to take a test and demonstrate responsible and safe usage before using the fork lift. Guns are much more dangerous than bandsaws and forklifts, as such people need to demonstrate responsibility and basic safety comprehension before owning one.

If owning a gun is part of somebody's big "look at me, I'm masculine manly man" routine then they should at least be "manly" enough to pass a test and demonstrate basic responsibility and safety. If they are going to cry about such a requirement being "unfair" then they are a giant baby and have no business owning a gun anyway.

Maze_ posted...

All of them would be horrified by modern America for a vareity of reasons.

Ah yes, a country run by an elite quasi aristocracy that actively doesn't give a fuck about the poors and minorities, and actively avoids listening to the common man.

Totally different than the founding fathers' America.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/5/7/AAABTgAAEfAF.jpg