Im not from USA.... but I have a question

if US Constitution grants citizens right to be armed, without details defined in constitution about type of weapons etc.... and if constitution is the most important document defining the rights etc... then what forbids any US citizen from obtaining any weapon he wants.... like smg, granades, anti tank weapons.... I mean constitution grants them the right to be ARMED,.... and constitution does not define the regulations of arms which citizen is premited to own etc. Why should any american care about specific weapon restrictions if he may claim that constitition does not forbid him to own an anti-aicrfact gun at his garden. Anti-aircraft weapons is an weapon = citizen is allowed to be "armed" = he should have every right to own anti-aicrfact wepaon... Why local states regulations with specific weapons restrictions are above words of the constitution? federal laws/state laws etc. Its like ' yes constitution allows you to be armed, BUT BUUUUUUUUUUUUT I tell you that you cannot be armed with this and this and this.... because we think its dangerous for society/planes ...

What is obligaiting US Citizens to obey in first place state (Regional) laws, and putting constitution on a second or third position? IF I would buy a tank, and that tank would be parked in my garden, and suddenly state comes in and tells me that I cannot own a tank... and I tell them " why not? I have right to be armed as volunteer independent militia and a patriot, by having my own tank..."... Then they will claim state regional law forbids citizens from owning heavy weapons like that... Then I will claim that in first place, I am US Citizen, and my laws are defined in first place by the constitution... which does not forbid me owning a tank.... So how do they oppose/ignore US Constitution in this subject?

I know constitution is outdated in this subject, but it does not matter, constitution grants my rights serves me as an " US citizen".

Attached: source.gif (640x360, 1.58M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jVs5kgvA_Ow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

there are too many questions here, friend
i would love to help with a detailed response but it's just too much to read. you're asking too much.
i will bump because this is a SHALL thread from poland, but you have to be more concise

SHALL

Attached: golabki-0.jpg (704x422, 44K)

why I cant own an anti-aircraft gun in my garden anywhere on US territory if constitution grants me right to be armed without limits?

Where there are sub-laws which are more important than words of the constitution?

Having right to be armed, without defined details, means I can be armed with anything I want...

Attached: 1512358904625.jpg (1024x1024, 91K)

>Where there are sub-laws which are more important than words of the constitution?

"WHY" there are sub laws which are more important than rights granted me as US citizen by the constitution?

it's a states' rights issue
basically we are a big union of different states governed by basic laws and a basic document, but there is wiggle-room for individual states to make their own laws
strictly, there is no reason you can't have an active artillery nest in your garden. none.
but because our system yields power to individual states, and there isn't much will to argue, you have some very restrictive gun laws that go against the founding principles in the founding documents

Attached: mini-cheddar-bialys.a44fc9603ca0652563a1f413020df589.jpg (1200x1200, 258K)

The questions you ask are routinely debated by constitutional scholars....and yes you are basically right in your assessment.

However you are missing an important aspect of the US constitution. It doesn't "give any rights" it only enumerates them. The only thing the document really does is "restrict" the rights of the government. It has no power to give any rights to the people, because those rights were given by the creator.

Its such a shame that this fine document has had its entire foundations prevented over the years to now people actually like black is white.

Most legal interpretation comes down to "reasonableness". It is reasonable that citizens are allowed to own hand weapons(pistols and rifles)
It's not reasonable to assume citizens should be allowed to own tactical nukes.

My relative asked that then the (((feds))) showed up and he disappeared

Here is your answer Polish bro...

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

So the founding dads felt that it you can carry it, you can bare it: no restrictions.

>inb4 hurr durr muskets

The founding dads felt the citizenry should be as well armed as the military.

So, should we have pocket nukes, and fully auto guns, and grenades? Well our laws have had a go at this and they have ruled no (in spite of the shall not be infringed clause).

Our laws are a mess, but your read of the 2nd amendment is correct. If you can carry it, you should be allowed to own it and use it.

>if US Constitution grants citizens right
The Constitution does not "grant" citizens any rights. Our rights come from our Creator, as it says in the words of the document. If you'd even bothered to read it, you wouldn't even have made your shitpost. What the Constitution does is recognize our rights so that they may be better protected.

>constitution grants me rights

WRONG. Your entire mentality is wrong. The constitution is a peace of paper that recognizes natural god-given rights and binds the government to recognize and protect those rights. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure people are armed for self defense, and to take down a corrupt government that violates their rights.

You can buy tanks and explosive rounds for then in the U.S if you have enough money and can pass the background tests and deal with paperwork. ATF regulations on firearms are already an infringement. The constitution is NEVER outdated - ever. It is meant to say literally what it says. Communist infiltrated states and courts violate it but it doesn't mean its outdated.

Attached: 1497633861311.jpg (2199x1258, 506K)

Yeah, you'd make a good little lawyerfag. It just says, you have the right to bear arms. Doesn't go into the details over what bear and arms actually mean.

I think open carrying an AR-15 like they do in Texas is bearing arms. Others might disagree. In the end, it's about what people say it is or what they're willing to accept it is, OP.

If you get a clear majority of people saying that towing a nuke behind your F-150 is bearing arms, then, yes, that's also bearing arms.

Short answer.

We should be allowed to have any kind of weapon we want.

It used to be accepted that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, meaning the right to own cannons and privateer vessels was acknowledged. It should be noted that a correct English reading of the grammatical structure of the second amendment says that the Constitution is not what grants the right to keep and bear arms but simply that the Constitution has no power to curtail a right that essentially already exists. I'm not sure how best to answer your question about states rights other than to simply say that states and activist judges have continuously encroached on this right for decades. It's not a question of whether they are right in doing so, it's just a simple political reality.

>>The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States

>> Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.

>>The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

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.

So.............

>>fundamental right

>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

>> Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.

>>States may add to fundamental rights but can never diminish or infringe upon fundamental rights by legislative processes

You said:
>> The only thing the document really does is "restrict" the rights of the government

If gov anyhow BY ANY ACTION/regulation decides if Im allowed to be armed with whatever I want => The gov not only violates his restrictions, but also violates fundamental law, WHICH CANNOT BE INTERPRATED however people want nor REGULATED anyhow.. not according to informations from wikipedia...

There is nothing to interpretate in Second Amendment anyway, its a black/white message which say that I have right to be armed..

IF You allow gov to allow any itneperetations/regulations, then there is nothing what fobirds states and other sublaws, to grant me right to be armed with no more than with a stick and rocks..

So its either ALL Allowed... or Im at mercy of the state and I have no right to cry against any even most restricted regulations...

Seriusly, thats how it looks like..

Attached: 1514669803935.jpg (1146x1146, 187K)

>like smg, granades, anti tank weapons

We can buy any of those except for explosive devices meant for military use(grenades), or explosive projectiles larger than 50mm. We can still buy dynamite though.

What stops us? Violence from our government.

>this

Americans are allowed to privately own all manner of weapons including tanks and cannons. Thery are just expensive as all fuck and require a federal background check.

You can own explosives. You just have to pay the stamp for a destructive device.

If you have the money and jump through the right hoops you can push the limit pretty far as just a private citizen in the right state though.

When you write … like this … you look like a … retard.

NOT

Ever heard of the hierarchy of legistation?
Laws and regulations can still ban anything that isn't specifically allowed by the constitution, and they do.

nukes as well?
noice, why dont tesla boy (forgot his name) owns one?

I know how it is, BUT I have problem with those regulations.... thats what we discussing here...

Look at what you saying

"you can push the limit pretty far as just a private citizen in the right state though.'

In the right state....
According to how it is currently = > it means that constitution is not respected in every state of US....

Because the right answer should be:

" as US Citizen you have right to bare any weapon you want, on whole territory of United States... "

And we know this is not the case... so we got a problem

Attached: 1522458607642.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

US citizens have the right to own machine guns, grenades, anti-air emplacements, fighter jets, etc. The NFA is unlawful and there should have been a second civil war fought when it was enacted.

SLIDE

Attached: 1465973426775.gif (500x475, 997K)

>>Ever heard of the hierarchy of legistation?

>>The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States

You wut mate?

Americans should be able to buy any weapon without hassles, but the courts have changed the explicit definition of the 2A, and Americans just took it up the ass.

OP, I strongly suggest pic related; 1/2.

Attached: HalbrookEveryMan.png (1800x2700, 139K)

Also pic related; 2/2.

Attached: Kopel.jpg (331x499, 32K)

Pretty sure nuke tech is classified, senpai. But otherwise we can own pretty much anything. The 2nd A specifically protects weapons that can be used by militias. There's loads of supreme court rulings that support this.

OP too answer your question about states with restrictive weapons laws. Basically they are unconstitutional and multiple state laws have been ruled as unconstitutional. Essentially the liberal / progressive states are ignoring the constitution and taking away constitutional rights illegally and the fed should get off their asses and tell the states that they aren't allowed too break constitutional law.

You can actually own a 40mm AA gun but you can only fire non-explosive ammunition from it.

You can say shall not be infringed all you want but that won't stop the ATF or FBI from busting down your door and dumping magazines into your family at 3 am and seizing all your shit.

>You can buy tanks and explosive rounds for then in the U.S if you have enough money and can pass the background tests and deal with paperwork
This.
Arnold bought his old army tank from the Austrian government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants AND patriots.

The answer which I been waiting for.

Thank you Sir kindly for admiting of what I had problem with....

Shame that polish guy with broken english and no education in law, spoted a problem with this opposite to overwhelming majority of Americans who allowed the Gov to F*ck them in the a*s..

"America the land of the free"...

Empty, symbolic preety talk, no more

Attached: 1524651390623.png (200x200, 52K)

Call me when you can walk down the street with an AK over your shoulder in an SS uniform calling for Holocaust 2.0 on a bullhorn.

oh shit we better give up all our weapons then!

Now I'm almost certain you're retarded.

>WRONG. Your entire mentality is wrong. The constitution is a peace of paper that recognizes natural god-given rights and binds the government to recognize and protect those rights. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure people are armed for self defense, and to take down a corrupt government that violates their rights.
Good job, Nigel.

Attached: uk-us-special-relationship.jpg (690x388, 368K)

I'm pretty sure you can privately own AAW, Howitzers and the like as well as their rounds, because I've seen ski slopes drag out their 105mms and control avalanches on the Gorilla Channel.
Grenades required a DD tax stamp and there are a finite amount of those on the NFA registry, but just like GE miniguns (last private sale I saw was around $400k), working guns in your WWII Warbird, Uzis and Thompsons, if you can afford it and pass the check, you can own them.

You can also make and keep as "samples" your own goodies like that on a special FFL with a SOT, if you get love letters from LEO and don't mind the Bureau Against True Freedom up your ass 24/7/365.

If you have enough money and power to buy a tank you have enough money and power to tell the government to fuck off.

Legally according to the constitution, if you can MAINTAIN it, you can own it, anything trying to regulate beyond that is unconstitutional.

oh sir you better keep an eye on this channel:
>>youtube.com/channel/UCim9PyZ0qoXCoB14VV5QGzQ?view_as=subscriber

I those nearest 2 weeks, I will upload there few revolutionary videos which will restore the hope for the redpilled masses.

Attached: 1530403655933.png (600x521, 18K)

As far as I know you can buy all kind of crazy weapons from existing and registered owners but you can't buy new ones.
For example, you can get a brand new semi-auto from a factory today but you can't buy a full auto. It's pretty much the same in most countries around the world, the difference being that we need permits.

This guy gets it.

Sir we are talking about United States of America, not about pseudo-independent puppet states of Europe with broken laws and regulations.

Actually US is not really an independent country nitther if Israel is sitting and rulling around from behaind of "king throne"...

If you understand what I mean...

Stay frosty

Attached: 1530485950999.png (900x844, 274K)

Just google it you dumb fuck.

The answer to all your questions are: fuck off, we're full. And yes, we absolutely need guns.

Those "Sub Laws" are in themselves illegal if they disagree with the already existing bill of rights, which its self, can't be amended.

>the courts have changed the explicit definition of the 2A
Wrong. The supreme court has consistently upheld the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

>Thank you Sir kindly for admiting of what I had problem with
That user is wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

first off, nukes are not guns. Secondly, nukes cost tens of millions of dollars to make. But since you want to be a private owner, you'd have to build all the infrastructure to manufacture, transport, and store and that would be billions to trillions of dollars.

Tesla could own a nuke if he wanted. It would completely bankrupt him and he'd have no means to securely maintain said nuke and then the government would come in and secure it for him.

Nuke ownership is such an asinine argument.

Theoretically, Americans can own nukes. Realistically, no person ever could.

So this is your argumentation/explenation, of why you disagree with him?

Attached: Person_icon_BLACK-01.svg.png (2000x2129, 34K)

You can own it but not too many people have enough money to purchase it. What should be happening is citizen militias buying and maintaining these munitions in practice of the laws of the land. But ZOG media has done its darndest to make the citizen militia look like domestic terror groups... and only the reddest of necks who give no fucks are willing to associate with militias at this point.

It's not me disagreeing with him (although I do). It is supreme court rulings that disagree.

Exactly, not illegal, just cost a fuck ton to maintain, and if you can't maintain it, you can't own it.

youtube.com/watch?v=jVs5kgvA_Ow

the constitution doesn't grant any rights, it merely acknowledges and guarantees pre-existing rights.
there are no laws forbidding you from owning tanks or missiles, provided they're registered and tax paid under the national firearms act.

Attached: milkers or move along.jpg (286x204, 21K)

idealism vs realism

Because the government is corrupt

I bet the tank cannon is sealed/disabled for good...

california law requires it be rendered inoperable :(
arnold should've moved it to nevada where it's legal to own artillery munitions.

>arnold should've moved it to nevada where it's legal to own artillery munitions.

technically he still could, he'd just need a new barrel.

You can get all those things with the right permits. In fact the ban on automatics is decidedly unconstitutional

You’re absolutely correct in your assessment. The individual states are violating the constitution.... but these state governments have been self imposed by the people... basically the individual communities decided there should be some level of local regulations (just like a private citizen can have a right to not allow certain things into their property). And I think for the most part, the vast majority of people are ok with not owning an F35... but the problem is that there has been severe overstep into personal arms that the vast majority is NOT ok with... in this case, if the people decide that the State government has gone rogue against the will of the people, they then elevate it to the federal government to make the ruling as to the constitutionality of the state imposed regulation (specifically to those God Given rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights). This is not ideal... but people are imposing these regulations on themselves at the state level

Attached: 8BDB26A5-2A3C-4A8A-8C13-AF92C8F1921C.jpg (968x681, 54K)

because constitution forbids him to be armed...

damm shame.. : \

Hey man why don't you fix your own country's gun laws before you muck around with ours? Are pollacks even allowed to own handguns? Get the fuck outta here man...

You're right, Americans have the right to own literally any weapon.
Unfortunately FDR and Jews hate America and blatantly infringe on our rights to this day.
Also our Supreme Court refuses to do the right thing and strike down our these laws.
Basically most Americans are dumb goyim who think infringement of the second amendment is ok because some kike on TV said so and because it's always been that way.

>Must maintain to own
Where the fuck are you idiots getting that interpretation from? So if you don't clean your rifle properly you can't own it.

You didn’t discover shit, asshole! We know there’s literal faggots running around trying to get Rights / liberties taken away... were you not here during the Vegas Shooter and Broward Stoneman HS shooting happenings? There were literal shills actively trying to push for full gun confiscation... that’s not an issue of the constitution... it’s an issue of ZOG programming zombie faggots...

We know this.. fuck off pollack

Never mind, this only applies on state level. You just have to pay additional taxes and register new purchases.

Your right, just shit law makers like the old British don't like the idea of Americans being armed. Now it's the same thing, they usually end up changing what it means to bear arms. So no BIG arms, no automatic arms. Giving you only the weakest and useless small amrs. Like they are not trying to get rid of semi's, then having more then 20 rounds in a gun. These politicians are monster like that

Well, you're absolutely correct. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is very simply stated. People have a 2A right to own a tank or an AA weapon. They don't have a right to fire them at planes or buildings, but if some rich dude wants to buy a tank and drive it around his private property who the fuck is the government to tell him he can't?

>Tesla could own a nuke if he wanted

You really are a nigger, aren’t you?

I live in Poland... we dont have even slightly independent country here

We have no constitutional protection for freedom of speech or private propety....

In time of war, army is allowed to take our cars if they want to... Gov can kick people out from homes ( homes which they bought from the gov legally), just so our gov can return it back to the Jewish owners from pre WW2 time..

People in Poland are at complete mercy of the state...

Our Gov is jewish controled, and preety much serves as Israeli/US puppet.

ALso Polish people are the most disarmed nation in Europe if Im not wrong..

Polish people under Hitler had lower tax and more freedom to own weapons than what we currently have, even if Poland was under occupation...

Attached: 1528708880791.jpg (1024x512, 166K)

Move to the States then and get yourself some sweet, sweet freedom. Buy yourself a gun and we'll go to the range man.

Attached: 1530072389021.jpg (960x958, 188K)

Every law and regulation concerning arms is infringement, and I personally disregard them.

The government can suck my nuts.

Ok, I see what you’re getting at now.

You believe that if the American people were swapped with current day Pollacks, that the Pollacks would take advantage of the law of the land and make all states respect the constitution.... you’re saying... Pollacks.... could do better.....

....P-P-Pollacks....

Attached: EEE66404-270E-458E-8E87-ACCCF3D52DD1.jpg (550x405, 57K)

Well at least you're aware of the actual condition of Poland, that's a start.

it does not say guns in the constitution it says arms. This means
>swords
>guns
>artillery
>nuclear bombs
>mustard gas.
Anything you can arm yourself with

oourrggh to manie wurds!

> then what forbids any US citizen from obtaining any weapon he wants

Until the early 20th century, absolutely nothing.

During the public enemies era though, fully automatic weapons and guns exceeding .50 caliber were hit with a special tax stamp that's expensive and difficult to obtain.

Attached: wm_1324739.jpg (2026x773, 106K)

The Constitution does not grant us anything. The Constitution declares that the US Government will protect these rights given to us by our creator.

The purpose of the 1A is to be able to criticize the government, industry, etc.

The purpose of the 2A is to kill the government should it infringe on any right and not relinquish their position.

Any additional security granted by 2A existing is secondary to the fact it exists to kill the government.

All laws prohibiting ownership that are not reasonable laws prohibiting dangerous criminals or mentally ill people (something they had less of an idea of then but still safeguarded against in the community) are illegal.

The idea of owning nuclear weapons is sort of in that same category, we should not own them, but owning a fighter aircraft? Sure.

No Sir, but thank you for inivation.

I'm one of those guys who do what they want on international level.

Gun restrictions/regulations does not concern me anywhere in Europe for last 10 years.

... That;s why once I ended up arrested in France by Frenchfag like a common terrorist in middle of the town, for illegal weapon possesion.... and who reported me? some faggy girl who called the police on me after seeing me doing things in my backpack and by some miracle she spoted I had a big ass knive ( glock 81... )

Police surranded me on the crossroad, pointed guns at me,.... pushed me up the building wall, discovered a knive inside.. and at police station a gun in secret pocket... ( I should have keep the knive there too.. )

They confiscaited pistol/knive and laser sight, packed me into a plane to poland ( which I had to pay for ) sentenced me for sick fee, few months later ( which I ignored to pay till today ) ..

The worst thing which I cant forgive myself is.. they took my DNA, fingerprints and photos.. damm bastards..

But its not that I care about law regulats anywhere around Eu, its preety safe to own or even travel with illegal firearms.

PS.. the girl who raported me was a "Friend"-girl who hosted me at her place for some days, I knew her from internet and I stoped at her place on the way to spain... cant stand stupid people like that..

Its second time ever when I was arrested... years before that, they arrested me and deported from Brazil, for transspassing... some unmarked shit poligon... I went off the road, into a tall grass, to change clothing, the mosquitos were eating me allive.... a military jeep stoped next to me... area was monitored appereantly... they arrested me... I had suspicious equipment with me and bam - deportation..

Attached: 1514287136637.gif (500x380, 71K)

No constitutional right has ever been held to be unlimited. Congress may limit them on reasonable grounds and the Courts have the right and responsibility to examine such limitations and determine if they violate the constitution.

That said, "shall not be infringed" is the most extreme language used for any constitutional right. Private citizens owned artillery pieces, warships, and primitive machine guns in 1783. The idea behind the second amendment comes from a time when professional armies were either unreliable (like the Continent Army) or basically slave soldiers (like the Royal Army) and most states relied on either a militia or mercenaries. Militias required citizens to have their own weapons ready for use in wartime and to be used in peace time to develop skills.

The Constitution is supreme. The States do not have the right to contradict it, nor do the Counties. States can try to violate the Constitution, but the Courts ultimately bitchslap them in the end. Any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the states. Counties and cities can do literally anything as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. There are also some rights the Courts have carved out that are not actually in the Constitution, like the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

alright faggot go ahead and make a cogent and appropriate response to that OP
he boiled it down a bit, and i responded
you have no business here. i hope this is your last post unless you are on drugs and are incapable of seeing things as they are
either way, i hope this is your last post. i hope you die. follow the thread before you respond. this board asks so little

Attached: 1531853444018.gif (900x400, 477K)

People have been arguing this since forever. The simple fact is that even if rights are god-given or come from natural law or are the natural consequences of the chakras of the Age of Aquarius, in practice you do not have rights unless they are guaranteed and secured by an institution with force and recognized authority. That institution may be your first or it may be a warlord or it may be a government.

The rights and privileges of American citizens are not ontologically special.

Is grants nothing, it promises to protect what is already yours by nature

Other than that it strictly limits what the government can do. This is unlike most constitutional documents in the world.

You sound like a degenerate moron and a leech on society.. what do you do for a living?

Like I havent spoke of this in rest of my posts here...

Cant we just all agree that any regulations about weapons in US, + which limits citizens right to bare weapons, are SIMPLY ILLEGAL? because they violate the constitution?

Attached: 1523819914598.jpg (1202x1164, 704K)

Should MANPADS be legal should be your question

>Royal Army
There was no such thing as a "Royal Army". Perhaps you mean the British Army which was explicitly Parliament's Army rather than the King's. And in what sense were they slave soldiers?

>Cant we just all agree that any regulations about weapons in US, + which limits citizens right to bare weapons, are SIMPLY ILLEGAL? because they violate the constitution?
The Courts have the right, privilege, and duty to decide this with legal effect. The rest of us just get to have an opinion on it.

Why do you call so much about US legal casuistry, anyway? It's our laws, our way of life, our culture.
Imagine being this butthurt centuries later.

State laws may not supercede federal law. Any firearm laws at the state level are unconstitutional. Hell, federal ones are too, but good luck arguing any if that in court today.

generally, the specifics of what arms you are and are not allowed to own goes to the individual states. this the united STATES. each state has it's own constitution, bill of rights, economy, laws, etc. but, they are bound to the UNION, which includes the declaration of independence, constitution, etc. anyway, each state is allowed to interpret the laws, within reason, or even ignore or amend federal laws to a certain degree. take california's legal marijuana. it's still illegal at a federal level, bit legal within the state.

so, to take it all back, the states can regulate what is and isn't "arms" to be used by the people. kentucky lets you own flamethrowers. there are some states that only let you own a pistol, or rifle.

You're a fucking retard and making us look bad. Don't post if you have nothing to say.