”there is nothing in the 2nd amendment or the heller decision that makes it unconstitutional to prohibit assault...

What a retarded point... You cant use a nuclear weapon without mass destruction and making an area uninhabitable as well as spreading irradiated particles for potentially hundreds of miles.

Legal arguments end when bullet hits bone.

That prohibiting of assault weapons would be infringing on the right to bear arms [assault weapons]. It states it in the consitution--no decision by a judge is necessary.

>"Assault weapons" aren't arms

Attached: drooling retard.png (402x455, 61K)

Why would that be a bad thing when the government has been chipping away at our freedoms bit by bit and bringing in more niggers and Mexicans when we asked for less?

>How do you respond?
If Bob has four guns, and you ban three of them, how many guns does Bob have?

Four.

In the pursuit of legal accuracy we must use accurate terms. Assault weapon or assault rifle are not accurate legal terms. The accurate legal terms are armalite rifle and semi-automatic rifle. If you will not use accurate legal terms than we cannot have legal accuracy. Until you do, your opinion on the situation does not reflect reality and is then not sane and so cannot be considered from a legal standpoint with any kind of accuracy...sir.

buh muh magazine sze

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing the federal government from doing a lot of stupid shit, that doesn't mean they should do it.

Are you retarded or just a poor effort shill? What does that have to do with any of my post? I didn't even mention magazines. Fuck off.

>people in prison
why are leftists incapable of making proper arguments?

Attached: 1388699028066.jpg (482x700, 100K)

It was a joke you fucking retard

EVERY PERSON

That includes people in PRISON

Where does it say criminals can’t have guns?

>The Heller decision states "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
>Because the firearms are effective I am going to ignore the Heller decision
You only want to disarm the public but your push to disarm will only make the resistance against your disarmament grow and the sales of firearms and ammo increase

Attached: 98374895738945.gif (636x288, 1.85M)

where does it say every person?

>it was just a joke
>but it had no relevance to the post subject
Sure, lad. Looking at your other posts, it appears I misjudged you and for that I apologize, but you need to understand that it's a typical shill tactic now for the shills to reply to your post with some nonsensical or irrelevant shit in an effort to reframe the post's meaning, which appeals to lazy and/or slow readers lurking. Which is why I thought what i did about you.
Cheers, lad. Thanks for sticking up for our 2nd Amendment.

This guy never went to college BTW.

There is nothing that say you can either
Can you read the part about not being infringed?

>Can you read the part about not being infringed?
They hate that part the most

We the People

Shall not be infringed

I’m just following the “logic” behind 2nd amendmentfags

Basically every single living person in the USA can have a gun or any “arm”

This is what is call fundamentalism.

I know you were on the Lolita Express

There is nothing in the constitution that allows for fully automatic printing presses either. If you are delivering information on anything other than direct public speech or a manual printing press as the founding fathers intended when they wrote the first amendment, your words do not qualify for consitutional protections.

what are you actually arguing for now? first you want to make guns illegal. now you want to give them to criminals too.

I have never said I want to make guns illegal, learn English

i obviously didnt mean you stupid nigger

Our government spies on our every call, message, search, and movement. They use the media to manipulate public opinion and take away our rights. They are demographically replacing us every day. It seems like what the other user is saying makes a lot of sense. The idea that our government is not hostile towards its citizens needs to be pushed from your mind.
Your government hates you.

*bang bang*

*bang*

>Our government spies on our every call, message, search, and movement.

You already lost.

Yes. That's the way it should be. Fucking neck yourself.

Attached: Pepe_Normies_GET_OUT.gif (640x480, 1.69M)

>You already lost
Encryption. Physically meeting. Dead drops. Are you actually retarded or just pretending?

Attached: 16463583_1901237830110890_6809812008193464527_o.jpg (2046x1226, 302K)

Nope. The war has just begun

Stop with your unconstitutional kike fed fake money foreign pressed non-American rat terrorism.

And go tongue some anus, faggot.

Attached: uytitryr.gif (468x60, 144K)

1. The founding fathers included the 2nd amendment as a guarantee that our natural human right to self defense would never be taken from us. This self-defense does not stop at "defense from evil civilians", but was actually geared more toward defense against tyrannical governments.
2. These days modern governments and their militaries have access to massive machines of war capable of being used on land, sea, in the air, and even in space. They also have bombs, autonomous weapons, "smart" weapons like computer guided missiles, and top-of-the-line small arms that were developed over 200 years of research, trial, and error. In addition to this, they have chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological, and most recently technological weapons (i.e. hacking programs) that are utterly devastating on a massive scale. Beyond just weapons, military technology had advanced to the point that most of these weapons can be defeated or defended against with things like body armor and missile defense systems. In order to be able to overpower a superpower, we need to be able to have access to private ownership of all of these things to ensure that The People are ALWAYS the overwhelming force and to guarantee that there is no possible way for our government to successfully breach the social contract it has with its people by brute force or otherwise. Example: If daddy government is sending predator drones at me for an unjust reason I ought to be able to own surface-to-air launchers, flak cannons, and whatever else I could possibly use to shoot them down.
3. Criminals are getting their hands on these new weapons technologies by immoral and illegal means and using them against people who are "not allowed" to have them. How are we supposed to appropriately defend ourselves if we don't at least have access the same weapons they're using against us? If someone's doing crime with a full-auto rifle, I ought to be entitled to have one too in order to level the playing field.

Name one person in prison who could actually afford to own, maintain, and use a nuclear weapon.

they are not assault weapons but firearms.

Billionaires

>shall
>not
>be
>infringed

At the time of writing repeating firearms had already been invented.They knew they were the future of warfare. The context of the constitution and the bill of rights are restrictions of government from infringing on the rights of man. The 2nd amendment is a provision for people to be able to challenge governmental tyranny therefore any attempts to remove military grade firepower from the population are treasonous

This. Handguns aren't sufficient for holding the government in check. Rifles are.

They know this and that's precisely why they want them gone.

Prisoners have no rights, they're slaves until their sentence is finished or they die. And arms implies a weapon that can be carried by the person, but then again you were allowed battleships back in the day.

The point from the context of the times, in conjunction with the legal precedents since its creation is clear enough: equal force to maintain the rights of the citizenry in the face of threats foreign and domestic. Any splitting of hairs on this issue is a tactic to disarm and pacify the the people who threaten the government's hold on the monopoly of violence. If this is not adequately appreciated, then they do not care for the meaning behind the words, but for imposing their will on others by the "rule of law". The thing which secures the worker's right to autonomy is the gun above the mantelpiece - we are responsible for keeping ourselves free because the state is not going to save you when the taxes run dry.

Attached: Guns.jpg (675x1200, 96K)