If the government would repeal the 1986 full auto ban, which is never going to happen...

>I'm not convinced there's any point restricting gun rights for those unlawfully present.
you want to enjoy the fruits of freedom? become a fucking legal resident

>what would be sane requirements for ownership?
Written/verbal permission from a parent if the buyer is under 18 years old

I forget what case but there was a Supreme Court case that ruled being in the US gave you Constitutional protects.

The Constitution is for any person in the US, regardless of legality. Second Amendment is in the Constitution.

Attached: 1517971304905.jpg (720x644, 42K)

Which bit of the Constitution says that any of it applies to non-Americans?

>The Constitution is for any person in the US
and only citizens of the US, or people in the process of getting citizenship, should be in the US.

Nah, Legal visitors, i.e. the occasional Britbong or Cannuck

How do you actually get this to become policy when getting politicians to support this seems impossible?

Constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts the government from taking rights from "the people" not "the citizen" furthermore Bernal v. Fainter (1984) ruled that state laws couldn't discriminate against aliens setting precedent for other cases to support non-restriction of Aliens' rights. Also see that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled "Person" in the fifth amendment applied to non-citizens, in this case a Chinese worker.

>How do you actually get this to become policy when getting politicians to support this seems impossible?
Kill enough people that the rest think you have a legitimate claim to power.

fuck off beaner

Start a Radical Constitutionalist party and provide your own politicians

>Nah, Legal visitors, i.e. millions of chinks and poos
ftfy

I'm talking about in a perfect world, not the one we live in.

The full-auto ban is in itself insane, and unconstitutional. The most sane measure is to just repeal it.

No don't you get it?
Individuals can't be trusted.
Obviously we have to consolidate power into the hands of a few individuals to protect the masses of individuals from themselves.

Fpbp, get fucked commies.

you know, sometimes I think this is more or less correct. maybe replace the illuminati with an AI, basically deus ex. or the aliens

I think it's very much incorrect and that the most beautiful thing in the world is that people be eaten by their own shortcomings and failures.

yes, a few (((individuals)))

>bill of inalienable rights
It's like your unbridled hatred of immigrants has blinded you to the fundamental truths your forefathers have given you.
Bill of rights is a document that should be followed world wide, and its our job as god damn Americans to spread its freedom.

>unbridled hatred of immigrants
E
LEEGOL

This. The right of the people, not citizens, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Same as any other NFA item would be the most practical imho. Less changes to the law, no extra BS.

14th amendment:
“...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Anything after the 1st 10 was forced in by jews.

That bit comes immediately after "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

this.

I dislike illlegals very strongly but I'm not about to give them tax dollars, let alone piss me off enough to erode my own constitution. anyways most of the bean illegal immigrants that come here do so because the CIA glow-in-the-dark's fucked up their shit in multiple countries and things haven't really recovered since from the juntas, guerrillas, and drug smuggling.

Absolutely this. Literally anything else is unconstitutional as fuck.

What the fuck are you talking about? It doesn't work that way at all, the government doesn't (publicly) keep tabs on who owns guns and who doesn't and if you can own a gun you can own a gun, there's no tier system apart from some age restrictions for handguns. NFA weapons just require going through an annoying registration process, that's it. If you have the money and a clean criminal record you could get an UZI before the new year.

The OP is a bait post (sane regulations on firearms ownership = 20 years of previous experience with firearms)
Do not be too rustled.

Since this thread is retarded I'm going to start a new discussion: most of us agree that current illegal weapons are not much more dangerous than legal weapons, a semi-auto uzi 'pistol' will basically kill as many people as a bona fide IMI Uzi if you set your mind to it. I'm all for repealing the NFA but I have some worries about preventing all gun control for the rest of time. Hear me out, what about guns that are explicitly designed for causing horrible, dehumanizing but non-lethal injuries? Suppose for the sake of argument that someone invented a bullet that uses heat sensors to directly target and destroy penises? Would you still want to protect that on the grounds of 'shall not be infringed' or do you think that ridiculous weapons with no reasonable use can be banned under some circumstances?

say for example someone designed a knife that was specifically designed to cut people's penis off?
should knives be banned?

yeah fucking absolutely.
as well as salt, which can also hurt penises.
AND PLASTIC
BAN PLASTIC IT HURTS THE PENISES

Fuck off you cock sucking gun grabber

SHALL

Attached: Commies_Tred_Nowhere.png (1017x1017, 1.13M)

the only requirement someone needs to own or buy a full auto is to legally be in the us.

If theres a weapon thats fucked up enough to warrant banning, the geneva convention typically already banned it and youre gonna be hard pressed to get it.
All other guns are fine.

>14th
Lmao, everything after #10 is pozzed dog shit.

good old fashioned civil war

Attached: 1531097052948.png (639x722, 540K)

Lol you're missing the point, there are some weapons that are just designed for sadistic and illegal purposes, that's why even some states that allow machine guns ban brass knuckles, they aren't designed to stop a threat but just to senselessly fuck people up. Fetishism shouldn't be protected under the second amendment.

>there are some weapons that are just designed for sadistic and illegal purposes
still doesnt mean you should ban it.

The geneva convention doesnt prevent civillians from having weapons, we can have flamethrowers and sawed-offs. I actually think flamethrowers might fit my criteria, they're essentially useless for self-defense and can seriously fuck up innocent people.

I believe your lust for life is a fetish, you shouldn't be protected.

>Lol you're missing the point, there are some weapons that are just designed for sadistic and illegal purposes, that's why even some states that allow machine guns ban brass knuckles, they aren't designed to stop a threat but just to senselessly fuck people up
Holy fucking summer. You are living in a fantastic land. Brass knuckles are not torture devices. No one has concealed carry waterboarding tables. All of these are weapons. They exist to have fun with or defend yourself from foreign and domestic threats.

The statue to legally use deadly force is that your life was in danger. If your life is in danger, fucking around with some weird make believe shit that you are theoretically talking about would just get you killed. And if you do manage to fend off someone with it then you won't be charged. If you unjustly use it or purposely torture someone you will be found guilty. We have laws for a reason. It's up to you to convince the jury you were justified. If people go around defending themselves with "penis popper" bullets they have to explain it in court.

Let me add a few more fucked up details: the nfa is repealed so these guns can be silenced, the bullets are designed so they can't be traced, and since they aim themselves you can fire it from a coat pocket and no one can see you do it. Would you really have no issue with these being legal for feminists to carry?

Not by the second amendment, lol. There are other rights.

>People are forced to create tightly knit communities with high trust or they might die
That would ironically be a net benefit for humanity

>the nfa is repealed so these guns can be silenced, the bullets are designed so they can't be traced, and since they aim themselves you can fire it from a coat pocket and no one can see you do it. Would you really have no issue with these being legal for feminists to carry?
what kind of larping is this?

Just trying to see how far you guys think the right to bear arms goes, personally I think some issues of safety and practicality can be taken into account. For example, I think the ban on guns designed to slip through metal detectors makes sense.

The 27th actually makes sense because it limits congress' power in giving themselves pay raises

>what if someone could kill you and nobody would be able to avenge your death do you really think that bans shouldn't be gunned?
It's the "you'll never defeat the state so why not just banned guns" argument taken to an hypothetical extreme where the state is an individual instead of a group of individuals.

Even if that bullshit were real, do you think a feminist who's off the deep end enough to go around killing people could afford to buy it?

It also costs 1 dollar

so a faggot larper?

>Just trying to see how far you guys think the right to bear arms goes,
I, for one, am unironically in favor of recreational McNukes.

the $200 tax stamp, finger prints and background check are enough. with the new supreme court I think that hughes will be found unconstitutional under equal protection. Machine guns are still 100% legal in the us.

The odds of someone both having the money to actually get that shit and wanting to start a massacre are quite low Mr. Reddit. And even if feminists actually somehow someway got their mitts on a piece like that they'd be too weak to actually do any damage, just look at the chick who tried shooting up Youtube HQ or whatever it was a few months ago.
>ban
>guns
S H A L L

H

A

L

L

Then we are living in some great fucking times, and Star Trek tier quality of life is probably a decade away. I'd be fine with that.

Jesus some of you guys are stupid, it's a hypothetical scenario to measure how far you think the second amendment is supposed to go. I already told you my actual views, theres no deception here.

If I can't instantaneously destroy all of my property at once then there is a risk of people wanting to kill me for my property.

owning nukes is the ultimate pocket carry

Attached: McNukes.jpg (480x270, 25K)

Pointless because congressmen make most of their money from donations and trading political connections for business favors anyway.
It's like making an amendment outlawing murder.

Feminists are disgusting harpies, but they're not murderers, who gives a shit if they're armed?

>the bullets are designed so they can't be traced
oh nevermind the question was some faggy MSM bait anyway

>with the new supreme court I think that hughes will be found unconstitutional under equal protection
It all comes down to whether or not they are willing to admit that congress created a paradox. The new SCOTUS will inevitably rule that weapons "in common usage" are legal to own. The issue is, machine guns are no longer "in common usage" due to how long ago the registry was closed. If they are willing to recognize that MGs usage is artificially effected by their legal status we'll get an open registry again. If they aren't, it's never coming back.

>Jesus some of you guys are stupid, it's a hypothetical scenario
its a hypothetic scenario that electronically guided bullets are real, bullets disappear after hitting there target, and a serial killer feminist are all real things? whats next? are you going to ask me if i am in favor off concealed carrying "fully automatic silenced" nukes?

Lmao well are you? Keep on getting mad about the question instead of answering it if you want to be a butthurt faggot

>bitch boy calls others a butthurt faggot because he's too stupid to realize that banning things doesn't make them go away

Not what i said at all, just asking what you guys think. Its so funny how you retards ascribe any stereotype of anti-gunners to anyone who sounds like they are even mildly, indirectly disagreeing with you. Even on Jow Forums where they say kill all minorities they still tolerate some discussion of exceptions.

if you show me a nuke that is fully automatic, silenced, and concealable enough to concealed carry i dont see why it should be banned for any reason.
>inb4 someone killed X people with it! it needs to be banned!
then lets ban the ownership of arms, legs and teeth.

Okay then lmao

>I'm for thing, but [statement that contradicts that]
>Hear me out, [further contradict original viewpoint]
Do you guys have a script you work off of or something?
Every one of you stupid fucks starts their anti, grabber bullshit with "I'm pro 2a, BUT..."

>10 or 20 years of gun ownership?
what sort of retarded logic is that?

bbbbbbbBBBbrrrrrrrrapppppp

>b-but what if we make lazer heat guided seaking rocket silenced concealable automatic nuke grenade clip launchers?
>What then? Think of the children!

Oh yes my dear *sniff*

>think of the children!
are you implying that we should have child soldiers user?

Quite frankly I really truly believe that current and honorably discharged military, and also police, should legally be allowed to buy machine guns as individuals/private ownership that are manufactured after 1986. Everyone says only the police and military should have them, if they fucking mean it about that, then why can't these people do it???

Attached: 1523675703592.jpg (604x335, 56K)

And then someone shot him and his brother lmao

Yeah jokes on you, look at what democrats are like now. Go vote for hillary you gun grabbing faggot.

You triggered bro?

With a manual rifle given by the army. Not really the kind of gun concerned by a ban.

Plenty of countries have banned bolt action rifles

It wouldn't be an issue, except we have a massive shithole welfare government for every part of life in our country. It's unsustainable if we let leeches in for free.

It's a human right to not be stripped of arms, but positive rights are retarded.

Thats the proposed policy of globalists and Silicon Valley tech giants. If your idea comes true, say hi to the Skynet overlords for me.

At least its not coming from the tax payer

>the government doesn't (publicly) keep tabs on who owns guns
Then what is the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record?

>Hear me out, what about guns that are explicitly designed for causing horrible, dehumanizing but non-lethal injuries?
You want to ban shotguns with birdshot? good luck with that, it's the only thing huntan fudds and joe biden can agree on.

>concealed carrying fully automatic silenced recreational mcnukes

Attached: ancapball approves.png (1200x1000, 357K)

who doesnt want to conceal carry fully automatic silenced recreational mcnukes?

The people are the citizens you fucking autist

No, the people are people, so why should it be rights are only given to the citizenry.