Anonymous #1 16w

True but prolly just cause they found it on mangione right after

1

Anonymous #2 16w

2A, wym

1

Anonymous #2 16w

The facts that; 1) the right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self defense and 2) gun registration is a state control system meant to punish the law abiding citizen

1

Anonymous #3 16w

I only re used it cause its the mangione one

1

Anonymous #3 16w

Thought it might appeal to the commies more

1

Anonymous #4 16w

3 times in a day is lowkey pushing it

3

Anonymous OP 16w

If you're seriously going to try and debate this know the difference between the Constitution which has 2a and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because unlike what you claim it is not a human right it is a constitutional right. Which can be taken away should you commit a felony.

1

Anonymous #3 16w

i am of the conviction it is the god given right of every american to be issued a 1911 by John Moses Browning upon the first intake of God’s succulent air

3

Anonymous #3 16w

I don't need the UN to tell me what my rights or humanity's are

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Give them a tricked out 2011

1

Anonymous OP 16w

You never know

1

Anonymous #3 16w

Those globalists can go shove it where the sun don't shine

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Can you provide a demonstration? I think a 1911 will fit up yours just fine.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Still stinky tho :/

8

Anonymous #3 16w

Gay

1

Anonymous #4 16w

Thats a mean way to say its a cheap cologne

1

Anonymous OP 16w

You're the one who brought it up first. I was merely typing out your fantasy

1

Anonymous #3 16w

Yeah sure I said the thing about buttholes but I was picturing a hot globalist chick doing it weirdo, you're the one gaying it up

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Pretty sure you already do it bubba. So happy pride month ig

1

Anonymous #3 16w

Whatever mig15

1

Anonymous #1 16w

2A can be interpreted in so many ways. It’s a pretty modern belief that it also applies to untraceable firearms.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

lol and what facts are those that state that? (Besides 2A)

5

Anonymous #2 16w

Serial numbers weren't normalized at the time of the founding, its a pretty modern belief that abstaining from serialization makes a firearm untraceable at all

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Correct. Almost like there isn’t a universal interpretation and that reasonable changes can be made as technology does.

4

Anonymous #2 16w

And if you'd follow the basic logic that arms are implements of defense and any human has a right to justly defend themself than you could see the conclusion that the RTKBA is an extension of that natural right

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Maybe if there weren’t any other arms that’d make sense. But you’re already incapable of defending yourself against most modern non infantry weapons. So why does the line need to be drawn at all other firearms?

5

Anonymous #2 16w

That's what you think pal, wait until the attacker with a glock 19 gets hit with a slug out of my concealed carry Taurus Judge and my eod style body armor suit (pictured below) soaks up his measly 9mm bullets

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Wait until the attacker can use sound waves to liquefy your organs through walls

5

Anonymous #2 16w

True but at that point I'll have livestream lidar to detect him on my property from 1000 miles away and tell chatgpt to take care of it

1

Anonymous OP 16w

They have that now. They’ve been using it in Serbia for crowd control, we used it during the raid to get Maduro

5

Anonymous #2 16w

Yeah but at that point I will have it

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Do you have it now

4

Anonymous #2 16w

No and nobody is trying to attack me with DEWs either

1

Anonymous #2 16w

If the government wants you dead and knows your location they can just send army or ordinance to liquify your organs anyways

1

Anonymous #2 16w

I guess I'll just have to include a faraday cage on my kit though. I think tin foil hat would suit it well anyways

1

Anonymous OP 16w

That’s kinda my point lol, we’re defenseless against a tyrannical state. Rendering that aspect of 2A useless.

5

Anonymous OP 16w

I like the tin foil idea tho we should all start protesting in tin foil suits

5

Anonymous #2 16w

Well I mean one person alone sure, the government (military, police, and reserves included) wouldn't have shit against an organized and heavily armed US population

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Thats kind of the whole point of a prefatory clause, these Americans who just had to fight a war in hopes of their freedom against a tyrannical empire they never thought they had a chance of beating knew that.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Practically every military/intelligence agency war game of a civilian military uprising has concluded a rapid defeat for the civilians. Pockets would remain yeah, but like a military remnant group in the mountains of Idaho isn’t exactly gonna be posing a threat.

7

Anonymous #2 16w

Well for one, your win conditions are messed up. A partisan militia doesn't need control of all territory, it needs survival. The state is what needs to stomp out the partisan entirely to win.

0

Anonymous #2 16w

The US had practically the same mindset in Afghanistan (oh these partisans up there in the mountains will just stay there and definitely don't have the same partisan networks active as they did 6 months ago) and as soon as the Taliban saw their weakness in the pullout, they took a bunch of our shit. Now all our military schematics have been sold to the Chinese and Ruskis.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

That doesn’t change the fact that with those considered, the best trained military generals all conclude a swift victory for the government.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Afghanistan and Vietnam could maintain guerrila warfare because of the terrain. Steep, woven mountain valleys and dense jungle. The only areas that have anywhere close to that level of cover are in Maine, western Carolina and eastern tn, WV, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, maybe the PNW. You’d have pockets of resistance that survive. But the quality of life would be abysmal. You may have “freedom”, but constant persecution and a constant struggle for resources.

3

Anonymous #2 16w

Again, you're trying to say "oh but they'd only survive and it might suck" when that is the entire goal of the partisan

1

Anonymous #2 16w

“the only natural terrain defenses are the two continent long mountain ranges that protect the bulk of our agriculture” you’re right. we are defenseless

4

Anonymous OP 16w

The end goal is ensuring a better life for our children. Not a life where we’re constantly hunted by predator drones scavenging for food

1

Anonymous #1 16w

My guy having a hideout in some random valley in Colorado isn’t going to protect the plains of Kansas when your opponent has air and land superiority

1

Anonymous #2 16w

The good news there is they can't and won't bomb their own citizens in an agricultural necessity like Kansas because of some guys in a valley in Colorado

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Yeah, they’ll just have martial law in place and constant surveillance

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Which is basically what we have now except nobody has any guns except the ppl scavenging to survive. But hey good job, you did it! You kept your 17 round clip!

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Which will breed hate for them everywhere they take it, making the insurgent network wider.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Uh huh. And how many years will Americans suffer because of this? It’s more than a decade. Is that worth it?

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Nobody said it's going to be easy or happy camping, you're fighting a war with a superpower using the ideology of being a tick on a bear.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Mhm. This is the “freedom” you’re fighting for. The freedom to be a .45 cm tick on a bear instead of a .4 cm tick on a bear.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

I'd say more like a 4.5cm on its balls vs a .39cm tick in its mouth with the comparison being an armed populace to a disarmed one

1

Anonymous OP 16w

I mean armed vs disarmed yes, I’m not arguing against an armed populace. I’m arguing that we can have reasonable restrictions on what we can be armed with that don’t significantly impact our ability to “fight” against the government. If those restrictions do have a significant impact on civilian on civilian violent deaths, I’d say they’re net positive.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Imo the biggest thing you're going to be able to do there is to have a cohesive high trust society. If you can't even own a basic infantry rifle, I think you can agree thats not a meaningfully armed populace against a modern military, right? So even the most low level gun ban of like "ban machine guns" is out the door, if it's intended to be used against the government then government registry like serialization, background checks, etc would be too

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Other countries have implemented various forms of gun control, many of which have led to a significant reduction in homicides. It’s not impossible to make it work. You’re assuming it is and finding every reason to affirm your preconception.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

If there's some way of absolutely judging with certainty a persons likelihood to commit future violence or commit suicide and keep that to a low risk I'm all for it, but I don't think the science is quite there to determine that and I don't trust that if implemented today it will be used in an unbiased manner

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Why would you need to do that instead of literally any form of restrictions that have been used before?

1

Anonymous #2 16w

That's what you're trying to do, no? The goal is to find the way of doing it that gets no false positives or false negatives, as a false positive means wrongly taking away ones rights, while a false negative means allowing a dangerous person to get a gun.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

The forms of restrictions that have been used before simply fail to address false positives, they're not a concern as the government does not want their populace armed.

1