*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

It's not very specific tho, is it? There's nothing in the constitution that the 2nd amendment does not apply to convicted criminals. Neither does it specify the types of arms a well regulated militia might bear. Why not fully automatic weapons? Explosives? Bio-chemical weapons? Anti personnel mines? Why should you not be allowed to own an anti-personnel mine as a convicted felon when that right is clearly codified into law.

It sounds like you're saying that bad laws are an excuse for more bad laws.

In reality, there are methods by which a convicted but rehabilitated felon can have their charges expunged and access firearms again.

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

[Poopadoop]

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

The government controls the use of weapons, so naturally they're going to have things but use them only under specific circumstances (i know i know, like tyranny -but more I meant national defense). No-one needs a howitzer to shoot off on their farm on July 4 and if anyone thinks they should have a right to own a howitzer for self-defense then that's just silly.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The government controls the use of weapons, so naturally they're going to have things but use them only under specific circumstances (i know i know, like tyranny -but more I meant national defense). No-one needs a howitzer to shoot off on their farm on July 4 and if anyone thinks they should have a right to own a howitzer for self-defense then that's just silly.

Who are you to decide what other people need?

[Poopadoop]

Who are you to decide what other people need?

I'm not the one deciding. I'm only giving my opinion that saying you need a howitzer for self-defense (from tyranny) is silly.

[wufwugy]

I'm not the one deciding. I'm only giving my opinion that saying you need a howitzer for self-defense (from tyranny) is silly.

The people who literally just fought a war against a tyranny declared that it is necessary for people to own the 18th century equivalent of howitzers in order to avoid tyranny at a later date.

When people with skin in the game (like the American founders) say one thing, I'll tend to give it more credence than what those without skin in the game (like me or you or any of us) have to say about that thing.

[Poopadoop]

It sounds like you're saying that bad laws are an excuse for more bad laws.

In reality, there are methods by which a convicted but rehabilitated felon can have their charges expunged and access firearms again.

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

Anybody in America you think shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? Babies? The mentally retarded?

[BananaStand]

Anybody in America you think shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? Babies? The mentally retarded?

Illegal Immigrants

[oskar]

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

Atomic bombs? VX nerve agent? air strike drones? Inter continental missiles?

[wufwugy]

Atomic bombs? VX nerve agent? air strike drones? Inter continental missiles?

Nobody should have these.

Also I'm the guy who thinks these things exist because governments want them so they can leverage over other governments mainly. I think if enough people embraced a free market such that it could sustain without reverting to government again, threats like nukes would swiftly be eradicated.

[oskar]

I think if enough people embraced a free market such that it could sustain without reverting to government again, threats like nukes would swiftly be eradicated.

How so?

[BananaStand]

How so?

They'd all be detonated. Threat over

[wufwugy]

How so?

They're a liability for business and consumerism. They're a liability for getting rich by selling people things. For people trying to set up mutually beneficial market contracts, having such big destructive power is bad news. Stock values would rally on the news that business will be better due to a decreased risk of nuclear war (or nuclear accident).

Even if this isn't persuasive, what we know for sure is that destructive nuclear power and the incentive to have such associates with states. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't associate with free markets if states did not exist in the nuclear force space, but it is the case that it does associate with states and doesn't with the private sector.