The 2nd amendment was written by old men in the 1780s when guns only fired one every two minutes

lmao what
its not like they were retarded and couldnt possibly imagine guns would get better

Don't bother. These people you are arguing with are ngmi. LOL

What about the other laws, free press etc.
Does that only apply to news papers?
There was no TV or radio
Do we look at all that shit as well?

Kalthoff repeater and puckle gun
Now fuck off and be retarded elsewhere

fpbp

>twitter lefties
>not having a massive ego
They also have claimed the right to bear arms only existed to fight slave rebellions and that's LE EVIL!!

The 1st ammendment was written with parchment paper and quills lets go back to those you turbo faggot.

Attached: 34jglx.jpg (500x710, 67.59K)

Pretty much this. Those were weapons of war at the time, civilians were able to have equal arming as the military. So clearly, the founding father's envisioned civilians' having equality in small arms at the very least.

2nd amendment is for protection against the government or any other domestic force. Thus the arms held by the populace must be relatively proportionate in power to the government.

This concept has not changed
>But you cant win against government
Afghanistan won

>Think of the children
Don't say this because normies are overly emotional, but 20 kids dying is not worth trading the long term safety and freedom of the nation. Kids dying is sad, but a nation becoming a permanent slave state is worse.

Attached: download.png (219x230, 9.18K)

>The 1st amendment was written by old men in the 1780s when printing presses only printed one page every 2 minutes
>they had no clue printing presses would advance so much technologically
>the 1st amendment is outdated
I'm not coming for the media, I just want common sense printing press control

They had notably more advanced guns, and people could at the time own cannons, war ships, and any of the latest weapons.

Look up what guns were around then, look up the pickle gun.

It's a joke to think the amendment is for hunting game and self defense.

The core of the amendment is stated: arms

This means weapons of war. Not inferior copies of military weapons. Not just guns, but all means of warfare.

It's not outdated, look at what the government is doing. Checkmate.

Attached: licensed-image.jpg (1485x2048, 578.92K)

You think the founding fathers didn't know that firearms would advance with technology? Pirates already were using this tech called "more than one gun" and they would board boats armed with five or more blunderbusses and kill dozens.
Besides, the amendment exists for the protection of citizens, when the government gets more advanced weaponry, so should ordinary people. These people went to war for their freedom, fool.

They anticipated the civilian populace possessing arms on par with their military and other forces. That's why it says arms and not musket, pistol, etc.

>How do I respond to this argument
With SAGE in all fields.

Attached: 1 post 2.png (1000x1000, 131.79K)

Seconding all references to more advanced weapons existing at the time and warships being in civilian hands. However the best response is also the one that gets the worst reception which is referencing the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment. Watering the tree of liberty.

Killing power scales with population.

Attached: 1636370116766.gif (400x400, 18.35K)

>they had no clue guns would advance so much technologically
That's not correct. Source: history.

Based fellow believer that automatic weapons and RPGs should be available to citizens

> arms
>weapons of war, both offensive and defensive
get a real dictionary, for starters

Cut off all contact with antigun people, period. These people want to put you into a Jewish gulag.

field artillery and battleships were owned by citizens.

Except I've made another post. You might be the bot.

>How do I respond to this argument without sounding like a fool?
You say "fuck off you fucking faggot."

It also allowed civilians to have artillery cannons.

The constitution was also written when America was 95% white

Most of the founders were in their 30's and 40's when the constitution was written.

No shit, the country was 95%+ White. Let’s go back to those demographics and see if shootings are a problem or not then

The 2nd amendment is about civilians being able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, so the civilians need access to arms comparable to what the government has access to.
So where are our nukes?

Should civilians own nukes?

Not nukes, but they should surely at least have a private panzer division.

Precursors of semiautomatic & fully-automatic weapons were already around in the time of the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin (the dude who DISCOVERED ELECTRICTY) was an amateur inventor. The Founders were not technological ignoramuses who assumed things would always stay the way they were in the late 18th century.

it's a retarded fucking argument. the second amendment exists so you can protect yourself from a tyrannical government. the government has these guns, too. in fact, the government has even better guns. they wouldn't have decided that advancing technology renders a citizen's right to self-determination obsolete. what sense does that make?

they kept murder illegal, too. with or without a gun. killing people is and generally has always been illegal.

and no, it doesn't exist to hunt deer, either. people who mention deer hunting wrt the second amendment should be slapped and forced to memorize the language of the second amendment.

If a civilian can build his own nuke then I’d let him keep it

/thread
if you can't into basic reading comprehension, you simply need to kys

privately owned warships
privately owned cannons
privately owned machine guns

>>they had no clue guns would advance so much technologically
you call the bullshit here

Fpbp. But tbqh famalamalam, its bullshit that people are willing to start a civil war over weapons but completely ignore the part in the constitution about how we should be coining our money with gold/silver. At least acknowledge that part exists if you’re so willing to die for the first parts.

>>they had no clue guns would advance so much technologically
God you're so fucking dumb.

This is an absurd response. You’re trying to establish that they would have any conceivable notion to the degree that weapons would improve. It’s impossible to argue this.
There’s no way they would have any idea on how guns would evolve. Concepts like semi automatic wasn’t even a thing, much less automatic.
This is the type of argument that would make you look like a fool.