Are high powered rifles covered by the 2nd Amendment?

[sage2021]

[WhiteSteve]

I think that’s kind of the nature of the whole 2A debate. If people were firing muskets into innocent crowds, we wouldn’t have such an issue, a crowd could probably overtake a shooter while he’s still loading it, lmao.

I think there just needs to be some sort of revision made. I hate guns but even I realize they won’t just disappear altogether. But we’d have to be taking crazy pills to believe that this is what the Forefathers of the US envisioned, crazy assholes just having access to weapons that would’ve blown the minds of 18th century humans. Whether it’s the guns or mental health or just people’s attitudes towards gun violence…. something very clearly needs to change. This is not good, and it’s not happening in other places at this kind of rate. We’ve had three of these things in, what, like six weeks? This is absolutely insane. Absolutely insane. I mean, my dad was in a parade on the 4th, it could’ve happened to him. I go to concerts all the time, this could happen to me. And I don’t want the solution to be “arm myself to the teeth”, I just want to walk around going about my day unbothered like I’ve managed to so far for 40+ decades. I’m not much for hysteria, but you start seeing enough of these things and it just makes you wonder when it’s going to be your turn.

[WhiteSteve]

4+ decades*

I’m not THAT old lmao

[exitseven]

The Second Amendment does not differentiate between firearms. We can only speculate what the founding fathers would think about AR-15s.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[StevieNix]

Absolutely, it's a firearm. Dopey Joe keeps saying that you don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer. Who's talking about hunting deer? They didn't need an amendment to allow deer hunting, because everybody hunted to survive. People have been hunting for thousands of years. Joey and the other Dems know exactly that the second amendment is about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government.

[StevieNix]

Thanks for the MHO.

[VikingWarLord]

Is Government Mind Control Experimentation covered under the Constitution?

WHEN WILL WE STOP GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTS is the mantra you should adopt.

During MK-Ultra Mind Control / Torture Experiments, your government experimented turning people into Mass Shooters and they SUCCEEDED. See below

A CIA document dated February 10, 1954 [4] describes an experiment on the creation of unsuspecting assassins:

"Miss [deleted] was then instructed (having expressed a fear of firearms) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing this, she would pick up a pistol and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was instructed that she would not hesitate to "kill." Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions including firing the (unloaded) gun at [deleted]. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened. Miss [deleted] expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened."

Bluebird by Dr Colin Ross, page 36, 37

 [4] CIA MORI ID 190691, p. 1. This is a declassified CIA document dealing with mind control.

https://www.rlighthouse.com/mk-ultra.html


and



https://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/foia_mind_control/190691_assassins_programmed_mind_control

[Lliam]

Yes. Absolutely. The 2nd amendment says nothing about types of "arms" or calibers.

By the way, those who ratified the Bill of Right were aware of high powered rifled and rapid-fire firearms that existed at the time. They knew full well that technology would evolve.

What is "high powered"? .50 BMG, .600 nitro express, .3006, 7mm, .223?
Gun control propagandists come up with the silliest buzz phrases to influence morons who nothing about firearms. "Military-style assault weapon" is another dishonest and undefinable term.

"Oo! Guns are so scary!!!" 🤣🤣🤣

[loveslongnails]

Well now, if you go by what the current SCOTUS thinks, anything NOT covered in the Constitution "can be" deemed to be acceptable under the law if it is
“deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”

SO: I believe the right to bear arms should, and MUST be restricted to whatever arms were available at the time the Constitution was written. Therefore, all persons owning guns of any kind must turn them in and they will be given muskets or a revolver instead. Why? Because the musket and the revolver have been around longer than any other types of guns, and are thereby the MOST rooted in this nation's history.

[Sixgunsound]

Have your reply to this message delivered to everyone in the forum by a mounted courier and we can BEGIN to have that conversation. If not stand down.

[loveslongnails]

@Sixgunsound I agree. Well said.

[Sargentcaptain]

Last time I checked 2A doesn't go like this:
'shall not be infringed'*
*terms and conditions may apply.

[Sixgunsound]

According to the letter of the law the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) any and all arms “shall not be infringed” (stopped or even slowed for ANY reason). Nowhere in the source document is make model or type mentioned.

[Stoner710]

Yes they are as a matter fact having a 15s would be protected by the Second amendment the idea is for decisions to keep up with federal government when It comes to firearms because we don’t trust in general the federal government as Americans

[joeldalton]

There's not an asterisk at the end of the amendment as far as I can tell.

[BillyBalls]

The seconds amendment speaks to "arms"... It does not specify the type!!

[MTC29]

High power, low power- and everything in between.

[Pterodon]

Yes they are and define high power?

[FunkyMonkee]

It says, "guns" and, those ARE guns.

[abc3643]

Yes.