Law Supreme Court Refuses to Drop 2A Case, Despite NYC Pleas - The Supreme Court on Monday signaled their willingness to hear the first Second Amendment case in a decade

TowinKarz

Is it Morning Yet?
kiwifarms.net
New York, the state so bad at constitutional law that they've gotten dunked on in Third Amendment case law. In 1982.
Damn , the one Amendment nobody knows, because nobody ever tires to break it..... and New York breaks it, and despite having zero preceding case-law to conclusively say they were wrong, they still lost?

Much mirth was had......
 

Broadwing

kiwifarms.net
Damn , the one Amendment nobody knows, because nobody ever tires to break it..... and New York breaks it, and despite having zero preceding case-law to conclusively say they were wrong, they still lost?

Much mirth was had......
Indeed. It actually held two useful things: That the state-provided residences were residences, as opposed to that right just being for owned property, say, and that National Guardsmen were soldiers (which might have some relation back to the 2A if you try to say they're 'the militia').

I'd love to see someone go back and ask the people involved if anyone at any point said 'Wait, aren't we, you know, quartering soldiers here' or if nobody really thought about it.
 

frozenrunner

I could really use the salt
kiwifarms.net
I'm not gonna lie, I'm a little nervous: All it would take is one judge to undermine what should be a god-given right.
At which point the guns they don't want us to have could be used to ensure we retain the right to own them 🤔

In reality, the "gun control debate" was over the second the Bill of Rights was put into place. It's a self-protecting right. And any of you authoritarian faggots who think we're going to turn into Australia: I hope you're ready to lose all the rest of the amendments, too.
 

HumanHive

Human behavior is exceptional behavior.
kiwifarms.net
At which point the guns they don't want us to have could be used to ensure we retain the right to own them 🤔

In reality, the "gun control debate" was over the second the Bill of Rights was put into place. It's a self-protecting right. And any of you authoritarian faggots who think we're going to turn into Australia: I hope you're ready to lose all the rest of the amendments, too.
What's even more telling is that the Civil War - where US citizens engaged in armed revolt against the US government AND assassinated a president for the first time in the nation's history - did not affect the 2nd Amendment in the slightest. You'd think the gun grabbers would have originated then; but instead it really only started during prohibtion, where the constitution was also used as a means of top down social engineering.
 

MembersSchoolPizza

Sworn Brother of the Cult of Browning
kiwifarms.net
In reality, the "gun control debate" was over the second the Bill of Rights was put into place. It's a self-protecting right. And any of you authoritarian faggots who think we're going to turn into Australia: I hope you're ready to lose all the rest of the amendments, too.
The would like nothing better. They want to throw out our entire constitution and start again. They aren't shy about admitting that.

What's even more telling is that the Civil War - where US citizens engaged in armed revolt against the US government AND assassinated a president for the first time in the nation's history - did not affect the 2nd Amendment in the slightest. You'd think the gun grabbers would have originated then; but instead it really only started during prohibtion, where the constitution was also used as a means of top down social engineering.
Hell, it was specifically spelled out in the surrender that soldiers - now just private citizens again - got to keep their weapons. It was part of a general pattern of "surrender with dignity", and was considered a controversial move by some at the time, but has also been credited as one of the reasons the surrender was so well received, all things considered.
 

Freedom Fries

kiwifarms.net
At which point the guns they don't want us to have could be used to ensure we retain the right to own them 🤔

In reality, the "gun control debate" was over the second the Bill of Rights was put into place. It's a self-protecting right. And any of you authoritarian faggots who think we're going to turn into Australia: I hope you're ready to lose all the rest of the amendments, too.
That's great and all but the 2A has proven to be invalid protection ever since the NFA has kept weapons and accessories common to the average American combat arms soldier out of the hands of civilians.
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
That's great and all but the 2A has proven to be invalid protection ever since the NFA has kept weapons and accessories common to the average American combat arms soldier out of the hands of civilians.
Realistically speaking the 2nd Ammendmant for the purposes of combating state tyranny is defunct because it doesn't currently include cannons, armored fighting vehicles and the weapons used to destroy them. If people were serious about that shit we'd be arguing about our rights to own anti-tank weapons.
 

Sexy Peach Emoji

The sexiest fruit known to man
kiwifarms.net
Realistically speaking the 2nd Ammendmant for the purposes of combating state tyranny is defunct because it doesn't currently include cannons, armored fighting vehicles and the weapons used to destroy them. If people were serious about that shit we'd be arguing about our rights to own anti-tank weapons.
It is perfectly legal to own destructive devices. It's just very expensive, and there are some hoops you have to jump through. You can own your own cannons, tanks, apcs. They just cost a lot.
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
It is perfectly legal to own destructive devices. It's just very expensive, and there are some hoops you have to jump through. You can own your own cannons, tanks, apcs. They just cost a lot.
This depends on the state. In some states to buy a tank requires the weapon systems be rendered inoperable assuming they allow it at all.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
What's even more telling is that the Civil War - where US citizens engaged in armed revolt against the US government AND assassinated a president for the first time in the nation's history - did not affect the 2nd Amendment in the slightest. You'd think the gun grabbers would have originated then; but instead it really only started during prohibtion
And even then just because the state was too cheap to furnish officers with automatic weapons.

Realistically speaking the 2nd Ammendmant for the purposes of combating state tyranny is defunct because it doesn't currently include cannons, armored fighting vehicles and the weapons used to destroy them. If people were serious about that shit we'd be arguing about our rights to own anti-tank weapons.
We do have that right. Someone sue over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frozenrunner

TowinKarz

Is it Morning Yet?
kiwifarms.net
That's great and all but the 2A has proven to be invalid protection ever since the NFA has kept weapons and accessories common to the average American combat arms soldier out of the hands of civilians.
This "America vs the Army" is a false dichotomy when trying to argue about what an average citizen can and cannot own under the 2A.

The Army IS American, there will be refusals to use that overwhelming force against citizenry. Plus, there will be thefts, raids and outright defections that means within ten minutes of any hot Civil War breaking out, both sides are going to have equipment parity in short order, and the standing uniformed Army is going to have a LOT of trouble leveraging theirs as the VC showed that guerrilla tactics can win the day against a superior foe as long as they have the will to keep taking casualties.

So no, the 2A is not useless because the Average Joe can't own a TOW missile. He doesn't NEED one to effectively resist a tank whose crew defected, whose ammunition stockpiles were stolen and whose fuel supplies were sabotaged.
 
Last edited:

MembersSchoolPizza

Sworn Brother of the Cult of Browning
kiwifarms.net
The Army IS American, there will be defections and refusals to use that overwhelming force against citizenry. Plus, there will be thefts, raids and outright defections that means within ten minutes of any hot Civil War breaking out, both sides are going to have equipment parity in short order, and the standing uniformed Army is going to have a LOT of trouble leveraging theirs as the VC showed that guerrilla tactics can win the day against a superior foe as long as they have the will to keep taking casualties.
Right - plus, in a theoretical uprising situation, the military cannot bring it's heavy weaponry to bear in any event, unless we're operating in absolute super villain mode. You can't use jets and bomb whole blocks and shit against your own population, and the resistance/uprising would be embedded within it. It's one thing to "accidentally" bomb a hospital over in Whogivesafuckistan to get a few resistance fighters holed up inside, it's quite another to pull those same sorts of "oopsies" to civilian targets on our own soil. The military itself would balk at that shit - even Venezuela's thug-army doesn't go quite that far.
 

Power Word: YEET

kiwifarms.net
Realistically speaking the 2nd Ammendmant for the purposes of combating state tyranny is defunct because it doesn't currently include cannons, armored fighting vehicles and the weapons used to destroy them. If people were serious about that shit we'd be arguing about our rights to own anti-tank weapons.
You can go and build a muzzle-loading black powder cannon if you want to. Alternatively, unmixed binary explosives are also legal - best commercial option is tannerite, best DIY one is ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate / Fuel Oil - basically fertilizer and diesel fuel).

American society is as peaceful as it is because most people do not want to conduct wanton violence, not because said violence is impractically difficult.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
So no, the 2A is not useless because the Average Joe can't own a TOW missile. He doesn't NEED one to effectively resist a tank whose crew defected, whose ammunition stockpiles were stolen and whose fuel supplies were sabotaged.
It would help though, and he should have the right to try to acquire a TOW missile if he wants.
 

Pop-Tart

The final solution to the weeb question.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Realistically speaking the 2nd Ammendmant for the purposes of combating state tyranny is defunct because it doesn't currently include cannons, armored fighting vehicles and the weapons used to destroy them. If people were serious about that shit we'd be arguing about our rights to own anti-tank weapons.
Mujahideen.jpg

viet cong soldier sks rifle.gif

Indonesian soldiers.jpg


East Timor literally won independence using stuff they either made (literal blunderbusses) or took of Indonesia dead.

I would argue heavy weapons and in the hands of any irregular force are more of a liability then a boon in any modern conflict against a 1st or 2nd rate military power.
 
Last edited:

TowinKarz

Is it Morning Yet?
kiwifarms.net
It would help though, and he should have the right to try to acquire a TOW missile if he wants.
it's a waste of money.

Fuel oil and ammonium nitrate are legal to buy, cheaper, and simpler to use.

That means that every freeway overpass, every bridge, every tunnel, every road cut, every single drainage culvert becomes a potential tank-killer. If you think the populace can't knock out a tank without military-grade AP shells, well, the Army thought that in Vietnam.....and Iraq, they've lost more armor to steel plates and old TNT than T72's and missiles.

I don't know if letting civvies own a Javelin is a good idea, or a bad idea, or proper under the 2A, I just do know this:

It's not NEEDED to be a threat to the army's hardware.
 

TowinKarz

Is it Morning Yet?
kiwifarms.net
He can, but I'll laugh at him for spending more to do less than I could with some farming ingenuity.

Sabotaging roadways would wreak more havoc on a military convoy than one anti-tank rocket.

The rocket means one vehicle doesn't make it to the objective on time.

A blown bridge means none of them do.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino