Federal Judge Rules Machine Gun Ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MAJOR 2A WIN, Liberals Are LIVID
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - castbrew.com/
Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - timcast.com/jo...
Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - / timcastirl
Federal Judge Rules Machine Gun Ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MAJOR 2A WIN, Liberals Are LIVID
"A Trump Judge"
Orrrrr a judge who simply respects the Constitution?
It’s funny how the left freaks out over the Supreme Courts decisions, but the decisions are literally just following the constitution. The left despises the constitution and wants the Supreme Court to openly violate it for their own political agenda
Well he was appointed by President Trump, so theyre just clarifying thats who appointed him, but yeah obv Trump picked a good one
Exactly
Aka a Judge that actually understood the job description.
I remember when a lib judge made a big ruling and the leftist media said “he’s not a Clinton (Obama?) judge, he’s a judge. And you shouldn’t point out who they were appointed by!” Cept they ALWAYS point out when it’s a judge appointed by a republican. Always
"So you're saying Americans should own tanks!"
Yes, yes I am.
If you can afford it.
That's so last century we want drones and mech suits thankyou
I'll take two please!
@@wingsoffreedom3589 Armed drones available for civilian use are already a thing if I'm not mistaken.
As for mech suits... I wish, but you're too early to that party. Personally if we're talking tanks I would love to get an M60 tank or a Sherman. I'm not too picky, whatever kind I can get my hands on, really.
If I can’t own a nuke, then what was the point of 1776?
Any gun law is unconstitutional according to the second amendment. Shall not be infringed.
Federal* gun laws are unconstitutional. States can still impose them, unless the state constitution is adopted the second amendment Word for Word from the federal constitution, Which most states in the United States have done
1934 NFA gotta to 1st
🎯
@@cryHavocandletslipthedog-dp5ke
The NFA is by definition Unconstitutional The problem is getting SCOTUS judges who revere the Constitution pass Democrats in the Senate.
A country where 99% of the citizens do not have guns because of laws will be 100 times easier for an enemy country to conquer.... as compared to a country where 100% of the citizens are trained and know how to use guns.
The US Constitution does not tell us "We the people" what we can do, it is there to tell the US Government what it can NOT do.
The federal is a usurping uni-party imposter right now.
Always HAS been unconstitutional. Abolish the ATF, NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment!
Get rid of the Treasury Department, save time.
@@cryHavocandletslipthedog-dp5ke
The ATF is with the DOJ
Not to mention we should go back to the original Constitution. This country was unique because it set up a system to succeed from the very beginning. And then we've strayed from that.
The original Constitution said only white men could be citizens
Non-Hispanic Whites in this country, commit less than 1% of the violence
If we could go back to our original country, just white Christian men, we would live in a Utopia
I 2nd the motion.
We need atf but need atf change the name to atd d stands drugs n atf stay away from guns lol
In 1776 as a private citizen you could own a 40 gun ship of the line. Plus get a letter of mark to conduct war on any British ship on the high seas.
Me, realizing gun control laws don't apply in international waters: Oh yeah, this is big brain time.
Ted Nugent put it best:
The second amendment IS my concealed weapons permit. Period.
One of the only rock stars with a spine
Always remember, the Bill of Rights doesn’t govern us. It governs the Federal Government and tells them what they’re allowed to do in this Union each state voted to join in. In this system the founders made, we consent to have governance over us. Once that consent is gone, what are they going to do? Think Germany 1939. If you’re an animal that bites to feed and to defend yourself from death, what sense does it make to cripple yourself and pull your teeth?
He would make an excellent Press Secretary for the incoming TRUMP administration!
"WANGO TANGO MF'ers!!!"
@@strategery101He’s a bad ass! He even said screw the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame
Absolutely, that's how it should be.
When the second amendment was made, it was about military firearms being in the hands of the civilians so that they could not only resist the government if the government went crazy, but to resist any foreign invaders. It's literally for military firearms
Exactly.
What? They all had muskets. There were no "Military firearms", just firearms the local military decided to buy. Every "military" musket was freely available to the public. Heck, civilians owned warships fully decked with cannons.
All firearms were military firearms back then
@@Coyote-wm5op They still are if you want to get technical. You can rechamber practically any firearm to any caliber with enough time, money, and ingenuity.
"Military" Firearms didn't exist as a concept. In fact, Constitutionally we are not ALLOWED to have a Standing Federal Military. Each STATE is meant to have a Militia only, to keep other states and the Federal Government in check. Which is why the Constitution HEAVILY States Militia and 'Soldiers' as the people IN the Militia and never actually uses the world 'Military' ANYWHERE in it.
A Standing Federal Army, and the Abolishment of Militias, illegally came about after the Civil War, cause the North didn't want the South to just get more men into the Militia and start another Civil War. So they ILLEGALLY Abolish Militas, made it out right illegal when you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have one, and illegally and unconstitutionally created a standing army, which has been used to rule over, control, and regulate the people for so long, that they, like yourself, now think that we have 'Always' had a standing army, and that the concept of 'Military Only Guns' exists.
They have tricked you so much, that no citizens own warships, nor access to Fighter Jets.
As a free speech absolutist weirdo, I'm also a 2A absolutist weirdo.
And proud.
You freak. 🙂
I demand federal background checks for Journalists!
I demand a federal tax stamp for home/office printers because such printers did not exist in 1779!
I demand (shall issue) concealed carry permits for cameras, including cell phones cameras!
None of these restrictions ever made sense.
@@Theranthrope That's a great point that I never considered. 🎉
Gotta protect that 1st amendment right.
@@josephwilliams1915 People are right now being arrested for things they have said in the USA. I have not seen a single chest puffer use the 2A they scream about in any way. Maybe if Americans grew a pair and actually you know took action the country wouldn't be where it is now as it gets worse, but the screaming from all these 2A people is just getting louder. All talk ZERO action as always from the Republicans and Conservatives you all deserve what is happening.
There were no machineguns until 1884. There wasn't a ban on machineguns until 1986. That's not a history or tradition. The court has ruled before that the second amendment protects weapons newer than the Constitution, just like the first amendment protects modern forms of communication, and the fourth amendment protects our privacy online.
The NFA of 1934 was intended to function as a ban, as it demanded a $200 tax on items that retailed for roughly the same price, at a time when your average man was making less than $20/week.
In what world is a 100% tax rate considered acceptable?
@@Andrew-ps6xe I'm not arguing the NFA is constitutional. I'm arguing that there wasn't a ban for over a century. There are around 400,000 machineguns on the NFA registry, grandfathered in. Almost half of those are transferable to civilians. So even that ban isn't a complete ban.
There were weird experimental machine guns during the times of the founding fathers
Don't worry, the U.S. government violates those other amendments too. Remember the patriot act?
Alcohol,tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store.
Agree!
Agree!
And it would get all my money
They also cover explosives, so that should be part of the convenience store, too.
Should they be able to sell nuclear weapons to private citizens?
just a reminder, these are actually gatling guns. modern ones just put them in a circular rather than flat layout. ALL gatling guns used by the north in the civil war in the US 1860-1865 were borrowed from private hands as the procurement officer for the army did not believe they were effective in combat. the south had quite a few them, and after using them in battles, the north went to those who had them in private hands and borrowed them for the war effort. when the civil war ended, they were given back or bought outright.
And then the Allies in WWI made the same dumb mistake.
You are talking about Agar guns not Gatling guns. Gatling guns had very limited use in the civil war. Agar guns were a lot more widespread though
Just for fun, jump on over to Forgotten Weapons and look up the chain fire flintlock. It was a 7 barrel gun with duplex loads kinda like the Metal Storm system. Only problem, or feature depending on how you look at it, was that once the lanyard was pulled it was going. It would fire something like 200 shots with no way to stop it. The Continental Navy bought a few.
There was also the Puckle gun which was a machine gun that fired cubes lol
@@off6848 the Puckle gun doesn't quite qualify as a machine gun. It's closer to a rotary cannon. Still, the rate of fire is an order of magnitude above a muzzle loading artillery piece.
"Shall not be infringed" means that any and all legislation limiting or banning or making difficult the ownership of any kind of firearm is unconstitutional.
Them: We are going to take this right away from you.
conservatives: Shall not be infringed!
Them: What if we do infringe?
conservatives: We will be really angry.
Them: And?
conservatives: We will pray really really hard too.
Them: YOINK!
conservatives: *make angry prayer sounds but do nothing else.
Keep thinking that. pray that we keep on praying. makes sure our jobs and our families continue to be in our way. Because the day when they are not. You will pray. @@illbeyourmonster3591
@illbeyourmonster3591 challenge accepted
@@marltonmanks9891 You're about 30 years too late and about 150 million people too small.
@@illbeyourmonster3591 I reiterate. Challenge accepted.
If you hate the freedoms that we have then go somewhere else.
Exactly there are 195 countries thay don't have a 2nd Amendment if you don't like it go there.
I hate your “freedom” to allow porn. Disgusting.
@@zacharyahearn4069then get to stepping
The NFA has always been unconstitutional, it just took 90 years for the judicial branch to check it.
They are soooo sllloooowwwwwww
Sadly Democrats have controlled the courts for most of the past 90 years.
You mean it took them this long to be called out on their bullshit because people blindly believe the judicial system can do no wrong.
It would have only taken a single state to defend the second amendment. And defend its people.
The fact a three branch government has to question a fourth branch is why we have a 2A, sadly we have less balls than the trans
The most constitutional judge ruling in decades
The government doesn’t want a level playing field between them and the public.
Deep state hates you
It is so much clearer in Canada. No guns for you. Don’t defend yourself. Consume only the information we want you to consume. Shut up. Go to work. And give us half.
@@firstandforemost87Leave Canada then.
@@LordMalice6d9
Working on it. You don’t just walk into another country and settle down. Doesn’t work that way.
Under this administration...?🤣🤣👍🏽✌🏾🙏🏽🧡🇺🇸🇺🇸@@firstandforemost87
"A Trump Judge"
I seem to recall Vox chastising Trump for saying "Obama judges"
Were it not for double standards these people would have no standards at all
agreed, had any other former president orchestrated a literal capital building takeover and tried to overthrow an election they'd be banned from ever running for office again, and certainly would not have been granted criminal immunity from the SC. I can't stand the double standards, I'm with you
The founding fathers never intended for the government to be superior to the people, but absolute power...
the founding fathers also wore wigs and wrote with feathers, what's your point? lol
@@ronniekregar3482 His point is that you gun grabbers are wrong.
“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed . . . of twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands.”-James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 46
We were never supposed to have an organized military at all. The people were supposed to form a defensive army through militia. The corruption in our country goes all the way back to world war I, where all of our founding principles were discarded so we could take global power. Further solidified in world war 2.
The beast can experience fear after all. They fear an armed informed population that can't be shamed into compliance.
"Now I have a machine gun. Ho-Ho-Ho."
Epic comment. Superb taste. Bravo sir. Bravo I say to you
Gold!
ruclips.net/video/-Dc6Pre77AY/видео.html !!
🔥
😂😂😂
"We have a tradition of firearm regulation"
Oh wait, here let me fix that...
"We have a tradition of violating people's rights, therefore we should be allowed to continue violating people's rights."
yea ... imagine finally saying... that quiet part ... outloud
@@eldiablomatadore8580And they know the average voter is too stupid to understand their true intentions.
The same people who argue for banning any type of firearm also say that when the constitution was written that civilians couldn't own cannons. This is verifiably false. Cannons, warships, etc. were all owned by civilians
Look up ‘black powder machine gun war of 1812’
They had ACTUAL machine guns in 1776
Almost all cannons in the civil war were privately owned too
@@tilltanky5367 There were machineguns way before 1776.
Just remember that the 2nd Amendment says "arms," not "firearms" because the term "arms" was a general term that covered more than just guns.
The first regiment of artillery in the Continental Army was privately owned. Not STATE OWNED like it is today. PRIVATE.
If it weren't for civilian owned and operated firearms (including artillery) none of us would be here.
Shall not be infringed 🎉❤
They tried to *grab guns* so hard that now in a backlash they will get legalized fully semi-automatics. Nice 😊
Automatics not semi
@@Vivaladarrio , fully! 😄
@@Vivaladarrio 🤦♂️
@@konstantin.v you get it lol
@@Vivaladarrio yes, but you just got wooshed... after all, they are as heavy as 10 boxes you might be moving in!
the US Navy had flintlock 7-barrel rotating machine guns strapped to the fighting tops of the USS Constitution. they could fire around 280 rounds a minute. there's a famous painting depicting them. they were called "Chambers guns". they had a musket variation too, fired 7 or 14 rounds in under a minute. Breechloading cannons have been around since the invention of the cannon, called a Culverin or a Culverine. the Ottomans had a massive breechloading black powder cannon built in 1464, it served for over 340 years and was fired in anger at the British in 1807. it fired 918mm round stone shot. it weighed over 37,000 lbs. in 1659, the Danish Royal Guards fought off the Swedish invading army utilizing 30-shot repeating flintlock rifles. every single motion of reloading a flintlock firearm was achieved by a single movement of a lever on that rifle, from priming to loading ball and powder to re-cocking the cock, and resetting the frizzen. it's truly a marvelous weapon, Ian from Forgotten weapons has a video on it. it's fascinating, but it proves that even in the 1600s, there were weapons that could theoretically match the rate of fire that some modern arms can produce.
The very first self-contained cartridge was invented in the 1500’s…
R E P E A L T H E N F A!!!!
Abolish the ATF, and Repeal the NFA.
With secure borders, a united People had no fear of neighbors owning machine guns. Let that sink in for a couple decades.
That sink can stay out in the yard like a good sink should. It wanted out, so we let it out. Now it wants back in. That sink should make up it's mind! I'm not standing here for 20 years while it piddles about.
You’re gonna need it to take your country back.
Well yeah, that’s why the amendment exists in the first place. The people are supposed to be able to over throw the government. That was the whole point.
@@Nihabz one day at a time ⏲️ brother
F-16’s and nukes also says JB
@tinytattoomike7943 JB is a fool, he thinks he can bomb us soil? It's illegal to use us troops on our soil if he did even once, it woukd have the whole nation raise up. I also think our troops wouldn't fight us.
@@beentheredonethat5908 Yeah, it’s funny that the left is under the impression that the military would be on their side.
Again, "Shall not be infringed" means just that !! It means I can own ANY gun available !!
Shall not be infringed.
Exactly
This is verbatim from the RI constitution "Section 22. Right to bear arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yet there are lots of gun control laws. How? Democrat judges that's how
Also, Title 18 section 242 says that any person who, under color of any law/statue/ordinance etc. denies any right guaranteed by the constitution is guilty of a felony and faces 5 years in prison. If the coercion involves the actual or threatened use of any weapon (including tasers) then that person faces 10 years. Section 242 is the most underutilized law in the country. Simply put, if a cop says "it's illegal to do (thing the constitution says you can) then they can go to prison for five years.
Looks like fully autos are back on the menu boys!
One step closer....
I want one for my birthday but seriously people need to buy as many as possible or convert their current semi so it floods the market and is harder to ban again.
Yes 2A is intended to fight TYRANNY.
Not for hunting.
"Shall not be infringed"
“A well regulated militia.” By the bye, no matter how gun nuts pervert the 2A, it conveys no right to carry firearms on the street.
"But the machine gun wasn't invented until 1884!"
That still predates the NFA by 50 years
First machine gun was actually invented in 1798, just a few years after the 2nd amendment was written.
Look up ‘black powder machine gun war of 1812’
@@tilltanky5367 I'll check that out. Still, if we base it off the author's origination date that still predates the NFA by half a century and thus doesn't hold historical muster.
Welp. There goes my savings account 😂
You have to get one or people will think you support Kamala.
F IT IM buying as many as I can before they ban again
Dude I had the same reaction; my life savings might vanish
@@johnk1448 They won't vanish. They'll be invested.
*sighs* opens a credit Card account😂
Arguing that semi-auto or machine guns are not covered by the second amendment to the constitution is like arguing that digital media and any written media not done with a fountain pen or block set printing press is not covered by the first amendment.
They’re working on it
technically all licenses are unconstitutional
Yes, but the government has ruled the government is allowed to.
Not like liscenses are stopping the people who don't have them anyway. I know way too many people for example who don't have drivers liscense but I can tell ya what they are doing lol
Now thats where you are wrong. Drivers licenses are required to drive on publically funded roads. You can drive all over your own property without a license, just stay off the public roads if you arent mature enough to maintain a dl, due to dui or driving without insurance. Hunting licenses are also valid, and a great necessity bc game is not stationary, and there must be regulations to ensure that we dont do to white tails, what was done to the buffalo bf tgere were hunting licenses...and again, if you purchase your own wild life, fence in your property, then you dont need a license to hunt those either...
@allhopeabandon7831 ok you can carry your gun on your property but not anywhere else.... permits dont sound very different. "Saftey"
@@allhopeabandon7831
Everything you just said doesn't change the fact that all licenses are unconstitutional.
Libs think George Washington looked at a single shot musket and said “oh yeahhh this is the pinnacle of firearms tech, things will never get better”
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is self explainitory.
The Puckle gun was around in the 1700's. Our Founding Fathers had to have known of it's existence. Also, they were intelligent enough to know gun tech would improve over time.
The kalthoff was a 30 round flintlock. 1659. Forgotten weapons did a episode on it. Pretty cool gun too.
What "chaos" has Bruin created? There's been no measurable negative impact on that court case.
Essentially after Bruen, the courts are no longer allowed to invoke a "Balance of Interests" to claim that unconstitutional gun laws are legal. So now with Bruen as precedent, the courts are scratching their head at how they can uphold unconstitutional laws as legal without blatantly defying the Supreme Court.
the chaos is the dictatorial gun grabbers no longer being able to just handwave the second amendment and our Right to keep and bear arms away with more and more novel ideas they insist arnt less than a century old. or forcing them to go back to their slaver roots to drag out the most racist shit possible to justify their bullshit.
I'll argue it has. The red states already allowed concealed carry, so no gains there. Have any of the blue states truly been forced into compliance, or did they just double down and pass a bunch of new gun control laws? I knew as soon as Bruen came out, the nonfree states would just ignore it. Anyone who knows Democrats could have predicted that. There are no penalties for states that say "Yep, we're abiding by the decision" while they do exactly the opposite.
It has Negatively impacted their ability to take your guns, and disarm you into good little controllable slaves
Chaos is neither negative nor positive. It is the boundaries and overall effect defines it's utility and value.
Sears and Robuck used to sell Thompson submachine guns in their catalog.
- This my friends, is a pint.
-I'm getting one!
Get the whole pitcher
They come in pints?
@@owl-1314you’ve already had a half!
Every time the Supreme Court rules in favor of the second amendment, I lose more gun rights here in New York State. They strike back vindictively every time, and I have less rights now than I did two years ago.
Move
I escaped over 20 years ago, you have no excuse.
as a fellow new yorker i feel ya
So?
Just get all the guns you want anyway
One word: M A F I A
Here in Arizona it only gets better.
This was never a question for anyone with a brain. The NFA has not been challenged since the 1930s or 40s.
Weirdly enough, the last guy to challenge it, died in a car crash before the case was settled, as I recall.
@@792slayer
Strange....
The crazy thing was the court basically said it NEEDED to be a military weapon to be protected for sure.
@@david-1775
If i recall correctly, the sawed off shot gun was ruled to have no military value, therefore not protected.
@bobm9509 it's basically just a reloadable eoka gun. If a militant can and has used it, it has military value
"A polite society, is an armed society."
Absolutely Based. 👍
Fuck yeah
ANY change to our Constitution should be ENTIRELY up to THE PEOPLE, NOT SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE !
Yeah, that's how it works. Change, a C Convention, is just a draft, floated to the states for review, debate, changes, rejection, etc, with lots of public meetings. Anyone trying to get around any of that IS the reason for the 2A.
One step closer to owning an M4 Carbine!!!
Just imagine driving to your local sporting goods store and purchasing an M4 then taking it home the same day as if it’s not a big deal.
dude I never used 3 rd or full auto outside of training
it’s a waste of anmo
leave that up to the crew serve.
you are expected to lay down accurate fire not area fire.
@@Veritas-invenitur You used to be able to order machine guns to your front door prior to 1934
@@TheRealXrayDocIn the 80's.
@@jeffmalm9708 You're right. As long as you mailed in the NFA paperwork you could get it mailed to your door prior to 1986
Shall Not Be Infringed means all gun laws are unconstitutional.
At a minimum, every American is entitled to and should own the basic loadout and equipment an American Infantry Soldier has access to.
We Are the Militia and we have a Right to be Well Regulated (well armed and supplied).
No one, not even Nations, should have Nuclear Weapons.
I know a very wealthy man, 9 figures, that loves flying and owns an 80's fighter jet. People assume way too much about limits on our freedoms.
Well typically the richer you are the more freedoms you magically get
If freedoms are only available to the rich, you live in an oligarchy.
Making "shall not be infringed" great again
Now get rid of the bloat laws preventing or inhibiting the sale and manufacturing thereof.
I mean, the gangs and their security already have MGs, why can't I?
Now the Supreme Court needs to rule on suppressors next.
They won’t, Thomas would but the others won’t.
@@gifthorse3675 Oh no, they will. If there is anything that any one of the 5 on the right would balk at it would be machine guns and explosive launching firearms- suppressors, and the barrel length and OAL requirements, the presence or absence of stocks, all that I am fairly sure they would agree they are just harassment restrictions trying to make it as hard as possible for people to actually carry firearms as part of a self fulfilling cycle to 'prove' that personal firearms are not effective at protecting people from violence.
I wish I shared in your optimism but our entire government is illegitimate at this point.
You know, suppressors aren't guns. They actually can be made illegal.
@@NearEDGE
Eardrum safety takes top priority.
In essence "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, , shall not be infringed."
So yes. This doesn't change everything immediately, but man this is amazing precident for later victories
Keep in mind that in the 1700s they had an early machine gun called the puckle gun and during the civil war, there was the gatling machine gun so the concept was known at the time.
Check out ‘black powder machine gun war of 1812’
I just wanna know how he put a Glock “switch” into an AR15 lower receiver. Maybe he meant drop in auto sear, but the lack of knowledge about these things is why we hate the ATF
Glock switches are amazing new bump switchstoch riflepistols is the future
@@cthulawha yes
Well, it's not the ONLY reason.
@@chainsawsubtlety9828 you’re very right. lol
Maybe he meant a forced reset trigger
0:26 shall not be infringed couldn't be more clear. No gun laws exist in the United States that are valid because any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void, marbury versus Madison
Free CRS, Free Larry Vickers
The last time there was a conservative Supreme Court was in the 1930's, so it's about time we have 1 now!!!!!!!!!!!
We want unrestrained Freedom
Not a good idea.
@@gkdaniels1 who are you? You are an authority on freedom? 🤐
@@robdubent Ironically "authority on freedom" is a contradiction.
Tim Pool going off and I totally agree the constitution doesn’t restrict any guns.. anyone making laws that oppose the constitution should be allowed to be personally sued
damn straight. 2a is 2a...semi auto or full doesn't matter.
In the Middle Ages, there were many times in Britain when it was a legal REQUIREMENT that all British subjects maintain a longbow and train regularly. The Lords of Medieval England were quite smart, they had the constant threat of invasion from France, raids from the Norsemen, and other neighbours who didn't like them. They knew that to defense their lands and their castle, they needed their subjects and serfs to be capable of fighting with proper military weapons. In many Germanic states of that same time period, it was legally required to bear and maintain a sword, bow, spear, or other military capable weapon (and armour) in case you were called upon by your Lord to defend the realm or attack your realm's enemies. They knew from hard learned expense the importance of a well armed and trained populace who could defend themselves.
That said, there were even then winging eras where weak Lords of small minds were scared of their peasants being armed, and would disarm them. Those were usually tyrants who feared their own peasants uprising more then they did their neighbors invading.
There were also cities that would have specific laws or regulations on who could bear what type of arms, for various reasons, though they may still require their residents to have weapons and be trained in using them, not not being allowed to carry them around for everyday use.
18 U.S.C (§) 922 (o) was always unconstitutional. The prohibition might have been lifted, but it's still an item under the national firearm act, so it will still require a tax stamp
The Local Law Enforcement sign-off is also unconstitutional as is the requirement to inform the ATF ahead of time if you want to cross state lines with it. They are not affected by this.
Still better than an outright ban. Just one step at a time.
Nothing has changed, the registry is still closed.
We don't care about Those @@gifthorse3675
@@gifthorse3675 reistry shouldn't exist to begin with, buying a machinegun should be the same as buying a break action shotgun
Now we need to get Matt Hoover out of prison and back with his family where he belongs!
Thanx
The oldest machine gun is generally considered to be the **Puckle Gun**, invented by James Puckle in 1718. This early machine gun was a type of flintlock revolver gun mounted on a tripod. It featured a revolving cylinder with multiple chambers that could fire successive shots. The Puckle Gun was designed to be used on ships to defend against boarding parties. It was capable of firing round bullets for Christian enemies and square bullets for Muslim Turks, the latter supposedly causing more damage.
However, the Puckle Gun was not widely adopted and had limited success, mainly due to mechanical reliability issues and the impracticality of its design at that time. It is nonetheless an important precursor to later developments in automatic weapons. The first truly successful machine gun came much later with the invention of the **Gatling Gun** by Richard Jordan Gatling in 1861, which used multiple rotating barrels and a hand crank to achieve a high rate of fire, marking the beginning of modern machine guns.
2nd protects the 1st.
Don't forget every right too
All
The judge mainly spanked the state lawyers for being completely lazy and failing to make a real case, assuming they would win anyway. The Heller/Bruen standard is "dangerous and unusual" for weapons that there may be a history and tradition of regulation, and prior case law established "unusual" at 200,000 items in use by private citizens. There are approx. 175,000 machine guns registered to private citizens, although this was artificially capped by the Hughes Amendment in 1986. Still a strong case within Bruen (including language about m16s and other full-auto firearms specifically not being addressed by Bruen) for drawing the line at full-auto firearms. I would be fine with living in a world where you could get machine guns from vending machines, but that is not a realistic scenario for 21st century US law, unfortunately.
Full auto is gonna be expensive af.
Honestly full auto sucks when you are just out at the range with friends. 99% of your time is reloading. Definitely expensive!
Full auto .22 though…
U ever seen the american 180 also known as swarm of angry bees full auto .22? Wat a beaut!
ammo may get expensive for a while. however, it would create jobs, manufacturing, and the market would boom and prices drop due to demand being met. not to mention drive the absurd cost of mg's down because they are no longer restricted to the "handful" from 60 years ago that are in circulation . that is if the D's and gun grabbers keep loosing.
@@brianho4933 have you ever shot full auto? You can empty a magazine faster than you can swap to the new one. Still expensive!
If it is an existential threat for citizens to have access to nuclear weapons then it shouldn't be difficult to get the votes necessary to pass an amendment banning civilian nuclear weapons. But that's not how oligarchs think, so they'd rather unconstitutionally declare "Nah, we know best"
Suppressors next please. I'd like to hear in my old age
In 2A, "Arms" is capitalized meaning the founders understood that weapons would evolve over time & that all arms, past present future, are legal. If it exists, we're allowed to have it.
It’s legal now and nobody can stop us!
It was always legal and only a criminal would have been trying to stop you.
Not entirely don’t do anything stupid because you most likely won’t get a good judge.
🔥🗣️ SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED 🗣️🔥
Why hell friggin yeah
Remember friends: Single barreled, repeating rifles have existed since 1630.
I don't think so
Embrace the fun switch.
Tim, it's a right from God. The constitution can't be amended to change or take away this right.
The Machine gun was invented before 1884, the Chinese where using it in the 17th Century - that's the 1600s or up to 200 years before this claim.
No. Repeating firearms weren't even invented then, much less machine guns.
Are you thinking of the Cho-Ko-Nu? Korean magazine fed crossbow.
They had multiple launch rocket systems
The reason and purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that "we the people (militia)" can defend our FREEDOMS from enemies, both foreign (invading nation) and domestic (a tyrannical government).. And one could accurately make the argument that the militia (we the people) are OBLIGATED to protect OUR FREEDOM AKA The Bill of Rights/Constitution from those that wish to destroy the document.. Moreover the Amendment was ALSO intended to insure that we the people will ALWAYS be on equal footing with ANYONE that's a threat to our rights and liberties granted to us by the creator - NOT by government.. In short - our Second Amendment EXISTS to protect the patriot and the militia - NOT the political establishment!! No one cares or cared about the government as an institution including the Founding Fathers because they damn well knew a government can go tyrannical REALLY quick, and that is something they deeply understood and feared which is why our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is RIGHT AFTER our right to speech and to practice our religion the way WE see fit - NOT the way government sees fit or even the Church..
So with that said - yes, absolutely nuclear weapons in the hands of militias (we the people) are indeed protected by the Second Amendment, however that would require the knowledge and ability to build a nuclear weapon and THAT is a difficult task for numerous reasons. I mean for one - the materials required to build a viable nuclear weapon are extremely expensive and highly regulated, moreover one could make a compelling argument that even a tyrannical government/political establishment wouldn't devolve to the point of madness required to drop a nuke within the borders of their own nation, which makes building or possessing a nuclear weapon MOOT for all intents and purposes..
Unfortunately the strong majority of those on the left have a really difficult time understanding and accepting WHY we have a constitution and who the constitution protects -- and it's NOT to protect GOVERNMENT or political establishments! The Bill of Rights/Constitution DOES NOT exist to empower government or politicians - it exists to PROTECT the people, their rights and freedoms FROM TYRANTS.. I mean if the founding fathers intended on manifesting a document that protects the government from the people they would have done that - but they didn't - NOR would any enlightened educated classical liberal at the point in time the Bill of Rights was ratified (9/17/1787).
Of course the average leftist doesn't care about any of that jazz because they see civil liberties and freedom as "privileges" GRANTED TO THE PEOPLE BY GOVERNMENT NOT inalienable rights bestowed upon us by a higher power... You see, in the leftist mind since government gave us these "privileges" then they can take them away or regulate them entirely, when obviously that's NOT the way our founding documents work - but they wouldn't know that because they're profoundly authoritarian, evil and ignorant people.
He's not wrong. It didn't say autos not included or big honking cannons like they put on ships back in the day😅
The right of the People to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed
Guns, buns, & 2 tons of funs
Hot cross buns?
The concept of volley fire was one of the most crucial aspects of warfare since the advent of any projectile weapon. They understood that rapid fire is necessary in order to mass fires on the enemy. Since the beginning of man we have always asked and pushed ourselves on the question of how fast can I go. Whether that be rocks or bullets, it doesn’t matter.
I love you tim
Homo, Tim is decent though.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are restrictions ON GOVERNMENT, NOT THE PEOPLE!!
Price of machine guns just plummeted 😂
No they haven’t
Huh? Wrong
The historical context of "shall not be infringed" means the second amendment can not be further amended.
The intention was that under no circumstances may the government subvert the will of the people. It is intended to ensure the ability of the people to revolt should the government require correction.
In other words ,the Constitution can not be amended to disarm the citizenry.
What? The wording "shall not be infringed" doesn't give 2A some magical protection that the rest of the Constitution doesn't have just because you say it does. Amending the Constitution means that you're changing the words (either adding, replacing, or removing words). A 28th Amendment COULD be made that completely strikes out everything that the 2nd Amendment says, rendering any wording of 2A a moot point.
People could own a ship with cannons. Imagine being able to buy a destroyer with working weapons that the military have
We’re gonna need it!
We only have rights we fight for.
Puckle gun (1718)
It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun"
Shall not be infringed
The Kalthoff was a 30 round repeating musket from 1569. Private citizens owned ships with full size cannons. The best weapons the military had were publicly available at the time of the US's founding.