0
18

[–] thelma 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Up to and including nuclear devices.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] baneofretail 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The motion carries. This is the only reasonable answer. Owning a nuke implies cost of ownership. Same thing with grenades and cannons.

0
3

[–] Mimar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Third, with that I the motion should come to a vote.

0
5

[–] TheRealAmerican 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

With the stipulation that they be well maintained. Because I don’t want to die of radiation. You want a fully auto 50 cal? Good with me. As long as you bleed red white and blue.

0
10

[–] turtlesareNotevil 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Everyone who is a citizen should be required to own at least one rifle. Even convicts. A person has the right to defend themselves even if they are a felon. Now if the state thinks a felon is too dangerous to own a gun why are they letting them out of prison to begin with? People can be murdered using many things other than guns. And guns can be gotten illegally.

0
6

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

if the state thinks a felon is too dangerous to own a gun why are they letting them out of prison to begin with?

This.

0
3

[–] drj2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Damn straight. It also proves that prison doesn’t reform people.

0
7

[–] Hydrocephalus 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

My understanding of the second amendment is this: There should be no standing army. Instead the military should be distributed out among the people. What that would mean is that every town should have an armory, and every month the men of the town should go to the town square and drill on military tactics. Every man should have a rifle and ammo, every town should have machine guns and artillery. There should be county armories with heavier weapons, tanks, helicopters, depending on how wealthy the area is. Basically the second amendment meant the people should be the primary military as that would ensure a free state.

0
2

[–] turtlesareNotevil 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes.

0
1

[–] Warnos44 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This would be so good in so many ways.

Just think about the potential for community. Boys would have many men to look up to, political discussions with preference for community overall benefit (vs the self). It would be a great step towards reducing crime, liberal retards, increase in happiness amongst the members within the community, drastically reduce paid politicians.

0
6

[–] Ezekiel_Balderdash 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Modern military hardware.

0
4

[–] Pluviou5 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

"If the government has it, then the people should too" is the logic behind the second amendment. The government has modern military hardware and hence so should the people.

0
5

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Any firearms. All of them.

However, you should have to demonstrate safety and the ability to maintain them properly and you should be able to store them safely.

I don't care if it's a belt fed mounted anti-aircraft firearm. You should legally be able to own it.

Besides, the people who own automatic weapons aren't actually the people out committing violent offenses with firearms.

0
4

[–] freedumbz 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Everything. Mustard gas, nukes, phosphorus bombs, legalize it all.

0
0

[–] L3D 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Even states are limited on mustard gas

These [Schedule 1 substances, in the sense of the Chemical Weapons Convention,] may be produced or used for research, medical, pharmaceutical or chemical weapon defence testing (called "protective testing" in the treaty) purposes but production above 100 grams per year must be declared to the OPCW in accordance with Part VI of the "Verification Annex". A country is limited to possessing a maximum of one tonne of these materials. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_1_substances_(CWC)

0
3

[–] Voat_a_Goat_Mamma 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Anything you can carry should be legal...

0
3

[–] drj2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Why do you think that a well regulated militia shouldn’t have nukes if the said rulers have nukes though?

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)