Anonymous #1 10w

Free men don't ask permission to post on YikYak

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Yep

-3

Anonymous #3 10w

How so? I'd argue that, considering Bruen says that gun laws must match the text, history, and tradition of gun laws in the US, and there is no text, history, or tradition of restricting home manufacture of firearms intended for personal use, it cannot be constitutional under the 2A.

4

Anonymous OP 10w

SCOTUS has ruled background checks are legal. Tell me how a background check occurs if it’s 3d printed? And let’s not forget the gun stores are increasingly supporting laws like this otherwise they go out of business

8

Anonymous #6 10w

Background checks for purchasing firearms from commercial dealers is lawful, background checks for making a gun is not and regardless it's not really feasible either. It doesn't align with the text, history, or tradition.

1

Anonymous #6 10w

The only way that the government has been able to think up is paying Palantir a bunch of money, but what they don't understand is that the technology is already out there on both the hardware and software sides. There's no closing Pandora's Box with 3d printers

0

Anonymous OP 10w

“A well regulated militia…” Constitution literally makes it clear regulation is ok

1

Anonymous #6 10w

Cherry picking + misunderstanding the meaning of the word regulated in the context of an 18th century militia + ur gay

5

Anonymous #6 10w

Even assuming that the 2nd and 3rd points of my argument there are incorrect, let's examine why the 1st alone disproves yours. "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" The necessity of the militia is not intended to be used as an excuse to deny the right of the people, this much is plainly apparent by lack of clarification of this exemption after "shall not be infringed".

0

Anonymous OP 10w

Furthermore the historical basis for this right isn't from national security in the lack of a cohesive militia structure, as the British certainly had many regulations at the time, but rather a lack of a military presence that actually represents and serves the people and a sense that this could be solved, had the central British government not taken it upon themselves to ban the American's guns.

0

Anonymous OP 10w

Its quite literally specifically intended to protect the Americans right to keep and bear arms, with the prefatory clause serving as the justification in any case and lawful use serving as a further justification in a more specific case like individuals who want to hunt, target shoot, or defend themselves.

0

Anonymous OP 10w

America is a dictatorship if you agree or not. America is owned by the elites. They don't care what you do. A revolution gets harder by day. A single gun isn't going to make a successful revolution. Our government is so far ahead of what can be owned by civilians, and that's by design. 2A means absolutely nothing.

1

Anonymous #7 10w

Its the ok zoomer v2

1

Anonymous OP 10w

Oh ok ty

1

Anonymous #7 10w

Np

1

Anonymous #1 10w

As much as a single gun won't make a revolution, 300 million of them being actively wielded is overwhelming enough force to take literally any country on the planet. Its not a question of "if revolution will occur" in America, it's "to what extent will the American people endure suffering before revolting".

0

Anonymous #1 10w

Hell, a bunch of unarmed people simply walked into an election process a couple years back. If they were heavily armed and acting with much more serious intent, they could have caused serious issues for the US government, and they didn't even have widespread backing.

0

Anonymous #4 10w

How will they tell what my intent is with the trigger?

4

Anonymous OP 10w

A reversible trigger to recall the bullet would be awesome

1

Anonymous #4 10w

True that'd make range cleanup a lot easier

1