/k/ - Weapons

>>654902

Fairly old tech, it's not like anyone can claim they hadn't been invented in the 18th century

>>654904

It's a tactical assault crossbow though. I am sure those antiques were neither tactical or assault in nature.

>>654915

But what could a guy with a rifle do against a tank and laser guided bombs anyways? :^)

>>654904

>>654905

Completely forgot to post this.

>>654902

>bow fishing

Crossbow is useful because you can shoot at the fishes without spooking the fishes.

>>654918

>But what could a guy with a rifle do against a tank and laser guided bombs anyways? :^)

I guess nothing since that's what they did during fed's creation, and other bans.

>>654902

>this is a holder for a laser and a powerful zoomable fleshlight

A fuckable crossbow? How lewd

>>654902

Never understood why no one made one with an electric motor to re-draw the string.

>>654953

>Source?

No idea, but I remember there being a longer version that featured scenes from the movie "Top Secret"

I like this guy's accent.

>>654902

Parabolic arc firing with explosive tip arrows!

>>655064

You'd still need a fairly large group of men dumping those bolts (and their tiny little payload) into the general area of the target to do much more than blow up a few bushes.

>>655065

Maski show. Funny, but degenerate.

Alzo

>ukrainian

Of course it was (((ukrainian))), anglobuddy.

>>654955

Or an explosive charge….

>>654902

So it's a better repeating crossbow?

>>654918

>>654948

>>654915

The Militias of the US are the National Guard, which has tanks.

>>661456

Something doesn't become a militia just because you call it one. A militia, by definition, is composed of civilians who have taken up arms. National Guards clearly aren't civilians. Furthermore, the second amendment clearly implies that a proper militia should also turn against the government when necessary, therefore isn't part of the government but is at least semi-independent from it. That also isn't true as the national guard is joined to the US government just as tightly as the US armed forces (one can make the argument that NG also deffers to the state government and not just the federal one, but state government is also part of the same structure, therefore the argument is moot).

>>654915

I made that webm, are you by any chance ChadRight?

>>654915

First "JewsRock!" one (Better version https://streamable.com/h4g40)

Also sauce on the 2nd webm's movie?

>>661460

No.

>>661462

see >>655159

>>661464

And the colonial militias were obviously independent on the British government, because the ranks of the militia were filled by the average citizen. In other words, they were fucking civilians with guns. That was the fucking point - they weren't professional soldiers, because if they were, they would be part of the British fucking Army and would be helping put down the revolt.

>>661469

>In other words, they were fucking civilians with guns. That was the fucking point - they weren't professional soldiers, because if they were, they would be part of the British fucking Army and would be helping put down the revolt.

They were in the service of the colonies because there was no British army there, but they were still subservient to the British overlords. And not just them, French and Spanish colonialist did the same thing. In times of war, the militias would fight for their European overlords, the citizens of Boston for example were British subjects and were fighting for Britain.

The American Revolutionary war broke out because the British thought the colony of Massachusetts was getting way to rowdy, was placed under martial law under the direct control of the British military, and because they had planned to seize the armory of the local militias since they knew they were no longer loyal to Parliament or the king, but the underground government of Mass. run by John Adams. This is what the battle of Lexington and Concord was, the British army realizing that the colonial militia, which was to serve them, had gone rogue and potentially might fight against them.

>>661472

They were quite literally civilians.

>"Soldiers who came from Pennsylvania were usually laborers. The surviving muster rolls show that about sixty percent of the soldiers listed were laborers. The remaining forty percent were either artisans or skilled workers. The majority of the artisans from the Pennsylvania colony worked in the cloth, wood, or leather trades. Most of the artisans were cloth workers, while the remainder came from the cooper and carpentry trades."

In other words, not professional soldiers. Civilians with guns, given some training, and unleashed on the enemy when there was a problem. They were formally subservient to the brits (every citizen is theoretically subservient to the government), but de facto independent, as can be clearly seen. The point of this is that a tyrannical government usually treats its troops well or at least carefully selects them so that only those loyal get to be armed, whereas when you just have a muster of civvies, you can't do that - they come from all walks of life and from all manner of backgrounds. That's why they were supposed to be the safeguard of the freedom of the country - because if the majority of the people decided the government was tyrannical, then it would also have the majority of the armed forces on its side.

>>661476

I know they werent professional soldiers, I never said they were. They always were, and still are, reservist.

>A militia, by definition, is composed of civilians who have taken up arms. National Guards clearly aren't civilians. Furthermore, the second amendment clearly implies that a proper militia should also turn against the government when necessary, therefore isn't part of the government but is at least semi-independent from it.

Back to this original statement, yes, the militia should turn against the government if its evil and be at least semi-independent. This means the individual states have a right to resist an over encroaching federal government. Iowa can tell the President of the US and Congress to fuck off and use the Iowa National Guard to defend themselves for example. Theres this idea among gun rights people that militia only ever means civilians banding together with their own guns to fight a corrupt government as they see it when this isnt at all true. Yes, there can be militias outside the NG, but the NG is the 'official' milita.

The whole point of the second amendment and the bill of rights in general was an after thought for the constitution. Before that, we were a confederacy, but it sucked shit so The Federalist party decided to create a stronger national government at the expense of state autonomy. The Anti-Federalist feared this, so they included the Bill of Rights to ensure the rights and protections they fought the British for in case this new national government violated them to, so the militia means the state has a right to defend itself from an evil US government if the need arises. They still act as reservist for the US though, which is why the National Guard fights in places like Afghanistan.

>>661480

>The whole point of the second amendment and the bill of rights in general was an after thought for the constitution. Before that, we were a confederacy, but it sucked shit so The Federalist party decided to create a stronger national government at the expense of state autonomy. The Anti-Federalist feared this, so they included the Bill of Rights to ensure the rights and protections they fought the British for in case this new national government violated them to, so the militia means the state has a right to defend itself from an evil US government if the need arises

you fucked up the details of that. the articles of confederation basically had the federal government with limited power and no ability to enforce it. when reforming the government and building the framework of the constitution the bill of rights were in no way an after thought. once they agreed of the wording of the constitution to vote on it, they then immediately added the bill of rights. the express purpose of the bill of rights was to enshrine natural law into mans law for the nations protection against the state.

then again none of this matters too much since every single one of the bill of rights have been practically nullified by legislation and most people are so ignorant of the most basic understanding they they cant even list off the entire first amendment.

>>661484

>then again none of this matters too much since every single one of the bill of rights have been practically nullified by legislation and most people are so ignorant of the most basic understanding they they cant even list off the entire first amendment.

This is the actual thing founding fathers have never forseen

>>661480

the issue is that modern "reservists" are nothing like militiamen at the time and are deprived of any independence. The command is part of the government, the arms are issued by the government, the paychecks come from the government. Reffering to state administration as not being part of the government does not apply ever since Confederacy lost, as the state governments themselves are not in any way independent. It would be like colonial militiamen waited for some british officer to tell them to assemble, gave them arms from a redcoat armoury (after getting the order from the king himself no less), paid them for their service from the british treasury, and only then would they be allowed to rebel. The amount of centralization renders such state-administered "militias" as nothing more than yet another branch of the US army.

>>661458

>>661464

The Jan Lukozki has a point. Already during WW2, the national guard was used a tool for suppressing internal dissent. The town of New Ulm Minnesota had the guard sent to them since everyone there was outraged that their cousins in Germany were going to get screwed over yet again. The national guard is not a militia.