It is still legal to own a muzzle loaded cannon, like what was used in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

1,396 views • 67 upvotes • Made by anonymous 2 years ago in politics

39 Comments

Hank_Rearden
4 ups, 2y, 1 reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y
I love it. LOL
[deleted]
4 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Sorry, reads like a mad-rogue meme.

I'd up vote if the wall of text was something like 

Not only does it day they can have a cannon, it also says they can use that cannon against you.
[deleted]
4 ups, 2y, 1 reply
The meme was about how Biden has been saying time and time again that the 2nd amendment does not include cannons. Biden is always making up crap. He has never taken the time to actually do any type of research whatsoever. Not even a simple internet search. And he doesn't seem to care when he's wrong. He just double downs on the myth.



Yes, I suppose that someone could use a cannon against me. But considering how the only cannons that are currently legal to own are about 150 years old or older, I would think that whomever wanted to fire a cannon would probably end up killing themselves. Rust and time weaken the structural integrity of those cannons. Anyone who owns one now would only use it for decoration.
MegadrummerJ
3 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Actually, it is, and always has been, fully legal to own muzzle and breech loading cannons. You can readily build a new Civil War era muzzle loading cannon from parts that are readily available online. A friend of mine has a Civil War Mountain Howitzer he built and fires at re-enactments (he even used antique wheels for the carriage that date to the Spanish-American War).
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y, 1 reply
I was wondering if there weren't people who have made replicas of old cannons. I know they make replicas of nearly every other firearm. I just hadn't heard of any replica cannons being made for private parties.
MegadrummerJ
1 up, 2y
Yup- they're out there. I believe the muzzle loading black powder cannons are treated the same as modern replicas of black powder guns (including cap and ball revolvers): i.e. they're considered "antique style firearms".
Les_white
3 ups, 2y
MsIngaToof
1 up, 2y
Things we also didn't have: 50 states, 330 million people, "media", income taxes, massive inflation, enemies with nuclear weapons, communist threats, nigerian scammers, fentanyl coming across our borders, and presidents who twist shit to suit their agenda.
Sofar
2 ups, 2y
AmericanViking
2 ups, 2y, 3 replies
They lied... Biden did say you'll need F-15s and nukes to take over the government... so they don't need anyone's guns...
liarspew
2 ups, 2y
imgflip.com/i/6j1km9
[deleted]
2 ups, 2y
F-15's maybe but nukes would be far to deadly. Not that I have any plans at all to take over the government (I don't have the money, time or desire to take over the government, I'd like to kick a lot of politicians out of office but that is about as far as it goes), but if I did I would not use nukes. That would cause the deaths of far too many innocent people.



Maybe we can hold ol' Joe to that the next time he starts talking about "common sense gun laws".
2ATom
1 up, 2y
The rantings of an imbaciln just like Swalwell.
2ATom
1 up, 2y, 1 reply
The new straw man.



My question to you nuki strawmen is what in the world would you do with a nuke?



It would cost millions of dollars to have a delivery system that would send it far enough away from you that would be useful.



Even Eric Swalwell who is a total idiot, probably realizes that the government will never use nukes on our own soil!



Please, quit with the strawman and look at what the me says. 



It is legal to own any black powder firearm up to an including cannons.



You don't even need government permission like you do with a cased round firing weapon.
[deleted]
2 ups, 2y, 1 reply
The second amendment guarantees a citizens right to own nuclear and biological weapons.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Any hazardous substance that could present a threat to human life if containment failed is NOT legal to own by a private citizen. There are a lot of businesses who use or produce hazardous substances and it is legal for them to possess those substances if they provide containment and backups to that containment.



I used to work at an oil refinery. They both use and produce hazardous substances and they had all sorts of procedures and fail safe systems in place in case of a spill.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y, 1 reply
2a says "shall not be infringed". all weapons are legal unless they change the constitution.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y
A weapon is but a hazardous substance is not a weapon. It can be used as a weapon but then so can a car. More people are killed by someone beating them to death with their hands and/or feet than by all firearms. Yet hands and feet are not considered weapons (unless you've attained an advanced skill level in a martial art).
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
2 ups, 2y, 2 replies
berry2690
6 ups, 2y, 4 replies
2nd amendment doesn't apply to uranium or plutonium. It is constitutional to make those items illegal to own.
[deleted]
7 ups, 2y
There is a real safety concern to yourself and people in your neighborhood. That is restricted not because it can be made into a weapon. It is restricted because it can be a hazardous substance.



Firearms are not hazardous substances. They do not seep out into the water table. They do not emit radioactivity. Firearms do not defy the laws of physics and just start shooting people.
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
2 ups, 2y
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
1 up, 2y, 3 replies
[deleted]
7 ups, 2y
No, hazardous materials can and should be regulated. Firearms are NOT hazardous materials.



The 2nd Amendment does not prevent the government from bearing uranium, plutonium, hydroflouric acid, cyanide, benzene, and any other hazardous substance. 



The 2nd amendment ONLY prevents the government from infringing on our right to bear arms.
berry2690
3 ups, 2y, 1 reply
You thought otherwise?
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
1 up, 2y, 1 reply
berry2690
2 ups, 2y
Then you thought wrong.
AfunnyUsername
0 ups, 2y
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
2 ups, 2y, 3 replies
berry2690
8 ups, 2y, 1 reply
"NRA logic" as you put it, has never been applied to plutonium and never will. You're being snide for the sake of being argumentative.
Graeystone
6 ups, 2y
And privately owned cannons were mostly yard decorations or something people with a bit too much money bought so they could show off. Let's be honest; cannons are one of the most unreliable weapons ever created. Besides this issues with blowing out one's eardrums, there was the issue of one of them blowing up in peoples faces if the loaders screwed up.



Even today with our improved technology and better safety being a loader in a tank or a warship is still one of the most dangerous jobs to have in the military.
JustForLols
5 ups, 2y
Don't know why you are trolling. Only certain governments can own nukes. Civilians cannot.



Under the Atomic Energy Act, only the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and their contractors can produce or possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore.



The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and its 1954 revision explicitly prohibit the private ownership of nuclear weapons. You can't even own private patents on nuclear weapon designs, one of the few places where Congress mandated an entire technology be off-limits for patenting.
low rated comment (click to show)
Octavia_Melody
1 up, 2y
[deleted]
5 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Go buy one. I won't stop you.
low rated comment (click to show)
MiniAppleIs
2 ups, 2y, 1 reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Your "NRA logic" is deeply flawed. The logic you are using is leftist logic and that is why it falls apart. There may be restrictions on buying nukes, I am not sure. I never looked into it because who can even think to afford one, plus they are horribly impractical as a person self-defense weapon. They were designed to take out huge populations. I don't have huge populations of people trying to kill me so I think I'll be fine without a personal nuclear bomb.



But if that is what makes you sleep comfortably at night then you go and spend a fortune on the bomb and a fortune on housing the bomb.
low rated comment (click to show)
Modda
2 ups, 2y, 1 reply
Bluessol
5 ups, 2y
The acting starts on Thursday with the Kangaroo Court

Show More Comments

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 2

speech bubble transparent

aead0bc0-d1ba-11ea-9eef-67579227354c

thomas-jefferson.jpg

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:

"When the 2nd amendment was written you couldn't own a cannon"; STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR BUTT AND READ HISTORY. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS OWNED CANNONS. WE NEVER LIMITED ANY KIND OF ARMS. NOT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE AR-15'S BUT BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL HAS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND SELF-DEFENSE. THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE TYPE OF FIREARMS USED. IT IS ABOUT YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. WE DIDN'T BELIEVE IN STANDING ARMIES LIKE YOU HAVE NOW. WE THOUGHT IT BEST THAT EVERY CITIZEN TO BE "WELL REGULATED", MEANING EQUAL OR SUPERIOR FIREPOWER, TO THOSE WHO SOUGHT TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS COULD USE WHATEVER WEAPON NECESSARY TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS. MILITIAS CAN BE FORMED IN THE EVENT OF WAR. IN PEACETIME THOSE RIGHTS DO NOT GET SUSPENDED BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO WILL ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.