Gun Control Compromise

[Pilot1]

We are in a dogfight for the very nature of our country. It is a choice between individual freedoms, liberties, and retaining our Natural Rights, or having an over bearing, overly controlling government run most aspects of our lives. It is the difference in government by the PEOPLE, or being governed (ruled) by the all powerful, centralized Bureaucracy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.

The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.

And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.

Says you, citing you.

The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.

Says you, citing you.

Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.

 

[there4eyeM]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

**** that.

UBC for zero restrictions on all firearms.

If you can pass a UBC, you're safe with a machine gun, right?'


.

You may be safe, but people observing someone with a machine gun might feel threatened. So, you might be obliged to announce that you had the weapon and that you were authorized to. Perhaps a very loud recording played over a bull horn that could be heard at a good distance.
Flashing lights?
Uh, no, not fireworks.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are in a dogfight for the very nature of our country. It is a choice between individual freedoms, liberties, and retaining our Natural Rights, or having an over bearing, overly controlling government run most aspects of our lives. It is the difference in government by the PEOPLE, or being governed (ruled) by the all powerful, centralized Bureaucracy.

Something comes to me that was historically said once. "I don't owe my constituency my vote, I owe them my judgement". That was attributed to John Adams on voting for the passing of the Constitution of the United States that formed the Nation. John Adams was the representative of South Carolina. SC didn't support slavery as it was at the time and expected him to hold out to abolish slavery. Yes, SC did change that policy later. But at the time, the Free White Men of SC really didn't care for slavery as it stood then. John Adams was one of the ones that tried to get that put into the Constitution. In the end, it was more important to get the document created and adopted than that one fine point. He voted for it as it stood even though it was against some of his own personal ideals. The Nation was deemed greater than any one person. When we became a Federal Republic because we outgrew a Democracy then we also had to give up certain rights. But we are supposed to guard against people representing us that are completely foreign to your best interest. In that part, we have failed miserably.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.

The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.

And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.

Says you, citing you.

The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.

Says you, citing you.

Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.

There is a so called Veterans club here. I won't go into the negatives about it but for one item that has been talked about and more than a few veterans refuse to go there over it.

The Directors Son walks around with an open carry gun on his hip. He says it's to protect everyone in there. No, it's not. It's to make his Johnson feel bigger, nothing more. He's more than a bit of a fruitcake to begin with. To makes things even weirder, they say they are supporting US Veterans yet both the Director and the Son are Canadians. Yes, through the wiggle room of the laws, the Son gained Citizenship and then spent 2 years in the US Army. He used that to gain his various permits although Open Carry does not require any special licensing. He hasn't set one foot in a CCW class. He used the clause about a newly separated Military Person being able to apply and get a CCW just by filing. Do I need to be armed equally to protect everyone around him from Him if push comes to shove? In the event of an emergency I am quite certain he will do something stupid like draw and shoot when maybe there wasn't enough reason. 2 years of pushing a pencil in the US Army doesn't get your ready for anything other than how to administer first aid for paper cuts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You see, here would be my simple solution.

Allow the victims of gun violence or their survivors to sue the gun companies and gun sellers.

Betcha they make darn sure who they are selling to after that.

Sounds like a good idea. And while we’re at it, be able to sue those union auto companies every time some drunk gets behind the wheel and kills somebody. Or pool manufacturers every time somebody drowns in one of their pools.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Can I sue Freightliner? A semi they built ran me off I30 last summer and wrecked my bike.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

"Gosh, you noticed me! That means I'm WINNING!"

No, hon. You got the exact same respect you always get from me. I can see why you'd feel the need to view disdain as a victory, though, being such a common incident in your life.

Most of us, though, try to actually BE right instead of just trying to claim to be.

Meanwhile, all your failed attempts to be clever aside, you're still an enemy of the Constitution and national sovereignty and still undeserving in every way of being "compromised with", because you still have zero right to demand we give in on anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

View attachment 240351

you know that better than me

Decrepitus reminds me strongly of creepy stalkers who take it as a sign of their "strong relationship" with the target when she files a restraining order, because "she noticed me!"

 

[Flash]

They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.

The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.

And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.

Says you, citing you.

The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.

Says you, citing you.

Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.

There is a so called Veterans club here. I won't go into the negatives about it but for one item that has been talked about and more than a few veterans refuse to go there over it.

The Directors Son walks around with an open carry gun on his hip. He says it's to protect everyone in there. No, it's not. It's to make his Johnson feel bigger, nothing more. He's more than a bit of a fruitcake to begin with. To makes things even weirder, they say they are supporting US Veterans yet both the Director and the Son are Canadians. Yes, through the wiggle room of the laws, the Son gained Citizenship and then spent 2 years in the US Army. He used that to gain his various permits although Open Carry does not require any special licensing. He hasn't set one foot in a CCW class. He used the clause about a newly separated Military Person being able to apply and get a CCW just by filing. Do I need to be armed equally to protect everyone around him from Him if push comes to shove? In the event of an emergency I am quite certain he will do something stupid like draw and shoot when maybe there wasn't enough reason. 2 years of pushing a pencil in the US Army doesn't get your ready for anything other than how to administer first aid for paper cuts.

If you don't want to open or concealed carry then don't do it.

Just quit your bitching about other people legally doing it. It just makes you look like a whinny snowflake asshole.

 

[Rigby5]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

Totally wrong.

Almost everyone is going to commit suicide eventually, and they not only have that right, but it is what should happen.
People do not commit suicide just because they are feeling a little depressed.
This is a vicious, competitive society, with way too much stress, most of it caused by the government.
So taking away more individual rights and making government even more powerful does not fix anything, but just makes things MUCH worse.

As for the figure of 43-to-1, that has been proven not just wrong, but absurdly silly thousands of times, by everyone.
For example, If you scare off thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., a million times without having to actually fire a shot, they don't count it because they are only counting deaths. But they do count it if while one of the millions of times someone cleaning or loading a gun, that it accidentally goes off and kills someone. So while in reality the ratio of good to bad is almost infinitely positive, they count it as infinitely negative without any rational basis.

 

[Rigby5]

"Let's see, life is so terrible I just want to end it. Oh wait! There's no gun around. Okay, I'll just find something better to do."

Yup. pretty much... no gun, you have time to think about it and realize what an awful idea it is.

That is infinitely stupid.
The most common means of suicide are pills, car exhaust, asphyxiation, etc., and clearly is it EVIL to try to make people stay alive without instead trying to work on reducing the negative that makes people want to die.

 

[Rigby5]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

Sure it is rare that a person is a commercial fisherman, and even more rare that a fisherman is being threatened to much by sharks that they can't operate without a firearm against the sharks. The rarity is not the point. The point is that the need can exist, and it has to be up to the individuals to know and decide when the need exists. Government not only is way too incompetent, but it is illegal to allow government to control individual decisions like that. If you do, you end up with a dictatorship.

And no, dynamite does not work at all well. First of all, dynamite is VERY shock sensitive, gets old, separates, becomes even more dangerous and risky. And it is a very bad explosive. So slow that it pushes lots of debris at very high velocities. Plastic explosive is much faster, so you don't need nearly as much, and it shatters stumps and boulders in place, safely. It also has a near infinite shelf life, but can easily be gotten rid of just by burning it. And no to stump grinders, which are incredibly much more dangerous than explosives. Stump grinders kill lots of people every single year.

Any use that is not offensive, is defensive. Defensive means supporting your life, so hunting for food is defensive against starving to death.

 

[Rigby5]

Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't.

actually, quite the contrary. Most people who attempt suicide never try again. But while other methods can often fail, gun suicides are 96% lethal.

That is totally and completely wrong.
Almost everyone who tries to commit suicide once, eventually does succeed.
The only people who do not, are those who botch a suicide so badly they are turned into a vegetative state where they no longer can finish it off right. And no one should want that. And firearms suicides are the best way to avoid botching the suicide and becoming a long term vegetable.

 

[Rigby5]

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.

If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.

This is the whole point.

This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.

You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.

There will be no compromise.

Exactly. Since her stated goal is to prevent suicides, she obviously wants absolute and total dictatorial federal control over all lives.
I have never heard of anything so contrary to the democratic republic, or so totally evil and stupid.
The next step in her imaginary nerf world would be pre-emptive incarceration, so we could not eat unhealthy food, follow risky sports, drive, travel, or do anything that she decides might not be safe for us.

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.

It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.

But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.

View attachment 240425

When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.

No, "well regulated" means to prevent impediments, such as in the interstate commerce clause, where the federal government is charged with the duty of "regulating" interstate commerce. It is quite clear from what the founders wrote, that the word regulate means to maintain regularity, such as regular digestion and bowel movements. In the case of interstate commerce, it means preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, and creating an obstruction. The phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment means that the militia has to have had regular practice with firearms so that if some emergency arises, they will be well practiced and ready.

It is obvious it does NOT at all mean restricting who should have guns or what kind, because the next part of the sentence say the "right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed". Which clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction at all. The term "the people" clearly means defensive arms are an individual right, and only local laws are then legal. Feds are supposed to have very limited jurisdiction, and only over what is explicitly given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution. No where is there anything in the constitution giving any federal jurisdiction over weapons, except their importation.

And as far as militia goes, they almost ALWAYS work.
Not only was the US created by a successful militia, but there were no police of significant federal force for over a whole century. And in fact, the US military has consistently been beaten by every single militia they have ever gone up against, from Vietnam to Syria.
In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we can hold the militia at bay, but only at great costs. So clearly the militia will eventually win. They almost always do.

 

[Rigby5]

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

No, it is real that the word "defense" is anything that does not harm others but benefits you. For example, if you are inventing a new fusion reaction to produce nearly free electrical energy, but need a nuclear device to set it off as a starter, then you could legitimately claim a defensive personal need for a nuclear device. As long as you took appropriate safety precautions, then it would be illegal for any government to try to stop you from your defensive use of nuclear weapons.
I am not saying such a device is real, but that obviously government has no rights at all and is not the source of justification for anything existing. Only individuals have rights, and only the needs of individuals can justify anything. So if government has something, individuals had better also have a means of having it when appropriate, or else you have a very dangerous dictatorship.
The 14th amendment quarantees equality under the law, so government can't do things we can't also do, when appropriate, and not harmful to others.

 

[Rigby5]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.

Nonsense.
You need to actually learn anything at all about firearms.
Just about any firearm can easily be turned into a full auto machine-gun in less than an hour, and that includes any bolt action rifle.
And there are millions of people buying armor piercing steel core bullets all the time.
Any of the cheap eastern block ammunition is steel core because it is cheaper.
And no one tracks the special carbide tipped that is only green if issued to the US military.

The reality is that machine guns and armor piercing bullets are insignificant, and do not at all facilitate crime or present any additional risk to anyone.
If criminals think they want these things, they already have them, easily. And there is no way to stop them.
But only a couple of times in all of US history, has anyone committed a crime with a full auto weapon.
Besides the LA bank robbers, you have to go all the way back to prohibition to find examples.
Full auto simply does not facilitate crime.

 

[HenryBHough]

You can't smoke hemp. You can but it gets you nowhere. Doesn't have THC in it.

Ah the wisdom of personal experience!

Pity not to have shared that with Your Very Own New Messiah - would have saved her/him/it from a nasty coughing fit.

 

[Rigby5]

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.

The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.

There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.

SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE

Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.

YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY

The US exists because colonists used arms defensively against an abusive British government.

 

[August West]

The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.

It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.

But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.

View attachment 240425

When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.

No, "well regulated" means to prevent impediments, such as in the interstate commerce clause, where the federal government is charged with the duty of "regulating" interstate commerce. It is quite clear from what the founders wrote, that the word regulate means to maintain regularity, such as regular digestion and bowel movements. In the case of interstate commerce, it means preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, and creating an obstruction. The phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment means that the militia has to have had regular practice with firearms so that if some emergency arises, they will be well practiced and ready.

It is obvious it does NOT at all mean restricting who should have guns or what kind, because the next part of the sentence say the "right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed". Which clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction at all. The term "the people" clearly means defensive arms are an individual right, and only local laws are then legal. Feds are supposed to have very limited jurisdiction, and only over what is explicitly given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution. No where is there anything in the constitution giving any federal jurisdiction over weapons, except their importation.

And as far as militia goes, they almost ALWAYS work.
Not only was the US created by a successful militia, but there were no police of significant federal force for over a whole century. And in fact, the US military has consistently been beaten by every single militia they have ever gone up against, from Vietnam to Syria.
In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we can hold the militia at bay, but only at great costs. So clearly the militia will eventually win. They almost always do.

Our militias were well known for murdering Indian women and children and running quickly from Indian braves.
Gnadenhutten massacre - Wikipedia
Most of general St. Clair`s troops were militia who got a well deserved ass kicking.
St. Clair's Defeat - Wikipedia