Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

[FA_Q2]

Provided it’s understood the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

That is irrelevant to the points given. No one has ever remotely made this claim. You do realize that an armed insurrection occurs precisely because the ability to address grievances is lost. It is a last ditch effort because the government has ‘run away.’

The people retain the right to petition government for a redress of grievances via the ballot box and the Federal courts first; the people do not have the right to change government via ‘armed insurrection’ because a minority of the population subjectively perceives the Federal government as ‘tyrannical.’

Again, no one has ever claimed any such thing. There is no ‘minority’ overthrowing the government because it is tyrannical. IT takes a clear and overwhelming MAJORITY to do so. That is simple fact. Any insurrection that is only supported by a small minority is going to fall VERY fast as they are fighting a deck firmly stacked against them.

Indeed, it would be un-Constitutional to seek ‘change’ in the context of ‘armed revolt,’ as that would abridge the right of the people to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4.

A completely asinine argument. Again, you seek such change precisely because such ‘rights’ no longer exist. This is one of the core reasons that there is no real movement to do such a thing. We are not even close to an armed rebellion – we still have the right to speak and the right to vote – 2 avenues that are far more effective. When we LOOSE those rights, then such a conversation becomes serious.

Besides, an armed rebellion is illegal by its very nature even if it is the right thing to do (and it is right if the right circumstances are met). The constitution directly addresses this though without having to resort to muddled logic in pitting one amendment against the other:

It gives congress the right to suppress insurrections:
Article 1 section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And makes such Treason.
Article 3 section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The fact that armed rebellion is against the constitution means nothing as for the purpose of the second amendment though. While technically illegal according to the constitution, the founders identified that it is the RIGHT of the people to overthrow a corrupt government and the second is one of the cornerstones that protects that ability. You cannot challenge an enemy if you are not armed.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court found poll taxes an unlawful Constitutional activity for voting which is not completely a right, why would requiring tests for ownership of firearms be constitutional? Who writes the test? Who administers it? Who controls it? Who modifies it?

There is no compelling Government interest in compelling citizens to be tested to use their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Dear RetiredGySgt and Dont Taz Me Bro
Let people within their own districts and neighborhood associations
decide their own local ordinances.

Sheriffs in small towns are still deciding for themselves
what laws to enforce, and which they decide are unforceable and go against constitutional oath and duty.

If people AGREE to have their schools be gun free and just train
everyone in that district to obey law officers or get out of that area and live elsewhere,
that might work.

If people AGREE to screen EVERYONE (not just gun applicants but all citizens)
for mental and criminal illness, and require treatment for an abusive dangerous disorder
found to meet local AGREED standards as to what constitutes a public safe and health threat,
then let LOCAL districts and residents decide what is legal to permit and what is legal liability.

Why not give tax breaks if districts can REDUCE their crime rates
by barring people with dangerous levels of addiction from having
access to drugs or guns or whatever they sign and agree to in their local ordinances

If you don't agree with the local civic ordinance,
then go live in a different district. We separate churches
under different policies, denominations and terms for participating there,
why not with schools and parties, and let members fund and run
their own damn programs and not legislate or mandate for anyone else!!!

 

[JBond]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Dumb. Clearly not informed on how the current system works.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Like the no fly list? Yeah no people were ever put on the no fly list in error

 

[bendog]

What compromise?

 

[Flash]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

I am sorry Moon Bat but the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty self explanatory. .

The Supreme Court has said it is an individual right the same as freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

It is wrong to have to get government permission to enjoy a right that is spelled out pretty forcefully in the Constitution of this country.

The government can't ever be trusted with our Liberties. That is why we have a Bill of Rights, to keep the government from taking them away like putting you on a list that can't do what the right says.

No compromise on our liberty.

Nothing on your list is valid.

 

[Flash]

What compromise?

No compromise. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberty all of we Americans have and we can't let assholes use the democrat process to take it away. The majority can't take liberty away from minority at the ballot box.

 

[bendog]

I guess background checks are a compromise. I'm not sure why this is in a spending bill, but I'm not sure why a lot of what's in that bill is there.

I don't think banning stuff that is not already banned does much good.

 

[JoeB131]

I am sorry Moon Bat but the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty self explanatory. .

It also says "Well-regulated Militias".

YOu guys keep leaving that part out.

 

[Flash]

I am sorry Moon Bat but the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty self explanatory. .

It also says "Well-regulated Militias".

YOu guys keep leaving that part out.

That doesn't mean shit you stupid Moon Bat. That was explained very well in the Heller case

Stop being an idiot. It just makes you look like a fool.

 

[JoeB131]

That doesn't mean shit you stupid Moon Bat. That was explained very well in the Heller case

It shouldn't have taken 200 years for Heller to read it the way they wanted to.

The second Amendment was about militias. Private guns just weren't that common in 1787.

 

[Crixus]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

We should also do that with free speech. All words posted on any social media or reported in the news must be screened by a government offical. We can raise taxs to lay for it. If one racks up to many offences, jail time.

 

[Crixus]

That doesn't mean shit you stupid Moon Bat. That was explained very well in the Heller case

It shouldn't have taken 200 years for Heller to read it the way they wanted to.

The second Amendment was about militias. Private guns just weren't that common in 1787.

Bull shit. Let me guess you were there. Please show us your evidance of the claim you yanked out of your vagina. Then I’ll trash it with facts, spell bad and make you cry to a mod. Bet you just cry to a mod.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The second Amendment was about militias. Private guns just weren't that common in 1787.

Oh, lord.

******* EVERYBODY owned a gun in 1787.

 

[Crixus]

I’ll give JoB a hint, many trading vessels manifest are getable free on line. Many of those ships went all over the world and many of them sold guns. Not only guns, but the most advanced guns of the time. Military assault weapons to be clear. Many of those guns were sold off when replaced by more modern weapons, and they were also traded with any given Indian tribe along with glass beads, cooking pots, blankets knives, steel and iron arrow heads, whatever. American History begins and ends with citizen ownership of guns. Go look in a Highschool history book and you will see that the British attempted to take colonist guns. That’s one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

 

[Crixus]

The second Amendment was about militias. Private guns just weren't that common in 1787.

Oh, lord.

******* EVERYBODY owned a gun in 1787.

Don’t argue with him. He was there.

 

[JoeB131]

Bull shit. Let me guess you were there. Please show us your evidance of the claim you yanked out of your vagina. Then I’ll trash it with facts, spell bad and make you cry to a mod. Bet you just cry to a mod.

Spiking the Gun Myth

Imagine, then, the shock if this star of the show should turn out to be missing through much of our history. It seems impossible; and that was the reaction of Michael A. Bellesiles, a Colonial historian at Emory University, when -- while searching through over a thousand probate records from the frontier sections of New England and Pennsylvania for 1763 to 1790 -- he found that only 14 percent of the men owned guns, and over half of those guns were unusable.

What happened to the gun we ''know'' was over every mantel, the omnipresent hunting weapon, the symbol of the frontier? Bellesiles looked elsewhere, examined many different kinds of evidence, trying to find where the famous guns were hiding. ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' tells us what he learned: that individually owned guns were not really in hiding; they were barely in existence. Before the Civil War, the cutoff point for this study, the average American had little reason to go to the expense and trouble of acquiring, mastering and maintaining a tool of such doubtful utility as a gun.

Oh, lord.

******* EVERYBODY owned a gun in 1787

No, they didn't. More more from the same article.

If most individuals did not own guns, where were the weapons for the militia? The state was supposed to supply them, but rarely did. In 1754, there were only enough guns to arm a sixth of the eligible militiamen. ''In 1758 Connnecticut owned 200 firearms and received 1,600 from the Crown, which made 1,800 guns for 5,000 militia,'' Bellesiles writes. ''The government set about buying and impressing every gun it could find, offering additional bounties to any volunteer who would bring his own gun. Surprisingly few people were in a position to take advantage of this offer of quick cash. In one company of 85 men, only seven showed up with their own guns. The record indicates that this figure of 8 percent was fairly typical throughout the colonies.''

 

[JoeB131]

I’ll give JoB a hint, many trading vessels manifest are getable free on line. Many of those ships went all over the world and many of them sold guns. Not only guns, but the most advanced guns of the time. Military assault weapons to be clear. Many of those guns were sold off when replaced by more modern weapons, and they were also traded with any given Indian tribe along with glass beads, cooking pots, blankets knives, steel and iron arrow heads, whatever. American History begins and ends with citizen ownership of guns. Go look in a Highschool history book and you will see that the British attempted to take colonist guns. That’s one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

the thing was, they didn't try to take guns from individual homes, they took them from ARMORIES run by the colonial administration.

Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia

Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith received orders from Gage on the afternoon of April 18 with instructions that he was not to read them until his troops were underway. He was to proceed from Boston "with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy ... all Military stores ... But you will take care that the soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants or hurt private property." Gage used his discretion and did not issue written orders for the arrest of rebel leaders, as he feared doing so might spark an uprising.[19]

 

[Cellblock2429]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]zCZHMRhsjPk[/MEDIA] Control: "Compromise" Colion Noir for NRA News - YouTube[/ame]

/——/ France needs stricter gun laws. Total ban and confiscate.
BREAKING NEWS

French supermarket gunman kills two, demands release of Paris attacker: reports
The gunman who barricaded himself inside a supermarket in southern France has killed two people and reportedly demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, one of the men behind the deadly 2015 Paris terror attacks.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trebes: Two dead in France supermarket hostage-taking - CNN

Good thing nobody can own a gun in France.