Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Anathema]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

We dont care if your fed up.
We're armed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

We dont care if your fed up.
We're armed.

The old fool Joe ignores the fact it's usually a left loon shooting up schools. Perhaps leftists should be banned from owing firearms

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

 

[gipper]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Guns are not the problem. The problem is too much centralized gov resulting in a dysfunctional culture.

So your solution is illogical.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one?

Nope.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So your solution is illogical.

You think the government causes people to create a dysfunctional culture? Surely it's the reverse?

 

[JoeB131]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

 

[Correll]

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The important part?

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Fair points.

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber.

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.

I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.

Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

How many times does this have to get shot down before you stop bringing it up?

 

[USNavyVet]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.

 

[007]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No... "... shall not be infringed."

 

[Anathema]

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.

 

[gipper]

So your solution is illogical.

You think the government causes people to create a dysfunctional culture? Surely it's the reverse?

Gov is the problem. Research what it did to the black community since the Great Society.

 

[JoeB131]

The old fool Joe ignores the fact it's usually a left loon shooting up schools. Perhaps leftists should be banned from owing firearms

Fat Irish Sow, usually these guys are too far gone to have a political affiliation. you think that Adam Lanza had a political party? Really?

His mother was one of you Prepper nuts who thinks you need to be armed like the Zombies are coming.

 

[JoeB131]

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.

Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides. about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides, often committed by people they know.

 

[JoeB131]

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber.

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.

I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.

Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.

So little billy takes out the gun and shoots his little sister with Grandpa's gun, and that's okay with you?

 

[Anathema]

Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides. about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides, often committed by people they know.

So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)

1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.

The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.

Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.

 

[Pogo]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

 

[RodISHI]

no