Jump to content
reloaderguy

Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheShootist said:

There are a couple of states where the militia issue is being pushed by some gun owners. It's been it the works for several years. The problem's that I know of are this; the legislature keeps rejecting the bills, and unless you have a court that wants to take the issue its not going anywhere without public support.

I've contacted a friend in one of those states who is at the forefront. I asked him for details. I've also asked a friend who is an attorney for a prescription of what we need at this point.

As soon as they come back, I'll give you what you want to hear. Although I'm perplexed that in NJ where we are far more at risk than NH, you don't want to take up the action here. 

I am keeping open mind, and would love any updates from your friends. From Constitutional argument perspective, NH is already as much at risk as NJ. If anything, this aspect of the issue must be REALLY bothering someone in NH than in NJ, for we folks in NJ are busy battling the State for silly stuff.  You cannot ask a starving man to right world hunger.

I am perplexed too. One one hand you seem to argue that one needs "no stinking permission from anyone" yet you point out "legislature keeps rejecting the bills".  Which is it ?  Dare I ask that question, for I will be (again) called as someone who doesn't understand "13 words".

I bring us back to  - What is stopping YOU from being a plaintiff and Dr. Vieira from bringing a case Pro-Bono ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I had asked a few friends to post an article referring to a film that James Jaeger is putting together, and one did on this forum. The response was not kind, as a matter of fact I found the comment on Dr. Vieira to be at best unkind, which is when I decided to join.

In general, I'll concede the point that "snark" happens on all forums. It's rude and unfortunate, I agree. And yet... you also "threw someone under the bus" in your own post. My point: manners are a 2-way street. 

46 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

Well when you tell people who believe that they support the 2nd amendment that it actually requires you to get out and train a few times a year, the dissent begins. I happen to be a veteran, but even at my age, which is past the age required, I'm willing to go out and train, and help train others. 

I also agree that it's difficult to spur people to do ANYTHING... much less something that will inconvenience them or put them at any kind of perceived risk. And yet, your claim of being booted off of forums for no good reason, or that you made people "apoplectic" while you were being so "nice" --- sorry, still sounds like a stretch. My observation is that people getting booted off of sites generally contributed mightily to their own online demise. (In my mind, you're off to a poor start here... but I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong and turn out to be a gentleman poster of the highest order, lol).

And finally, though I appreciate your laser-like focus on the laws as written and as intended, you asked an open-ended question in your prior post - why the focus on individual rights? My off-the-cuff suggestions were posed more on an understanding of how people think, how they act... you know, real life. The laws can say whatever they want, but if citizens (flawed people) or government officials (also flawed people) think those words inconvenience or threaten them in some way, they'll tend to turn a blind eye to them. It's a perfectly valid observation on human nature. So, why are we arguing about it?... Maybe you just like to argue? I actually don't. Let's stop. ;) Besides, I'm really not trying to hijack or drift your thread. You have a point of view and should be able to express it. If you can manage to do it without trashing someone else, your arguments will have more weight (with me anyway). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Maybe you just like to argue? I actually don't. Let's stop. ;) Besides, I'm really not trying to hijack or drift your thread. You have a point of view and should be able to express it. If you can manage to do it without trashing someone else, your arguments will have more weight (with me anyway). 

No I don't like to argue. When I post, its typically with law and history attached. Patrick Henry was a student of human nature and that is why we have a Bill of Rights today. He understood that there would be those who looked to dismantle what was being created, and he understood that many would turn their heads when the going got tough. 

So with all the information I've posted, how many here would you think even went to take a look at the pertinent sections of the Constitution rather than just coming back with contrary comments?

I'll leave you with the number 0.006, which actually has to be divided by 16 years for a more accurate picture. 

I recently listened to a real gentleman on the topic of being a gentleman. He said stop this ridiculous notion of taking the higher ground or being polite. You're in a battle for your freedom, your life, and the future of this nation. Wake up!

There is no reason for me to come back here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheShootist

 

I have read stand your ground - I understand the opinion piece

I believe I understand your 'position' -

Openly advocating for a possible armed insurrection by "the milita" against the current "federal tyranny" - is a dangerous position and concept.

I am not saying that the methodology and lawfullness of a "militia" doesn't not exist in our documents and or prescribed by the anti federalist such as Mason - but once again this is very dangerous and unsteady ground.

Not to sound melodramatic, but Pandoras box and the contents within, surely would be unleashed if this course of action be taken.

Mustering of armed men on any green in this nation in 'defense' of locality, community, county state etc., would yield nothing except condemnation and the words domestic terrorists by the vast majority. 

 

This notion of re-establishment of the Militia as prescribed is a generational battle and sadly that is not possible with the current population.

While I may rue the day - I cannot at this particular time agree that arms must be taken in defense of our communities from the federal goverment.

 

If this is the tenet of your particular way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

There is no reason for me to come back here. 

:facepalm: - oh, for god's sakes! Don't be so petulant. You've been here for less than a week... and now you feel you need to pack up and go because you decided that readers didn't: drop everything... do immediate research... and then fawn over your brilliant idea (as quickly as you think they should have)? Cut the melodrama, pls.

As others have pointed out, yours is a provocative idea that would undoubtedly generate a not inconsiderable backlash. You thought you were going to pitch that idea and win converts in 6 days on here, huh? Are you for real?

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

:facepalm: - oh, for god's sakes! Don't be so petulant. You've been here for less than a week... and now you feel you need to pack up and go because you decided that readers didn't: drop everything... do immediate research... and then fawn over your brilliant idea (as quickly as you think they should have)? Cut the melodrama, pls.

As others have pointed out, yours is a provocative idea that would undoubtedly generate a not inconsiderable backlash. You thought you were going to pitch that idea and win converts in 6 days on here, huh? Are you for real?

 

I've been at this a lot longer than most. I spent a lot of time here putting laws and history on the table. How many do you think made the effort to read any of it before they commented? I asked you a question. Answer it.

The issue is not whether I need to be here for any reason. It is whether or not people will take the time to research before they make snarky comments, and that is the reason for my avoidance. 

I could have been spending time on an Amicus brief today instead of giving out information to people who are not taking the time to read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I've been at this a lot longer than most. I spent a lot of time here putting laws and history on the table. How many do you think made the effort to read any of it before they commented? I asked you a question. Answer it.

The issue is not whether I need to be here for any reason. It is whether or not people will take the time to research before they make snarky comments, and that is the reason for my avoidance. 

I could have been spending time on an Amicus brief today instead of giving out information to people who are not taking the time to read. 

Like I said, I've seen enough to know I don't need to listen to you on these issues.  And yes, I read your links that you kept peddling before I made that decision.

I act in ways some might consider "arrogant".  You my friend, make me look absolutely servile in comparison. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheShootist said:

I've been at this a lot longer than most. I spent a lot of time here putting laws and history on the table. How many do you think made the effort to read any of it before they commented? I asked you a question. Answer it. 

-- Well, aren't you just charming? Yes, I'm beginning to see why you've been booted off of sites before...and btw, my answer is not many. A small handful will think, "that's interesting, I'll dig into that..." - but with work, family, etc - they're probably not moving at the pace that "Dictator TheShootist" requires!  

The issue is not whether I need to be here for any reason. It is whether or not people will take the time to research before they make snarky comments, and that is the reason for my avoidance.

-- Ohhh, OK.. so you're not going away because you're petulant? It's because you're just too good and too smart for us common folk? Yeah, OK, now I 've got it! Gee, thanks for dumbing that down for me. I was struggling with the concepts, don't ya know!

I could have been spending time on an Amicus brief today instead of giving out information to people who are not taking the time to read. 

-- It must be so frustrating for you to deal with dolts like us. You poor dear!

Were my above comments snarky? Yep, you betcha! I'm trying to hit you on the back of the head with a 2x4 --- hopefully, to get you to see how impossibly rude and arrogant you sound. But, if you've been booted off of of multiple forums before, I should probably throw in the towel right now. Clearly, you'll never see that you create your own problems.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Peels play thing... I’m watching magic happen.

Let me be clear, I'm really not trying to be rude! He's clearly done a lot of research and is passionate about his cause. I can respect that aspect of his posts. It's the fatally bad attitude that's starting to tick me off.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs. Peel said:

Let me be clear, I'm really not trying to be rude! He's clearly done a lot of research and is passionate about his cause. I can respect that aspect of his posts. It's the fatally bad attitude that's starting to tick me off.

Note! Don’t tick her off.

 

never been good at notes

4 minutes ago, BobA said:

He's on a soap box trying to get a following.  Don't drink the cool aid.

It’s not that. The argument is there. It’s the context 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BobA said:

And its the context that points me that way.  Informed? Yes. Educated? Sounds it.  But definitely condescending.  

No argument.

last thing I’m gonna do is cap @High Exposure or @BlueLineFish coming at my door. I’ll bet you donuts to assholes they ain’t gonna come at my door.

 

do we have a problem? Yes

do we need voters? Yes 

What enacts change. 30% here is horse shit. And, and and; we whom reside here are only of 1 state.

They didn’t take the case, cause they knew it was split.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the message and then there is the messenger.   Almost everyone here has said that your message is interesting and may have merit.  The problem is you, as messenger, are losing everyone.  

You may have been doing this for years but this week you have come into a new community, this forum. You don’t have any history here. You cannot expect this community to drop everything and drink your koolaid.  You have to establish yourself somewhat. 

Instead when you get pushback you get defensive, impatient, and condescending. 

You may be the smartest person in the room but frankly your ability to deliver your message to a new audience sucks. 

On the other hand: I’d like to see a Shootist vs AVB debate. The post length alone would crash the Internet. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheShootist said:

No I don't like to argue. When I post, its typically with law and history attached. Patrick Henry was a student of human nature and that is why we have a Bill of Rights today. He understood that there would be those who looked to dismantle what was being created, and he understood that many would turn their heads when the going got tough. 

So with all the information I've posted, how many here would you think even went to take a look at the pertinent sections of the Constitution rather than just coming back with contrary comments?

I'll leave you with the number 0.006, which actually has to be divided by 16 years for a more accurate picture. 

I recently listened to a real gentleman on the topic of being a gentleman. He said stop this ridiculous notion of taking the higher ground or being polite. You're in a battle for your freedom, your life, and the future of this nation. Wake up!

There is no reason for me to come back here. 

A supposedly defender of freedom giving up an internet debate after couple of days ? Please come back.

Lot of writing, lot of judgement on what others dont understand and certainly lot of complaining.

Yet, haven't answered my simple question. You wrote at length about this and that, claimed no one needs permission, admit current laws on infringe on a right. By your admission, you are already denied the right.

So, What is stopping YOU from being a plaintiff in a SCOTUS case that Dr. Vieira could argue pro-bono  ?

Be the candle that you want others to be. Real Leaders lead from the front, not from behind. Be that light. Let us see a case brought forward.

Note: I hope you stop by again with more concrete information, plan or better actual SCOTUS case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

There is the message and then there is the messenger.   Almost everyone here has said that your message is interesting and may have merit.  The problem is you, as messenger, are losing everyone.  

You may have been doing this for years but this week you have come into a new community, this forum. You don’t have any history here. You cannot expect this community to drop everything and drink your koolaid.  You have to establish yourself somewhat. 

Instead when you get pushback you get defensive, impatient, and condescending. 

You may be the smartest person in the room but frankly your ability to deliver your message to a new audience sucks. 

On the other hand: I’d like to see a Shootist vs AVB debate. The post length alone would crash the Internet. 

avb's are longer. he'd win on that part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 6:31 PM, voyager9 said:

On the other hand: I’d like to see a Shootist vs AVB debate. The post length alone would crash the Internet. 

 

On 11/27/2017 at 6:34 PM, Zeke said:

I’d buy tickets to that @AVB-AMG

 

On 11/27/2017 at 7:54 PM, 1LtCAP said:

avb's are longer. he'd win on that part.

 

On 11/27/2017 at 8:07 PM, Zeke said:

Fuggit... hold my beer.

let’s do  this

 

On 11/27/2017 at 8:09 PM, High Exposure said:

But in the end, that is what saved everyone....

Interesting thread on what is a very controversial topic....  I have to admire and commend Mrs. Peel for her very eloquent and effective multiple post dialogue of bitch slapping of TheShootist.  From what I can tell, he has not returned to post anything on NJGF since last November.  Oh well.....

Also, unlike TheShootist, when I get beat up here, I do not pick up my ball and run home.  Yes, I may complain about the toxic comments and mob like attacks, but I dish it right back, get it out of my system and move on.  BTW, I have been pretty busy with my work and personal obligations and travel, but since you folks are essentially asking for my opinion on this topic, for what it is worth, here it is....(and yes, it is a tad long winded...;)

AVB-AMG

The fears, the compromises, the visionary reach of its creators all led to an imperfect but wonderful compromise in the creation of the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the 2nd Amendment.  In one sentence It reads in its entirety: 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.

Its foggy wording and odd locution stand out in the Constitution. Lawyers and scholars have debated its commas and clauses for over 2 centuries. For 218 years, judges overwhelmingly concluded that the amendment authorized states to form militias, what we now call the National Guard in each state. Then, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upended two centuries of precedent. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the Constitution confers a right to own a gun for self-defense in the home. The Supreme Court determined that there is an individual right to gun ownership. So today’s debate on any form of gun safety, is done in the context of a Supreme Court ruling that limits what we can do.
The history of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment tells us much about how our country has changed and grown, how we see ourselves and our government, how we balance the rights of individuals and the need for safety.

In the 1960’s, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, a solid conservative, articulated the consensus at the time when he called the idea of individual gun rights in the Constitution a preposterous “fraud.”  We know that all changed over the past 40 years with a concerted legal campaign that toppled two centuries of precedent.

During that period the National Rifle Association morphed from an organization focused on training youth to learn how to use firearms safely, into a strong special interest group that championed a jurisprudential campaign to enshrine gun rights in the Constitution. The NRA itself was in favor of gun control for more than a century until it got taken over by the gun manufacturers in the early 1970s and became primarily a gun industry lobby group to promote above all else, the sale of more firearms. Much public opinion has been corrupted by the gun lobby and gun manufacturers who only want power and profit over a safe and law-abiding society, as well as by legislators who only want to pander to and profit from this special interest group, rather than serve their constituents.  So over the past 40 years, the NRA’s legal team has insisted that for two centuries judges simply got it wrong. They managed to persuade a substantial part of the public, and after that the courts. The road to Heller was paved by one of history’s most effective, if misleading, campaigns for constitutional change.

The Heller decision also shows something more: how a generation of conservative judges and scholars transformed the way we interpret the Constitution. “Originalism” asserts that the only legitimate way to interpret a constitutional provision is to ask what the Constitution meant at the time it was enacted, in the late 1700’s. Its influence has peaked in the Supreme Court led by John Roberts. Robert’s assigned to Justice Scalia the 2008 gun case.

Reading the history about the writing of the Constitution, a number of scholars have argued that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with protecting states against 'a large standing army.'  Keep in mind that the young United States could not even afford the Colonial Army during the American Revolution. It went into debt and its debt was worthless. There was no army without huge taxation. The fear of the founding fathers was financial and they didn't want to pay for a standing army or navy. The various states at the time of the Constitutional Convention were heavily in debt. An organized militia was thought to be the solution. Not a very effective solution, as proven by the generally abysmal performance of the various state militias in the Revolution and the War of 1812. If it had not been for George Washington's raising a true standing Continental Army, we would probably have lost the Revolutionary War.

The 2nd Amendment refers to the (a) Militia, whose purpose was intended to ensure an organized, armed citizen militia under the command of the Commander-in-Chief.  So much for states rights.  Article II Sec. 2 of the Constitution makes the president the commander-in-chief of the militia. The militia has now become the National Guard, both formally and legally and is no longer comprised of random citizens. Today, the National Guard are agents of our state and federal governments and its members are intended to augment our regular federal armed forces when deemed necessary, as well as in part to help the state and/or federal government put down domestic insurrections. The Federalist, as well as John Madison's journal of the proceedings of the constitutional convention, along with the history of militias at the time of the Revolutionary War, makes all of this very clear. 

The 2nd Amendment was never intended to establish a right to be armed for personal protection. At the constitutional convention, when the Anti-Federalists tried to attach self-defense and hunting language to the amendment, they were overwhelmingly defeated. Armed rebellion against the government was never even discussed. The tired arguments of everybody needing stockpiles of firearms and ammunition to protect oneself, family, and property from " The Government", and keep it in check, are the paranoid ruminations of individuals with no social conscience who also lack an appreciation of what it means to live in a broader community with significant privileges AND responsibilities. Article III of the constitution clearly and explicitly lays out the definition of "treason" as "waging war against the government of the US" which by definition would include raising arms against the government.

Reading American history and the writing of the Constitution, one realizes that at no point in our country’s history has the gun-owning populace deposed a despotic regime, but anti-government activities have certainly been quelled by the national militia.  Any argument suggesting that the second amendment is designed to help the people resist a tyrannical government is without historical merit. It was enacted so that the government could defend itself. The 2nd Amendment was instituted in direct response to the Whiskey rebellion and the Shay's Rebellion, (for which George Washington came out of retirement to personally put down), which exhibited the government's inability to deal with armed rebellion.  Today, an assortment of weekend warriors doesn't stand a chance to stand up against the U.S. Army that has far more quantities of sophisticated firepower than us civilians.  We would lose, unless we are well organized and coordinated and motivated to assert ourselves with voices, votes and ultimately, our lives.  I would think that the power of the pen and that of social media and the internet would be wiser and a more successful route to achieving our goals.

Some folks say that the 2nd Amendment is not about personal defense, but that it is about arming the citizenry to make them the bulwark of liberty.  I would argue that the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was twofold:

First, to prevent the federal government from disarming the states. It was, as all the amendments comprising the bill of Rights were, a limit on federal power, not directives or prohibitions to any state by or from the federal government. The states retained their sovereign rights to self-govern, unless such a right was explicitly surrendered to the new federal government. Put simply, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to insure that a fledgling country with limited resources could muster a military against threats to its nascent structure, not to prevent government overreach.  That was the original Constitutional deal, and the Federal Papers were explicit and repetitive on the point.

Second, not many folks understand or are aware that the 2nd Amendment was a concession to the Southern colonies to get the Southern slaveholders to agree to a constitution and that the amendment's reference to "militia" was that the Southern militias were created to keep the slaves in line and prevent them from revolting. The wealthy plantation owners wanted the right to bear arms to protect against slaves rebelling against them.

Today, we are sickened by the rash of frequent massacres that are the result of mass shootings.  Americans are now debating firearm safety proposals with an individual right to own a gun enshrined in the Constitution. Will new doctrine deflect new laws? Will we all have the right to carry a weapon and stand our ground? Up until now the courts have upheld nearly all gun rules and Judges have found that individuals have a right to a purchase and own a gun, but the counter concern is that our society has a right to protect itself as well from those with guns.  Yet that assumption may be premature. As U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (1941-1954) said, the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, but infallible because it is final. Inevitably the Court will eventually rule again on gun issues. Yet, increasingly, the debate over guns resembles less a contest over crime policy, and more a culture war over what are our core values as a modern civilized society.

Many pro-2A folks have been saying for years that the endgame of gun control activists is to entirely repeal the 2nd Amendment. For years, many extremists have been laboring under the delusion that the government is coming for their guns, and nothing can convince them otherwise. They have been all too eager to take that lie into the mainstream to galvanize any opposition toward sensible gun laws, saying not give them anything.  They will most likely stop at nothing to protect that right because their fears may be proven to be correct.  I fear that if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed at some future date, that action would most likely precipitate another Civil War, given the violently divisive effect guns and their ownership have had on this nation and the polarized and tribal divisions between us.

Once the Supreme Court issued it’s lengthy and dense Heller decision, with all of its linguistic acrobatics, it only took a few simple sentences to preserve the obvious: that guns can be regulated and that the law remains clear that gun control remains legal. The majority Heller decision says, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding" reasonable gun control and expressly allowed "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." All of NRA's contrary claims does not change this.  The Heller court also endorsed as "another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms" the government may prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons." 

Just to be clear, I own multiple firearms and plan to keep them and am against repealing the 2nd Amendment, but agree that it is anachronistic and has been abused for perverted political reasons.  Rather than repealing it, I believe it should be interpreted taking into account the reality of 200 years of progress in armament and firearms and our modern society today.  Our Founding Fathers were wise in many ways but they could not in their wildest dreams for their young country, ever envision a time when the majority of its citizens would be held hostage by a minority of people who prioritize unregulated firearms over the safety of their fellow Americans.

Many here will disagree with me but I believe that gun ownership is a privilege, not a God-given right, and thus subject to regulation by the government.  I believe that ALL rights have limits and are not absolute, and come with their own responsibilities. Everyone is concerned about rights, but few chime in on responsibility. Furthermore, listing a right does not give it precedence over everything else in the Constitution. For example, the right to free speech does not confer unrestricted permission to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The 2nd Amendment is not sacred… it is an amendment, not a commandment. 

For those who advocate change, if enough people agree then they can change the Constitution when the situation warrants.  Yet I do not think that will happen in my lifetime.  Yet at times I think, rather simplistically, why not just amend the 2nd amendment?  One possible approach would be to add some wording like: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be construed to prohibit or inhibit the regulation or manufacture, ownership, registration, training with, and use of firearms, by citizens, the federal or state governments, for the purposes of protecting public safety, preventing crime and protecting public health education and welfare." 

So, in my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment phrase “well regulated”, while as I said in another thread that I am against banning ANY semi-automatic handgun or rifle, I would advocate and be comfortable with the following sensible gun safety regulations if they were ultimately enacted:

1.     Our government, both state and federal, needs to show that any proposed new firearm restrictions would be effective.  Or if they have been tried in the past, i.e. the Assault Weapons Ban, study the honest facts of how effective it was, or not, and learn from those trial and error endeavors and not repeat failed policies and laws.

2.     Make sure that all public agencies and health care providers provide relevant information in a coordinated process to the NICS system so that those who should not be allowed to purchase or possess guns will be correctly identified and denied and dealt with.

3.     Enhance the current background checks to include that one of the required references is a relative.  Someone most intimately aware of the mental state of mind of the person.

4.     Enact a 21 years old minimum age limit to purchase any firearms.  We don't let 18 year-olds drink anymore because it proved a deadly experiment, is a good reason for this.

5.     Establish mandatory minimal gun use and safety training for everyone who decides to exercise their right to purchase a gun, specifically for the type of firearm they plan to purchase.

6.     Establish minimum liability insurance requirements for all gun owners.

7.     BTW, I do not have a problem with limited magazine capacities to 10 rounds.  For the argument of self-defense, I believe that firing 10 rounds or less should be sufficient to neutralize the threat of 1-2 intruders.  I don’t buy the reason in favor of high-capacity magazines being one of providing suppressing fire in the defense of tyranny.  If it gets to the point where auto-like suppressing fire is necessary to stop an intruder(s) or ultimately tyranny here, then we have a much bigger problem to deal with and our guns will not matter.

8.     I am for banning the novelty bump stocks.  Some here reject banning bump stocks because they argue their ideology that banning an inanimate object has no effect on the problem and/or mimics full auto fire which supposedly levels the playing field.  Well, it does have an effect and at least it partially deals with and essentially eliminates that one symptom, in the long path to solving the overall problem which goes beyond the physical tools used in mass shootings.

9.     As some other forum members have speculated, I could possibly see some negotiated compromise that would allow for legalizing CCW national reciprocity in all states, along with requiring standardized training and testing for minimum level of competency, as well as dictating a legal maximum 10 round capacity magazine for those handguns.

I believe that politics is partly the art of compromise to achieve acceptable resolutions towards the ultimate goals by those with opposing views.   I do not have a problem with other people disagreeing with my point of view and appreciate hearing your reasons why, since after all this is a gun discussion forum.  Is there anyone who agrees with some or any of what I am suggesting or am I going to once again be barraged by hateful labels and derogatory name calling....?

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome. AVB suckered half the forum at one point. He is the same Anti Liberal.


Now for the truth and a much simpler explanation.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


That is the preamble. Or purpose of the Second Amendment. It is A Militia not The Militia. It has nothing to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is part of the state. The Second Amendment was meant as a fail safe in case all other checks and balances failed, so that the people could overthrow all tyranny both foreign and domestic.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That is the Right. Very simple.


Like the other first 9 Amendments it is an individual right. It is an absolute right. How do we know this "It shall not be Infringed."


Scalia got it wrong in Heller. There are no limitations. How much more simple is shall not be Infringed?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...