National The 2nd Amendment Is Clear.

[mhayd93]

"Then you don't actually support the 2nd!
Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? Have you actually Read the Fed. Papers?
The answers you seek can all be found within those founding document's, I recommend reading them, might be enlightening!"

I don't think insulting and badgering fellow gun enthusiasts is in any way helpful. Live in a fantasy world of zero firearm regulation if you choose, but all you're doing is "fiddling while Rome burns". May 24th was a tipping point, as much - or more - than that Harvey Weinstein business or the televised killing of George Floyd. "Reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage" is going to happen. If you personally don't agree with it, fine. But it absolutely without question is coming. Luckily it won't be much, only what Washingtonians are in fact already living with. Probably less.
I am 67 years old, a lifelong avid gun owner, shooter, reloader, former C&R license holder, CPL holder, had a table at the WAC show a couple of weekends ago, and I don't have a problem in the world with the minimum age to purchase ANY kind of semiauto ANYTHING being 21 years old. In view of the events of the past few weeks, I actually think it's a damn good idea. Does that basically make me a non-supporter of the 2nd in your view? If so, maybe I should just take up knitting.

Yes, you are a non-supporter of the 2A. Especially since you've fallen into the gun-grabber panic-trap of semi-autos being so scary!

Also, haven't most mass shooters been over the age of 21? Who gets to determine the arbitrary age at which a US citizen is entitled to all of their rights? There are many 10 year olds in this country who I would trust with an AR-15 in their hands more than plenty of adults.

 

[esbshaw]

Then following your logic, you must be spending every bit of your time, energy (and money!) working to repeal the 1968 GCA, right? An FFL licensee can't sell a handgun to someone under 21??? Who gets to determine the arbitrary age at which a US citizen is entitled to all of their rights? Worse (?) than that, it went as far as: "banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns." Have you fallen into the gun-grabber panic-trap of mail order firearm sales being so scary??? You're just going to sit there and let this stuff continue? You must not be a supporter of the 2A. If you are not working night and day to end the tyranny of the 1968 GCA, and the 1934 NFA for that matter, then you are definitely a non-supporter of the 2nd!

 

[Xaevian]

I'd throw more gas on the fire, but the price of gas is pretty ridiculous right now...

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

 

[American123]

Then following your logic, you must be spending every bit of your time, energy (and money!) working to repeal the 1968 GCA, right? An FFL licensee can't sell a handgun to someone under 21??? Who gets to determine the arbitrary age at which a US citizen is entitled to all of their rights? Worse (?) than that, it went as far as: "banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns." Have you fallen into the gun-grabber panic-trap of mail order firearm sales being so scary??? You're just going to sit there and let this stuff continue? You must not be a supporter of the 2A. If you are not working night and day to end the tyranny of the 1968 GCA, and the 1934 NFA for that matter, then you are definitely a non-supporter of the 2nd!

Your diatribe reads as: "There are already infringements on the second amendment compared to the intention as written by the founding fathers, therefore we should add some more, because there are already infringements."

 

[esbshaw]

Actually, my diatribe reads as: This "You're not a 2A supporter because you don't have the same high ideals and virtuous motivations that I do" nonsense is getting us nowhere, fast. Pretending that nothing should (or will) change is simply: fiddling while Rome burns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or just insert your favorite platitude here.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Actually, my diatribe reads as: This "You're not a 2A supporter because you don't have the same high ideals and virtuous motivations that I do" nonsense is getting us nowhere, fast. Pretending that nothing should (or will) change is simply: fiddling while Rome burns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or just insert your favorite platitude here.

Along those lines . . . there are a bunch of FB posts about how there were fewer mass shootings during the AWB period of the "It's A Crime, Bill" but because we all know that no assault weapons (sic) were actually banned, maybe we should look at what else was going on during that time frame that may have had an impact on people's decisions to shoot a bunch of people and see if there is a option for recreating whatever that was

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[arakboss]

Actually, my diatribe reads as: This "You're not a 2A supporter because you don't have the same high ideals and virtuous motivations that I do" nonsense is getting us nowhere, fast. Pretending that nothing should (or will) change is simply: fiddling while Rome burns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or just insert your favorite platitude here.

You don't have to be a supporter of the 2A to want some firearm freedoms and prohibit others. You appear to be in the camp that approves of limits on our firearm freedoms. That is fine and we can still work together to protect what freedoms you approve of but the 2A did not provide for exceptions to our firearm freedoms. You can believe yourself to be a 2A supporter and it is fair for others to disagree with that.

 

[American123]

Actually, my diatribe reads as: This "You're not a 2A supporter because you don't have the same high ideals and virtuous motivations that I do" nonsense is getting us nowhere, fast. Pretending that nothing should (or will) change is simply: fiddling while Rome burns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or just insert your favorite platitude here.

Compromise is getting gun rights further restricted. Pretending that voting for or supporting infringements in any way helps protect gun rights is laughable.

There are video interviews going back decades of politicians expressing a desire to ban all guns from American civilian hands. That end goal has not changed, and they have managed to "win" some ground with people compromising on the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Your arbitrary desired rule is that those under 21 can't own semi auto's. Someone else's arbitrary rule is that muskets are the only gun people are allowed to own. Someone else's arbitrary rule is that the constitution is an outdated document not relevant to our modern society and the government should not be restricted by it.

A problem with people who find it "a good idea" to reduce the rights of Americans is that they seemingly never think beyond their initial thought to where that road would lead.

 

[titsonritz]

Well America if full of white knight, beta, feminine, cu-k males who have no backbone and would rather bow to a leader than stand opposed on their own two feet. Times have been good for too long and now we are seeing what has been produced. Weakness.

Yep.

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

And here it is, upon us.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Compromise is getting gun rights further restricted.

The pro 2A side has never compromised, they have either stood back dramatically clutching their pearls or stood shoulder to shoulder with the banners like Reagan did in CA back in '67

ETA: By 2A side I don't mean people like us, I mean people in the .gov or in a position to effect laws

 

[Xaevian]

The pro 2A side has never compromised, they have either stood back dramatically clutching their pearls or stood shoulder to shoulder with the banners like Reagan did in CA back in '67

ETA: By 2A side I don't mean people like us, I mean people in the .gov or in a position to effect laws

 

[Xaevian]

FIFY

 

[American123]

The pro 2A side has never compromised, they have either stood back dramatically clutching their pearls or stood shoulder to shoulder with the banners like Reagan did in CA back in '67

ETA: By 2A side I don't mean people like us, I mean people in the .gov or in a position to effect laws

Then you can't call them "pro second amendment" can you.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Then you can't call them "pro second amendment" can you.

Probably not, but that's what they call themselves when they have their hands out asking for campaign contributions and votes

 

[bolus]

When I hear that 2A was only for a well regulated militia, my questions are

1. Why is the formation of a militia in the bill of rights when the constitution already allows for a formation of an army?
2. If 2A is for just a militia, why does it say there should be no infringement on arming the militia? Was there a problem with unarmed militias?

Has anyone ever heard a good response for this? No one who believes the 2A is just for "well regulated militia" has given me an answer.



Side note, Federalist paper 46, Authored by Madison who wrote 2A said

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,"

I thought it was a good quote

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 41-50

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

 

[American123]

When I hear that 2A was only for a well regulated militia, my questions are

1. Why is the formation of a militia in the bill of rights when the constitution already allows for a formation of an army?
2. If 2A is for just a militia, why does it say there should be no infringement on arming the militia? Was there a problem with unarmed militias?

Has anyone ever heard a good response for this? No one who believes the 2A is just for "well regulated militia" has given me an answer.



Side note, Federalist paper 46, Authored by Madison who wrote 2A said

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,"

I thought it was a good quote

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 41-50

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

Also, regulated means/meant in that context, "in good working order and reliable order/consistency." It did not mean - "subject to many laws."

 

[Camelfilter]

...I am 67 years old...

I'm not comfortable with you driving, given your age. Have you turned in your drivers license?

 

[esbshaw]

"Compromise is getting gun rights further restricted. Pretending that voting for or supporting infringements in any way helps protect gun rights is laughable."

Well, to be honest, it's not really a matter of "voting for or supporting infringements in any way" since we're not talking about some sort of ballot initiative like I-594 or I-1639 that we actually get to vote on. Or "support".
Legislation on the Federal level will be passed into law. No matter how in the hell you or I feel about it. To think otherwise is just denying reality. Speaking about the May 24th Uvalde school shooting: Is there anyone here that thinks this will just be swept under the rug? That it'll just blow over in a month or two? That we can just hem and haw and stall for awhile until people forget about it? No. Some new restrictions are a certainty. If you think otherwise then you need to get out more. You can think that your "refusing to compromise" will somehow forestall the inevitable, but it won't. There is absolutely nothing that is going to put this genie back into the bottle. The good news is that this pending legislation will have no real effect on anyone currently living in Washington. Nothing that gets passed on a national level will be worse or more restrictive than what we're already living under. My "arbitrary desired rule is that those under 21 can't own semi auto's" is not quite factual, but if that's the worst thing that happens: C'est la vie.