What are you prepared to do?

[LoneLaugher]

The door to door gun confiscation that the NRA cultists have told you to fear will never happen.

This is what it looks like when the govt has gun registration and decides to confiscate. Anything CLOSE to this type of threat would not succeed here in the USA..

This is your LAST CHANCE??? Hell no it is not.....

They passed a law there. If we pass such a law here, you will make your decision to obey it or not obey it. Are you concerned that the American people will decide to pass such a law here? I’m not.

 

[rightwinger]

30,000 die as a result of firearms.

They do not keep us safe

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

 

[rightwinger]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

 

[Kondor3]

you'll wish you HAD come to the negotiating table while there was still time.

But that's your choice... just remember it when you're out of power and at the mercy of your Opposition for the crafting and enforcement of law.

Myopic, arrogant, unimaginative dullards.

Mentioning "negotiating table" and being "at the mercy of your Opposition" and in the same breath calling the people on the other side of the negotiating table "Myopic, arrogant, unimaginative dullards."

Gee, I wonder how those negotiations will go...

They will go far better now than they will the next time you lose political power.

In ancient times - Roman times - a general of the Legions would oftentimes accept the surrender of a city before a siege truly got underway.

However, once "The ram has touched the wall", the time for negotiation was over.

At the moment, the siege is only beginning; plenty of time to negotiate terms that preserve the best of the past, yielding 70 or 80 percent of what you want.

Let it go until you lose political power, however, and it will be too late; the ram will have touched the walls.

...OK. So let's play this out. Your side wins. We myopic, arrogant, unimaginative dullards won't give up our rights and the enlightened proletariat seizes control of the collective...

Yep. The Republicans lose the White House, the Senate, and the House, before the GOP has a chance to stack the Supreme Court with a surplus of Conservatives.

...What's the next step? How far are you going to go to disarm the myopic, arrogant, unimaginative dullards?

If serious work is undertaken while you still hold political power...

The next step is the passage of Federal law which establishes nationwide standards for firearms ownership, licensing, registration, vetting, transaction approvals, etc.

Should such Federal law end-up passing the Constitutional "sniff test" at the SCOTUS level - and it will - then such reformed nationwide Gun Control is in force.

You will be obliged to undergo nationally-standardized vetting, licensure, registration, transaction approval, training, etc., like every other firearms-owning citizen in the US.

You will keep your guns - there will be no need to disarm you - that would run contrary to the US Constitution and would not meet with the approval of most Americans.

You will, however, be obliged to obey such Federal law, and, if you do not, you will be subject to normal Law Enforcement sanctions, as with any other illegal behavior.

That gets you 70 or 80% of what you want - preserving the best of the past, at the cost of new and enforced accountability.

That's if you come to your senses sometime soon, while you are still in a position of political power.

------------------

But, let another two or three massacres of schoolchildren occur, while the phukking NRA and its minions make excuses and continue to resist sane and equitable Control...

Then, when the Political Magnetic Poles flip again - and they always do - then 'the ram will have touched the walls' - the Other Side will remember, and it will be too late...

At that point, you run a much higher risk of a complete ban...

That, or - more likely - you run the risk of Reform that is far more limiting, and gives you only 10 or 20 or 30% of what you could have had, had you possessed better vision.

At that point, the same Law Enforcement mechanisms set to work, to enforce the Law of the Land, as they always have done, and as they always will do.

And, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and great laughter on the part of your Opponents, you will, indeed, submit to the laws of the United States.

Guaranteed.

But it is the fate of unimaginative, short-sighted dullards, not to see the wisdom of bilateral resolution of such Major Issues, until an unfavorable unilateral one is imposed.

Damned shame, that... truly... but... what-the-Hell.... your choice.

 

[Humorme]

30,000 die as a result of firearms.

They do not keep us safe

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

 

[Likkmee]

and what,may i ask, would trigger such an event?

~S~

A real doooozie of a false flag, which I'm quite sure is already scripted, The recent FL funfest showed them what to expect from the young brainwashed sheep.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

Clearly no thought was put into this post – ‘real’ or otherwise.

No one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

No one wants to take anyone’s guns, no one is going to take anyone’s guns.

This is nothing more than delusional rightwing paranoia.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

 

[Likkmee]

One of the most enduring fantasies her at USMB is the one that supposed "patriots" have regarding how they will violently overthrow the government and install a right wing theocracy.

violently overthrow the government

You really are a stupid twit. When the government over reaches, it isn't overthrowing the tyranny but putting it back where it belongs. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government .".
When government fears the people, there is liberty ...
www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-fears-people-there-libertyquotation

When the government overreaches, I'll be there with ya.

You're late meathead. That was in 2001.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What are you as supporters of the 2nd Amendment prepared to do?

Ask yourself if you are really ready to risk all you have.

If not then you have two options:

1. Support those who are.
2. Make a plan to resist and still stay out of trouble.

There are groups you can join and/or support. Groups like your state militia, like Oathkeepers (not to be confused with Promise Keepers), and the 3 Percenters. Your state may have others. There is also the NRA and the NGOA.

Together is the only way to win this.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

To support the Second Amendment one must also support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, which holds that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to place restrictions on the sales and possession of firearms, and that the Second Amendment right is not a right to possess any type of weapon, at any time, everywhere.

If one doesn’t support this settled, accepted fact of Second Amendment case law, then he is not a ‘supporter’ of the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

Nonsense.

Although unwarranted, registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional and not a ‘prelude’ to ‘confiscation,’ to believe otherwise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

The Supreme Court alone determines the intent of the Second Amendment – no one is ‘denying’ anything.

The intent of the Second Amendment is to codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a lawfully and Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of a majority of the American people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment; the Second Amendment does not grant to any person or persons the authority to abridge the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

 

[rightwinger]

30,000 die as a result of firearms.

They do not keep us safe

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

Nope

The government has every right to limit access to firearms
Even Heller affirmed it

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

30,000 die as a result of firearms.

They do not keep us safe

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

Wrong.

The Heller Court addressed Cruikshank and later Second Amendment precedent and determined that the Heller ruling was consistent with that case law:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

The Supreme Court alone determines the intent of the Second Amendment – no one is ‘denying’ anything.

The intent of the Second Amendment is to codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a lawfully and Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of a majority of the American people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment; the Second Amendment does not grant to any person or persons the authority to abridge the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

You'll have to do a lot less typing if you just say "the 2nd amendment is intended to protect American citizens against a tyrannical government"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

 

[Likkmee]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

Clearly no thought was put into this post – ‘real’ or otherwise.

No one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

No one wants to take anyone’s guns, no one is going to take anyone’s guns.

This is nothing more than delusional rightwing paranoia.

You of German bloodline perhaps ? Perhaps a Uke/Lock ? That attitude sure worked out well for them eh ?