Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.

Yup, all the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our fine Republic.

I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.

what a coincidence, then, neither can you: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.

Yup, all the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our fine Republic.

I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.

what a coincidence, then, neither can you: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, all the people.

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

"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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.

The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.

Yeah, I'll jump right in my time machine and go back and tell the Founding Fathers that the word "people" is just too murky and ambiguous, and the great literary genius, Pedro, who knows SOOO much more about framing laws than they do, has mapped out the linguistic pretzel they need to twist themselves into to keep him and his dipshit gun-grabbing brethren from being able to beat the dead horse of pretending the Second Amendment says something it doesn't ad nauseam. Maybe I should also instruct them to draw a frigging picture for you, as well.

The problem with this Amendment is two-fold: One, leftists are public-school-educated droolers who are functionally illiterate and couldn't diagram a sentence if their lives depended on it, let alone comprehend what the parts of the sentence do; and two, leftists are such dogmatic hacks, it wouldn't matter if they COULD understand what the Second Amendment says, because they don't WANT it to say that, and they are therefore determined to insist otherwise, in the face of all evidence, until they get their way.

You need only witness the dumbfuck OP demanding that we "compromise" - by which he means, "give him what he wants" - without ever considering giving us a reason why we SHOULD compromise, to see the truth of this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure what you mean; rights in private property, which includes the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.

Yeah, it's also secured many other places, in many other ways. Thank God for redundancy with disingenuous fucknuts like you desperately trying to steal people's rights for your warm fuzzies.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

"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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.

The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.

Yeah, I'll jump right in my time machine and go back and tell the Founding Fathers that the word "people" is just too murky and ambiguous, and the great literary genius, Pedro, who knows SOOO much more about framing laws than they do, has mapped out the linguistic pretzel they need to twist themselves into to keep him and his dipshit gun-grabbing brethren from being able to beat the dead horse of pretending the Second Amendment says something it doesn't ad nauseam. Maybe I should also instruct them to draw a frigging picture for you, as well.

The problem with this Amendment is two-fold: One, leftists are public-school-educated droolers who are functionally illiterate and couldn't diagram a sentence if their lives depended on it, let alone comprehend what the parts of the sentence do; and two, leftists are such dogmatic hacks, it wouldn't matter if they COULD understand what the Second Amendment says, because they don't WANT it to say that, and they are therefore determined to insist otherwise, in the face of all evidence, until they get their way.

You need only witness the dumbfuck OP demanding that we "compromise" - by which he means, "give him what he wants" - without ever considering giving us a reason why we SHOULD compromise, to see the truth of this.

Okay. Let's start from scratch. You think that I'm trying to take your guns?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm. The requirements would be minimal and not much different than for buying the weapon itself. You can't have a felonious background or a history of violent mental instability. You have to be at least theoretically capable of defending your state if called upon to do so. Membership would entail regular training in safety, marksmanship, and practical drills such as for an active shooter situation. You benefit by the gun control side being rendered obsolete. The community benefits from the guarantee that the woman trying to play hero when someone starts randomly killing people has trained for that situation and probably won't hit a bystander. The only person who loses in that situation is the murderer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.

Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." You're not losing your guns from that. You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes. I think my example of an active shooter situation works well. Let's use it here. You're at the bank when someone walks in and starts murdering people. You have your firearm on you. As it stands, I have no reason to believe you could do much good with it. You might even hit a bystander for all I know. If training for that sort of situation were a requirement, then I would know by the fact that you have it on you that there's a good chance you can hit him without missing and shooting me. I could have some measure of trust in your abilities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically what I'm proposing is that enlistment in your local SDF be made part of the process for buying or owning a firearm.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
I therefore do not accept your proposed compromise because I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my rights.

Which is why an argument over the meaning broke out. The proposal entailed an amendment to clarify that.

The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.

You're gaining permanent victory over those who would remove the right altogether and your community is gaining a guarantee that you'll be capable of using your guns safely for lawful purposes.

No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.

Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.

If that were truly the case then almost everything in this thread would not have been posted...

No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.

Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.

I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89. What would be the point of that, though? If this issue were clarified and your right were laid out in plain, unmistakable wording then there would be no way they could attack it using the text.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The meaning of the amendment has been clear for sometime now -- there's no need for your suggestion in order to clarity it.

If that were truly the case then almost everything in this thread would not have been posted...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You do understand that this is not an opinion, it is settled law -- right?

I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89....

Let me put it another way:
Nothing in your proposal prevents those who want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding from doing so.
Thus, I receive nothing in exchange for something; you offer not compromise, but capitulation..

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

which ignorance is that, dears: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Yup, every one of us.

why do you believe you are a well regulated militia of the People instead of a non-well regulated militia of the People; have you been mustering to become necessary to the security of a free State?

I don't need to be a well regulated militia to exercise my right. Or a militia at all.

Militias are groovy, that's why my right to bear arms must not be infringed.

Which right is that? acquiring and possessing Arms is not the same nor equivalent to keeping and bearing Arms for a State or the Union, but for a fraction of the law.

The individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No one honestly believes that agreeing to your proposal will prevent further erosion of the right to arms - and so, I receive nothing in return for giving up part of my right.

Your compromise fails because it offers us nothing in return for something.

I could drive to the gas station right now and tell them that I honestly don't believe they'll give me a gallon of gas in exchange for $2.89. What would be the point of that, though? If this issue were clarified and your right were laid out in plain, unmistakable wording then there would be no way they could attack it using the text.

There's a cliché about insanity being defined as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

I have no idea how many times I have bought gas. Surely hundreds, and least, likely thousands. I honestly cannot attest,without any doubt, to the fact that I received exactly as much gasoline as I paid for, based on the claimed sale price, but I can attest that there's never been a big enough discrepancy to catch my notice. Every time, without fail, I've left with a full tank of gasoline, having been charged about the amount I expected. There has never been a failure for this expectation to be met, that I would receive at least approximately the amount of gasoline for which I was paying.

Based on past experience, and in accordance with the cliché, I would have to say that it would qualify as insanity to go to a gas station, and expect to be defrauded in the manner that you describe.

You gungrabbing scumbags have a somewhat less reputable history. Countless times, you've demanded certain new blatantly-unconstitutional restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms, and have promised that certain further violations were not forthcoming, only to go on to demand those further violations. For anyone now to believe anyone on your side, when you claim that you'll be satisfied with any particular new violation of our rights, and not push for more, would be insanity.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How exactly am I trying to grab your guns by amending the amendment to clearly and incontrovertibly state your right to own them?

You're not fooling anyone.

The Constitution already does that.