Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Billy_Kinetta]

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

Heller specifically mentions the protected right to use a firearm.

Of course it does. Intended as sarcasm towards danielpalos' idiot ramblings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

Heller specifically mentions the protected right to use a firearm.

Of course it does. Intended as sarcasm towards danielpalos' idiot ramblings.

Roger. Just wanted to be clear.

 

[kaz]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

 

[ChrisL]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

Why do you want to give the government control over our rights??? That is crazy talk.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

Why do you want to give the government control over our rights??? That is crazy talk.

I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.

 

[ChrisL]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

Why do you want to give the government control over our rights??? That is crazy talk.

I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.

That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens! Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities. That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.

 

[ChrisL]

The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.

What if you aren't a teacher? What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something? You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.

What if you aren't a teacher? What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something? You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!

Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.

 

[ChrisL]

The military would be one of many paths under that system. Teachers would be another good example of an occupation based around national service. Obviously our current system is totally incompatible with that one, but I'm not sure it will outlast the last scraps of the general population's civic mindedness. "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" is inherently untenable, especially when almost everyone's doing it.

What if you aren't a teacher? What if you work at a minimum wage paying job or something? You can't set "conditions" to grant rights!

Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.

Nope, you can't do that. THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights. You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them. You don't get to "grant" rights. They are "natural."

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.

Nope, you can't do that. THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights. You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them. You don't get to "grant" rights. They are "natural."

 

[ChrisL]

Then you could join AmeriCorps or work for FEMA or something. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this personally and that I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm saying it's a popular viewpoint in my profession. There is a difference.

Nope, you can't do that. THINK about what it is you are proposing and what it says in the Bill of Rights. You need to understand our rights and why it is important that all citizens are treated equally when it comes to them. You don't get to "grant" rights. They are "natural."

You start a thread about it, but you're "not" proposing it? Yeah sure, okay. Lol.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

 

[danielpalos]

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

Heller specifically mentions the protected right to use a firearm.

That right is already secured in State Conditions. Only well regulated militas of the People are exempt from paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

 

[ChrisL]

I thought you were still referring to the tangent. We have a natural right to shoot guns?

We have a natural right to defend ourselves. Guns are the most effective way to do that. The founders believed that the 2nd amendment was a "God given" right, not to be infringed by any governments. You have to think in the way THEY thought back in those times and read the federalist papers, which give a lot of insight into just what they were thinking.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, our Founding Fathers clearly stated the Intent and Purpose in the first clause. It really is that simple except to the disingenuous right.

 

[kaz]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

Why do you want to give the government control over our rights??? That is crazy talk.

I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.

That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens! Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities. That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.

It's funny how you get all huffy about government intrusion over our bodies, but when it comes to our wallets, government has an open door to take all they want of the money we earned

 

[ChrisL]

Would you accept a compromise where to have free speech you need to register and serve the government if called on?

That sort of thing seems somewhat popular among my peers, actually. Like a Starship Troopers system where civil service confers citizenship and enfranchisement. I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, government employment is just another job. On the other hand, it would ensure that the voter base actually gives a damn about what they're doing every election. Rome's outsourcing of its military and its almost immediate fall does not strike me as coincidence.

Why do you want to give the government control over our rights??? That is crazy talk.

I didn't say I want the government to control our rights. I said it's there's a level of support among my colleagues for restricting certain rights (most importantly franchise) to those who have completed a short term of service to the nation. That can be the military, but it can also be teaching, research, or any occupation that involves sacrifice in the name of civic duty. I didn't say I personally accept that but I see it as one potential solution to the problems it addresses.

That is called "infringing" on our rights as citizens! Some people are also not capable of serving the military in those capacities. That doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have rights.

It's funny how you get all huffy about government intrusion over our bodies, but when it comes to our wallets, government has an open door to take all they want of the money we earned

Quote where I've ever said such a thing please. TYIA.

 

[saveliberty]

A right is always a right. Sometimes a right needs to be protected, which often falls upon the second amendment.