Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Wry Catcher]

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?

How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?

Really, so I can own any "arm" I please? There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own? Who says? Did Scalia issue an executive order?

Personally, I see no reason why not.

When and where did restrictions start?

Why hasn't private ownership, which used to be equally to the government, kept up?
Why are we kept from protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government?(not saying this one is, but things can change)

LOL, taking your last point first, how well did David Koresh do against ATF? Imagine yourself standing up to the US Military with air support.

In response to your first point, would you really be okay with Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold; Seung-Hui Cho; Nidal Malik Hasan; Jared Loughner; James Holmes or Adam Lanza shopping for any of the weapons avialable to our military?

 

[hortysir]

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?

How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?

Really, so I can own any "arm" I please? There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own? Who says? Did Scalia issue an executive order?

Personally, I see no reason why not.

When and where did restrictions start?

Why hasn't private ownership, which used to be equally to the government, kept up?
Why are we kept from protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government?(not saying this one is, but things can change)

LOL, taking your last point first, how well did David Koresh do against ATF? Imagine yourself standing up to the US Military with air support.

In response to your first point, would you really be okay with Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold; Seung-Hui Cho; Nidal Malik Hasan; Jared Loughner; James Holmes or Adam Lanza shopping for any of the weapons avialable to our military?

There will always be extremes.

My first question was a legitimate one, though.
When DID the government start assuring that it's better armed than its citizens?

I mean, that was the original intent of the 2A.....to protect ourselves from our government.
They are supposed to fear us, not the other way around

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

Anyone notice that any time a wrong-winger wants us to “compromise” with regard to the rights that the Second Amendment affirms, that what it really means is that honest, law-abiding citizens only have more obstacles put between them and their ability to exercise these rights, while getting nothing positive in return?

It is long past time for Americans to stop “compromising” with anti-Constitutional scumbags, and to start taking back what is rightfully ourrs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership.

It does not imply any such thing. It flat-out states it, in the strongest and clearest language found anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope, it's to give recognize that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms and to prohibit government from infringing this right.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.

I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

They would certainly have taken those uses as a given. Their purpose in mentioning the need for a militia, I think, was to address what they saw as the most likely reason that government might have for trying to violate this right.

 

[DarkFury]

No

Care to give your reason?

This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[DarkFury]

 

[Auld Phart]

Nope, it's to give recognize that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms and to prohibit government from infringing this right.

Fixed it for you.

Didn't need fixed

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope, it's to give recognize that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms and to prohibit government from infringing this right.

Fixed it for you.

Didn't need fixed

Yes, it did.

As you originally wrote it, your post stated that the second Amendment GIVES us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us anything. What it does, what it was intended to do, is to put in writing, as part of this nation's highest law, the recognition of a right that the great men who founded this country considered all of us to already have, and to protect this right from infringement.

 

[Auld Phart]

Nope, it's to give recognize that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms and to prohibit government from infringing this right.

Fixed it for you.

Didn't need fixed

Yes, it did.

As you originally wrote it, your post stated that the second Amendment GIVES us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us anything. What it does, what it was intended to do, is to put in writing, as part of this nation's highest law, the recognition of a right that the great men who founded this country considered all of us to already have,and to protect this right from infringement.

Go away, little boy....


change someone elses posts

 

[SAYIT]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.

 

[JoeB131]

This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.

Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.

 

[hortysir]

This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.

Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.

Yes, I really am.

It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Counter proposal: To own a firearm, nevermind carry it concealed or not, you must graduate Gunsite Academy or similar level firearms training course. A few rounds into a paper target doesn't cut it. My grandma literally could do that taking her to the range. But I wouldn't trust her with much beyond the .22 she rented.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, I really am.

It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others

It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.

 

[hortysir]

Yes, I really am.

It might be your wet dream to be a ward of your Nanny state but don't project your fantasy on others

It might be your wet dream to hope some day to live in anarchy, but don't project your fantasy on others.

While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny

 

[Rotagilla]

This countries freedom was won by a gun. This country will KEEP it's freedom because of the gun.

Guy, you can cling to your gun and your bible and think you are free, but you are really not.

link?
source?

 

[JoeB131]

While smaller government does not equal anarchy ALL government does equal tyranny

People who make statements like this need help.