Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Pogo]

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.

Because -- this just in -- contrary to popular belief, guns don't shoot bullets. They shoot Freedoms.
So every time a thug shoots a bank teller or a cop shoots a guy in the back, hey all they're doing is making the lucky recipient more "free". Works in wars too.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

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

Government is a good thing. It enables a group of people to organize labor and resources effectively, mediate conflicts in better and more fair ways than "the one still alive was right after all", and protect themselves from internal and external threats. Do you really want to get rid of all of that just so you won't have to be beholden to any sort of laws or standards of behavior?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Isn't it funny that you openly advocate violating the highest law of the nation, and then dare to suggest that those who want this law to be strictly obeyed are the ones who favor “anarchy”?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

Fuck off, Komrade

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Government is a good thing. It enables a group of people to organize labor and resources effectively, mediate conflicts in better and more fair ways than "the one still alive was right after all", and protect themselves from internal and external threats. Do you really want to get rid of all of that just so you won't have to be beholden to any sort of laws or standards of behavior?

 

[JoeB131]

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

Isn't it funny that you openly advocate violating the highest law of the nation, and then dare to suggest that those who want this law to be strictly obeyed are the ones who favor “anarchy”?

I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".

No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".

No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.

It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such. The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it. And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.

Right. They only restricted certain groups from possessing arms. Jews, for example, homosexuals, Gypsies, and others deemed “undesirable”. In the same way, and for the same reason, that this nation's earliest gun control laws were aimed specifically at blacks; and even to this day, are primarily aimed at those deemed “undesirable” by those who consider themselves to be the ruling elite.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[

Fwanky, Gun Laws in Nazi Germany were more permissive than they are in Germany today, and more liberal than they were under the Wiemar Republic that proceeded it.

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

 

[JoeB131]

It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such. The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it. And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.

Guy, the problem is, it's a matter of interpretation, and for MOST of our history, the Second Amendment was about militias, not firearms.

All it takes is ONE SUPREME COURT judge to flip, and guess what, it's about militias again.

Right. They only restricted certain groups from possessing arms. Jews, for example, homosexuals, Gypsies, and others deemed “undesirable”. In the same way, and for the same reason, that this nation's earliest gun control laws were aimed specifically at blacks; and even to this day, are primarily aimed at those deemed “undesirable” by those who consider themselves to be the ruling elite.

Guy, please don't try to pass yourself off as a civil libertarian, you look silly doing it.

Point was, your average German had guns. The "undesirables" as you say in Germany were less than 1% of the population. So a society with 99% of the population able to own guns, and VERY FEW of them made any attempt to resist the Nazis or overthrow Hitler or stop the holocaust from happening. In fact, the reason why Germany has stricter gun control laws today is some of those Germans took their guns and tried to shoot allied soldiers putting the moves on their Fraulein.

The Allies confiscated most of the guns after that shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.

Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi [JOEB131]wad

There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.

Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.

So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy? Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

Actually the 2nd does NOT stipulate that one must belong to a Militia. That is simply A reason to be armed. English professor already broke the sentence down for dummies, the part about the militia is not a restriction on the main body of the text..

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".

No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.

It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such. The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it. And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.

Nobody is talking about not recognizing the Constitution. We're talking about an amendment, which is the Constitutional way to change the document. We've done it before. It's not exactly a new thing.

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want an amendment? Get Congress to agree then get 37 States to approve, good luck on that.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Basic training is a long ass waiting period. Worse still, if your MOS requires OSUT.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You want an amendment? Get Congress to agree then get 37 States to approve, good luck on that.

An amendment was the entire point of this thread, and is even in the title, so...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?

The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.

In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.

Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy? Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.

I'm going to repeat this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you understand, Corky.

Jews didn't have gun rights in Germany.

But everyone else in Germany did.

Gun ownership amongst GERMANS didn't stop the Nazis. The argument that we's gots to have our guns to prevent tyranny didn't work.

Germans had guns, they still had tyranny.

Does this get through to you? Or are you just going to be dense?