You’re welcome. We’re defending your rights as well.
2 Likes
“We” already do have a say.
I’m asking you if we should remove all restrictions? Like criminal background or mental health?
Jezcoe
246
How about regulations on barrel length?
That’s 100% correct. This is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment so does it stand to reason that there was the intent to have the people as well armed as the standing army so they stood a chance? I don’t know of anyone aside from a few like Musk that could afford a tank or attack helicopter but surely, we should be afforded the same weaponry as the Afghanistan people that fought our Army to a draw over 20 years? I don’t want one person being able to create havoc on his own with our government but surely, if several million of us are angry enough to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, we should be able to go toe to to with the Federal government, no? I see no exceptions in the 2nd Amendment and I see that it was accepted that private citizens owned cannons and war ships back in the 1700’s. Why would it be different today?
2 Likes
Again, accepted but not Constitutional.
2 Likes
Yes, background checks should be removed. As far as felons we release from prison not being allowed to own guns, I would suggest that if they can’t be treated with firearms, what the hell are we doing releasing them from prison? Mental health issues, due process. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can’t be trusted with firearms, they also cannot be trusted with freedom as there isn’t a single piece of paper in the world that will stop a mental case from getting a gun and causing havoc. If you don’t think it’s serious enough to lock them up in a mental care facility, then you have no business removing any of their other rights.
If someone is too violent or insane to be in society, they need to be removed from society. Otherwise, they have rights whether you like it or not.
2 Likes
What kind of gun did you buy and I hope you went out and got some good training!
Seriously, I’m so adamant in owning firearms because it’s a great equalizer and it keeps the feds in check without having to fire a round. I’ve probably trained 50 different people over the past 10 years for free. I regularly take people to my property to train. I may seem like a fanatic but a law abiding citizen owning a fully automatic weapon isn’t a threat to anyone. I too would like to see criminals disarmed but the only way to do that is to put them in prison and keep them there. The second they get out, they will simply ignore every single law regarding firearms and continue their violent ways. Making the law abiding citizen prove he’s not a threat before “allowing” him his Constitutional right is just wrong.
Jezcoe
252
That is some high fantasy going on right there.
WuWei
254
Unconstitutional restrictions. We gave at the office.
2 Likes
We have common ground here
1 Like
Going toe to toe with our government 
This isn’t 1789. If our government wanted to they could wipe all of us off this planet with just a few codes.
1 Like
WuWei
257
Infringements. Your ilk wouldn’t stop.
Is it? Paint a picture for you. Government decides we’re on lock down for the next 12 months and you’re not allowed to leave your house for anything but food and water and only on X days because Covid makes a resurgence. Would you tolerate it? Would you do what you’re told or would you push back? Fast forward 100 years and let government continue at the pace it’s been going at and all of the sudden, you’re paying 80% of your wages in taxes. Do you push back as a society? What if elections are rigged and we no longer have a voice in our government? Do you push back? The fact of the matter is that NONE of those things will happen while we have an armed population but what if the government doesn’t fear the scenario laid out in Federalist 46? (That’s exactly where I pulled my “high fantasy” from.)
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.
Yeah, because Afghanistan didn’t fight us to a draw over 20 years. Do you think we would have more resolve to kill Americans?
1 Like
