Daniels Defense urges customers to support Fix NICS Bill

[Bailey Guns]

Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.

[Irving]

Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.

You're either me, or you're part of the problem. Any questions?

[Joe_K]

Wow...I thought I generally had a black and white view of things.

What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:

1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.

I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DireWolf]

If you are a 2A supporter you know that ALL infringements aka impediments by the State to prohibit, or restrict the private citizens ability to obtain weapons on par with what a current U.S. Military Infantry or Special Operations Squad/Platoon/Company is issued is unconstitutional and illegal by the wording found in the Second Amendment.

If you happen to like Firearms, Target Shooting/Reloading/Hunting/Competition /Collecting/are a Concealed Carry Permit Holder etc, and use the 2A to justify your habit/hobby, you typically could care less about the 2A actually being implemented as intended and are “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, and deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” These folks are fine with the existence of any or all of the following:
The BATFE, the NFA, the GCA of 1968, 1986 FOPA with Hughes Amendment Attached, Gun Free Schools Act of 1990, were probably ok with the AWB of 1994, and currently support the impending legislation to Ban Inanimate Objects of 2018 because reasons.

They are Sunshine Patriots who think illogically that “As long as I follow the laws, and no laws keep me from engaging in my particular hobby/habit associated with Guns then the status quo is ok” They are fence sitters, Fudds, “The Average Gun Owner” and they are in most cases worse for the defense of the U.S. Constitution than the following;

Everyone else? They are either willfully ignorant and “just want to be safe” or “Do it for the Children”
*See the Ben Franklin Quote above*

Or, are calculating and patient enemies of liberty and freedom. True enemies of the people, traitors, conspirators, or enablers of the same.

Political Action Groups: Moms Demand Action, Every Town USA, ANTIFA etc.
The Media: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NYT, WAPO, the Denver Post etc.
Politicians: Bloomberg, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Ginsberg, Hickenlooper, DeGette, Bennet etc.
Neighbors and Family: The Subaru Driving Latte Sipping Boulderite, Your Aunt Beatrice in Long Island, The Guy at the gym who never re racks his weights, your Sister in Law Emily etc.

What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:

1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.

I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^100% spot-on.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Bailey Guns]

What categories did I miss when it comes to the 2A. Either a person is:

1. A Constitutional Absolutist when it comes to the 2A.
1a. Begrudgingly accept current restrictions only to avoid going to prison, (I’m in this category currently).
2. Use the 2A to advance their gun habit and or hobby and are in favor of some “reasonable restrictions”.
3. Are an enemy of the 2A out of;
3a. A desire to be or feel safe, or,
3b. Because they are a traitor to the very principles on which this Republic was founded.

I guess #4. Would be people who just don’t care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is substantially different than your first post. It may have been your intent in the first post but it's not what you wrote.

I'm likely a combination of 1, 1a and 2 (probably to a very slight degree here) on your list. I think the 2A means exactly what it says. I also understand rights are not absolute, even though they may be close to that. I comply with most restrictions to stay out of trouble, more for my family's protection than mine. On the other hand, I do believe there are some people that should be prohibited from owning guns. If Charles Manson had been released a few decades ago I don't think he should've been able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Same with the average MS-13 member. I'm OK with restrictions on some people. What I have trouble with is identifying those people. With the Manson/MS-13 types, it's often pretty easy. But with the guy that appears to be living a normal life but is a mental wreck on the inside who buys a gun(s) knowing he's going to do harm with it...how do you stop that guy without infringing on my rights or yours? I wish I had the answer and as long as I've tried to figure it out, looking at things from all sides, the best I can come up with is, it just can't be stopped within the framework of what our Constitution says. And I think that's where we get into trouble...people want an answer even when the only answer is not what they want to hear. That's why we hear "we have to do SOMETHING" so often. Most people don't know what "something" will actually work.

One of the perils of a free and open society is living with a certain degree of risk in order to keep freedoms intact. But I can see how a person who's lost a child in a school shooting or to some other violence will see things differently than I do, whether their viewpoint is grounded in the Constitution or not.

I generally don't agree with background checks. However... As an example of a restriction I'd agree to, here's one: I'd be willing to submit to a one-time national background check in exchange for being able to walk into a gun store in any state and buy whatever gun I wanted (or buy privately). You could get a code printed on your DL that says you're good to go to the seller. The FFL could have a simplified "4473" that he keeps on premises...name, DL, gun make/model/SN. The only time big brother gets involved is when a gun is recovered at a crime scene it could still be tracked. If I fuck up and do something to put me into a prohibited category of person then my DL is flagged and reissued without my "gun buyer" code. Obviously, the bureaucrats administering the program would have to be on top of things and not drop the ball with record keeping and such like we've seen so many times recently. And of course, everything would be subject to due process. If I did screw up, then my number is temporarily suspended pending due process. Once that's complete it's either restored or revoked.

[Bailey Guns]

I meant to add:

My "gun buyer" DL would also serve as my nationwide carry permit.

[brutal]

Shame he would take the original stance initially, that being said, the DD rifle I had wasn't very reliable, albeit a very nice rifle otherwise.

Hey! You sold that to me!



J/K. It was just a 300BLK upper, and it's been great...

[Shooter45]

No more infringements on the 2nd Amendment. It is clearly written and expressed. It is a "right" not a privilege.

[Joe_K]

This is substantially different than your first post. It may have been your intent in the first post but it's not what you wrote.

I'm likely a combination of 1, 1a and 2 (probably to a very slight degree here) on your list. I think the 2A means exactly what it says. I also understand rights are not absolute, even though they may be close to that. I comply with most restrictions to stay out of trouble, more for my family's protection than mine. On the other hand, I do believe there are some people that should be prohibited from owning guns. If Charles Manson had been released a few decades ago I don't think he should've been able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. Same with the average MS-13 member. I'm OK with restrictions on some people. What I have trouble with is identifying those people. With the Manson/MS-13 types, it's often pretty easy. But with the guy that appears to be living a normal life but is a mental wreck on the inside who buys a gun(s) knowing he's going to do harm with it...how do you stop that guy without infringing on my rights or yours? I wish I had the answer and as long as I've tried to figure it out, looking at things from all sides, the best I can come up with is, it just can't be stopped within the framework of what our Constitution says. And I think that's where we get into trouble...people want an answer even when the only answer is not what they want to hear. That's why we hear "we have to do SOMETHING" so often. Most people don't know what "something" will actually work.

One of the perils of a free and open society is living with a certain degree of risk in order to keep freedoms intact. But I can see how a person who's lost a child in a school shooting or to some other violence will see things differently than I do, whether their viewpoint is grounded in the Constitution or not.

I generally don't agree with background checks. However... As an example of a restriction I'd agree to, here's one: I'd be willing to submit to a one-time national background check in exchange for being able to walk into a gun store in any state and buy whatever gun I wanted (or buy privately). You could get a code printed on your DL that says you're good to go to the seller. The FFL could have a simplified "4473" that he keeps on premises...name, DL, gun make/model/SN. The only time big brother gets involved is when a gun is recovered at a crime scene it could still be tracked. If I fuck up and do something to put me into a prohibited category of person then my DL is flagged and reissued without my "gun buyer" code. Obviously, the bureaucrats administering the program would have to be on top of things and not drop the ball with record keeping and such like we've seen so many times recently. And of course, everything would be subject to due process. If I did screw up, then my number is temporarily suspended pending due process. Once that's complete it's either restored or revoked.

Of course Charles Manson shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. He also shouldn’t have been able to kill people, or live as long as he did, or break laws. If someone is so untrustworthy they shouldn’t be able to purchase property and own it, then maybe we should just execute them and be done with it. The .gov doesn’t want someone to own a gun? Fine then the .gov shouldn’t give them one or sell them one.

We could have the best background check system in the world and it still would do nothing to prevent the private transfer of firearms between two consenting adults. And even with that impossible to obtain best background check system in place we would still have gaps and we would still have people that could pass every single test given to them and still do evil horrible things.

If you commit a crime, found guilty, and sentenced, serve your sentence and are eventually released then you should have your rights restored. People will invariably say “Gasp you want to arm child molesters, rapists, pants, drug dealers, and gang members?” No I want them Executed, or exiled. For everyone else rehabilitation and given a second chance.

My original post excluded people who begrudgingly comply, I figured that was a given, as well as those who do not care because they are unimportant to the larger topic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bailey Guns]

Well, I gave you examples, that you apparently agree with, of how some restrictions on the 2A are acceptable.

Obviously if some people "can't be trusted with property" were not going to execute them and it's ridiculous to suggest that. There may be other reasons they can't be trusted that are non-violent...such as physical or mental limitations.

It also sounds like you're willing to compromise on other parts of the Constitution considering how many people you want to eliminate.