Quote Originally Posted by MOLON LABE View Post
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.