Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[American123]

There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

Amen to that, brother. Just try saying something along the lines of: "Well, since the general consensus seems to be that 18 year olds are too damn untrustworthy and stupid to be allowed to buy a case of tequila, and since there have just been two ghastly and horrific homicidal rampages by 18 year olds yielding AR15s, maybe - just maybe - they might be too damn untrustworthy and stupid to allow to buy AR15s either. Screw 'em, let them wait. Hell, that way they can stop and buy an AR15 on their way home from the liquor store when they DO finally get to buy their case of tequila. Sorry a few bad apples have to spoil it for everybody. And before all the crocodile tears start flowing for those poor abused 18 year olds that have to go fight wars and aren't even allowed to go into a casino...er, I mean, aren't allowed to buy a magazine fed semi auto rifle- I was active duty military when I was 18 years old. So spare me the speeches about the injustice of it all." You will immediately be met with a chorus of: "You are a fudd! You don't understand or support the second amendment! I will now proceed to lecture you as though you were my intellectual inferior... which you clearly are!" And you just sit there and think: "Ahhh, another intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking exchange of ideas on Northwest Firearms".

Let me attempt to articulate an opposing view in a manner you may appreciate, without calling you a Fudd.

Your viewpoint suggests that the actions of a few evil people are sufficient to destroy the rights of millions of Americans now, and those of countless Americans into the future who have not, and will not commit immoral violence with firearms from the ages of 18-21.

Your viewpoint suggests that stripping the rights of Americans is justified because a few of that age group have willfully broken many laws and that passing more laws will somehow stop people who have already willfully broken the most egregious, not to murder.

Your viewpoint suggests that the arbitrary 21 age limit rule would have stopped these terrible events when there isn't really any credible evidence they would. Whose to say people who decide to commit these terrible acts would not have done so simply 3 years later, or simply stolen it from a family member, or friend, to do so.

Your viewpoint suggests that people over 21 are not responsible for these evil acts as well and yet there have been instances where they have.

I don't find those viewpoints reasonable and when it comes to losing freedoms that future Americans who aren't even alive today are going to be subject to in the future, I believe those thoughts require far more contemplation.

 

[esbshaw]

No, I'm on a forum that you think revolves around YOUR idea of embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities.

 

[American123]

No, I'm on a forum that you think revolves around YOUR idea of embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities.

I don't feel your age group should be able to own semi autos. I feel we'd all be a lot safer if they didn't. If I get enough of my pals to vote so that we beat your age group in an election we can say you don't get to own them and TS to you.

This is exactly why some rights are enumerated in the constitution because the founders quite well understood the notion of the tyranny of the masses.

 

[Koda]

You are on a forum that revolves around embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities. What do you expect people to say if you come here advocating for infringements on a right that says "shall not be infringed"?

Obviously your opinion is welcome here, but it's foolish to think that you will find any sympathizers; speaking for me personally, I see "engaging in intellectual discourse" (with restriction-supporters) as offering a foothold to people who are ultimately going to be responsible for the thousandth cut to the 2nd Amendment.

If, for example, I were to join an abortion forum whose goal was to seek full abortion rights, why would I expect these (hypothetical) members to care much for my opinions if I started openly supporting abortion-restrictions?

I personally think the intellectual discourse is beneficial. There are many positions that people who otherwise will support "compromises" and infringments have not really considered and its not like they are gonna get it from the media. I think anyone brave enough to throw themselves into the lions den (so to speak) is open enough to listen and consider even if it doesn't feel that way at the moment they have something to think about.

 

[mhayd93]

No, I'm on a forum that you think revolves around YOUR idea of embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities.

From Rule #2:

"We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment."

You can't support something while also tearing it down.

 

[mhayd93]

I personally think the intellectual discourse is beneficial. There are many positions that people who otherwise will support "compromises" and infringments have not really considered and its not like they are gonna get it from the media. I think anyone brave enough to throw themselves into the lions den (so to speak) is open enough to listen and consider even if it doesn't feel that way at the moment they have something to think about.

Very true, I just find myself becoming increasingly cynical, especially since the latest mass-shootings seem to have tilted "fence-sitting" or "2A-for-hunting" gun-owners into the anti-2A camp.

 

[esbshaw]

Yep, that's the way it works. And if it was ruled constitutional, it would indeed be TS for me!

 

[Koda]

Very true, I just find myself becoming increasingly cynical, especially since the latest mass-shootings seem to have tilted "fence-sitting" or "2A-for-hunting" gun-owners into the anti-2A camp.

I admit its more frustrating than not discussing this with fence-sitters but it keeps my reasons sharp, so to speak.

 

[American123]

Yep, that's the way it works. And if it was ruled constitutional, it would indeed be TS for me!

When you read the bill of rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment, whose does it say the right belongs too?

I'll help you, "the people" - so if the right belongs to "the people" that would mean that each individual person possesses that right because "the people" are simply many individuals being recognized as a group.

The founders also specifically wrote under what circumstances infringements of that right would be allowed. "Shall not" is definitive, meaning, it cannot be done, it is not an option under any circumstances. There isn't a carve out, or an asterisk that says "except for in this instance."

You are free to desire restrictions on your fellow Americans, thankfully it seems the founders had the forethought enough to considered people like you about 230 years ago.

What I fail to understand is how people who claim to support the 2nd amendment, support carving up the second amendment and still think that it will only stop there where they determine it should and not continue beyond that.

 

[arakboss]

You are on a forum that revolves around embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities. What do you expect people to say if you come here advocating for infringements on a right that says "shall not be infringed"?

Obviously your opinion is welcome here, but it's foolish to think that you will find any sympathizers; speaking for me personally, I see "engaging in intellectual discourse" (with restriction-supporters) as offering a foothold to people who are ultimately going to be responsible for the thousandth cut to the 2nd Amendment.

If, for example, I were to join an abortion forum whose goal was to seek full abortion rights, why would I expect these (hypothetical) members to care much for my opinions if I started openly supporting abortion-restrictions?

It seems that either "shall not" or "infringe" have different meanings to some people.

 

[BPOR11]

Same could be said of any right . Name another absolute right that doesnt have legal restrictions. One.

I would say the freedom of speech. Or least the way it was intended in the Constitution. The slide into perversion of the 1st amendment is being duplicated with the 2nd amendment. Its all going as planned.

 

[wired]

I would say the freedom of speech. Or least the way it was intended in the Constitution. The slide into perversion of the 1st amendment is being duplicated with the 2nd amendment. Its all going as planned.

Freedom of speech is one of the more limited "rights" . As much or more so than the second amendment. I'm not talking perception here. Talking the day to day world we all live in.

 

[wired]

What a painfully misguided understanding of the US Constitution! The Bill of Rights are most certainly designed to be absolute.

Just because the government has made unconstitutional laws restricting our rights, does not mean they had actual legal authority to do so. The Constitution serves as the legal backbone by which all laws are measured; elected officials are beholden to it.

Now, obviously where you are confused, is that government officials have acted treasonously for many years without repercussion. As such, treasonous laws are on the books such as the NFA, GCA, etc…just because they exist is not proof-positive that they pass the Constitution test, or that we were not intended to have absolute rights.

But its not. It might supposed to be some way but its not and never has been.

 

[mhayd93]

But its not. It might supposed to be some way but its not and never has been.

That's kind of the whole point of being a 2A supporter; trying to fight back against unconstitutional restrictions and make it the way it's supposed to be.

Your attitude/interpretation is basically just waving the white flag saying, "If they restrict it then that's okay, Constitutionally protected rights are a myth anyway." I'm curious how you'd react if a gun confiscation bill was passed?

Also, there have been numerous periods of time in American history where by and large, there were significantly less restrictions on our freedoms than we have now. Your statement that it "has never been" is incorrect.

 

[wired]

That's kind of the whole point of being a 2A supporter; trying to fight back against unconstitutional restrictions and make it the way it's supposed to be.

Your attitude/interpretation is basically just waving the white flag saying, "If they restrict it then that's okay, Constitutionally protected rights are a myth anyway." I'm curious how you'd react if a gun confiscation bill was passed?

Also, there have been numerous periods of time in American history where by and large, there were significantly less restrictions on our freedoms than we have now. Your statement that it "has never been" is incorrect.

It is not incorrect. Look at the OK Corral and what that was about. Throughout US history we have never had unfettered gun access especially in the modern age. The Jim Crow era especially had insurmountable and egregious state and local gun ownership and use regulations.

 

[arakboss]

No, I'm on a forum that you think revolves around YOUR idea of embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities.

I along with many others share his views.

 

[American123]

It is not incorrect. Look at the OK Corral and what that was about. Throughout US history we have never had unfettered gun access especially in the modern age. The Jim Crow era especially had insurmountable and egregious state and local gun ownership and use regulations.

The debate becomes: are the existence of gun laws justification that gun laws are constitutional, or is it simply an example of how what should have easily ruled unconstitutional by reading what is plainly written in the constitution, an example of humans exercising their own agenda to determine what they perceive should be allowed or not.

 

[wired]

The debate becomes: are the existence of gun laws justification that gun laws are constitutional, or is it simply an example of how what should have easily ruled unconstitutional by reading what is plainly written in the constitution, an example of humans exercising their own agenda to determine what they perceive should be allowed or not.

Oh yeah that's the debate we are all having. How to go back to the absolute rights you clearly have based on your reading of the constitution. The Courts and Congress clearly have no role in this. That's how 'Merican questions of constitutionality work.

 

[American123]

Oh yeah that's the debate we are all having. How to go back to the absolute rights you clearly have based on your reading of the constitution. The Courts and Congress clearly have no role in this. That's how 'Merican questions of constitutionality work.

Is every law that has ever been put on the books by city, state, and federal government, been found to be constitutional?

No, so quit acting like the government is beyond approach because it sounds synonymous with a tongue licking a boot.

 

[wired]

Is every law that has ever been put on the books by city, state, and federal government, been found to be constitutional?

No, so quit acting like the government is beyond approach because it sounds synonymous with a tongue licking a boot.

Who determines constitutionality? Has that body decided on multiple occasions that gun laws are constitutional?