Gun control compromise

Good but why do victims have to be citizens of the US to qualify as reasons for the sanctions?

 

I'm not sure I follow the question. Victims of crimes do not necessarily have to be citizens of the U. S.

If a citizen of the U. S. decides that just for the fun of it, he'll take a firearm and kill a person who is not a citizen, that is as much a crime as killing someone who is an authentic citizen.

 

I noted the opening of your second point. "Advocates harm against à citizen of the US.

 

I won't try to 'whitewash' it, Pixie... it was right before I went to bed one night, I was tired, but I threw together some thoughts for consideration, that's all. But, no, they weren't in what you might call "finished-form". So, no, nobody should use firearms to harm any other person, whether they're "citizens of the U. S." or not.

Did you find any merit in any of the rest of it?

 

Very much so.
It is a sound and fair policy
(see what I did there??)

 

It is good to see that two people with quite differing views about 'self-defense', per se, can begin to put constructive thoughts about it, and related matters in a coherent framework for discussion. Merci!

 

Well personal insults, revisionary information, selective disparaging history and répétitive hysteria doesn't cut it. I cant be doing with such infancy.
I remember once many years ago someone described followers as complainers and leaders finding ways to solve problems.
The biggest problem is convincing others there IS a problem.

 

Says who? I suppose that some would, or could. A militia, being ordinary citizens that take up arms in time of war, certainly have no requirement to train during periods of no war.

 

Which militias are called 'well ordered'?

 

I, for one, do acknowledge that there definitely IS a problem, and it is multi-faceted. When confronted with such problems as those which grow out of crimes committed with firearms, the first effort must be one to stabilize the situation -- and, IMHO, that means sequestering the "criminals and crazies" among us into appropriate places of confinement so that they can do no damage to society. This can, and sometimes does result in draconian solutions such as one saw in the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, et al... but, at some point, civilization must 'draw a line' and not allow "criminals and crazies" to do as they wish.

The 'sticky' part comes when society decides that a person is very likely to commit crimes that involve murder based on observations it makes about that person, even though he/she hasn't actually done anything wrong -- yet! Although I'm not certain how this will be accomplished, I feel that it will become inevitable, and will probably be done using artificial intelligence methodologies that are in development right now....

 

The ones mentioned in 2A.

 

And which ones are those? Be specific. And does it really say 'Well ordered'?

 

The cracks appear when those who are allowed to keep guns will refuse to turn them in even if every last gun used by crazies is sequestered, under the suspicion that one crazy will get hold of à gun .
IMO you MUST develop à strong professional honest poilce force. Yours appears to have become à tad criminal itself. No society should defend itself or you end up with a dangerous and lawless bunch of disconnected vigilantes.
There was a short period in western 18th and 19th century USA where this occurred until the ordered and recognised law enforcement came to be. ISTM there is knot of those who want to revert back to before that time.

 

quote: the FF but on the present day interpreters who have this absolutely insane idea that the amendment is a justification for murder, which it is not

really? who said that? who said the 2nd admin gives anyone the right to murder? you do know that most states have a law giving the citizens the right to defend themselves & their families, from the mentally ill, criminals, thugs, and anyone trying to harm them. would you want that right to defend yourself or your family. or just let them have their way with you & family? please answer that question.

on other thing you should know. when the 2nd admin was put into the constitution, it gave the right of the people to own, possess the most--modern--fire arms of that day.

 

That's my very point, the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T give you a right to murder people but the people who say it was put in TO GIVE US THE RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY OVERTHROW A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT are saying EXACTLY AND PRECISELY that.
Understand what I'm saying, if you think the 2nd amendment was put in so we could keep firearms to overthrow tyrants; just HOW are we supposed to USE the firearms to do that? How do you use firearms in any case? YOU MURDER SOMEONE.

The gun advocate's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment says we do indeed have a right to murder politicians we disagree with on political matters, and since everyone in America is a politician (we are the government) and everything is basically a political matter (name one that's not) you have the right to murder Nathan Neighbor because he works at an abortion clinic.
Or is a Democrat
Or won't keep his trash cans off your lawn.
Or at least so says the 2nd Amendment. Tell me how it doesn't

 

Anyone who gets a speeding ticket loses his 2A rights? That's a no-go.

 

No, Bill, I corrected/amended my little sketch of a 'plan' in a subsequent Post #171, in which I said,

"You're right! I should have been more clear and said in a later post, "please remember, I only advocate those much longer prison terms and harsh conditions for those who commit crimes they commit while using firearms to carry them out!"

My thoughts were racing ahead of my fingers when I typed that post with 'thoughts' about the topic. So, no, I surely don't want ALL crimes, misdemeanors and/or felonies, to disqualify a person from owning a firearm -- only those who are convicted of crimes committed while using a firearm to commit those same crimes."

So, I'm only proposing that people who have used firearms in the commission of a crime are stigmatized permanently.

 

We granted 18 year olds the majority by constitutional amendment. SCOTUS has already struck down the unconstitutional barring of law abiding 18-21yrs from effective self-defense.

I'd love effective red flag laws, but, that's impossible while the Dems are in the grips of liars who investigate school board moms as "terrorists" for speaking their mind to their representatives serving as school board members.

So for now, focus on using existing laws to actually disarm felons and hell no to disarming the law abiding. And electing Democrats that don't abuse the fundamental rights of others and lie about everything. Dems need more honest brokers like Joe Manchin.

Democrats need to elect folks who won't doctor evidence in solemn proceedings and deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.

In short, elect some folks with some of the fundamental values and honesty required for compromise in Constitutional Liberal Democracy.

Drunk drivers are 31 times as deadly as long gun owners, Pelosi needs to focus on keeping her drunkard husband off the road after he's pulled the cork far too many times.

 

JFC when your tyrannical gov comes to take your rights/property/life you are DEFENDING yourself not murder. Pay attention, please.

 

So if the government sends a tax collector to collect funds I disagree with I have the right to shoot him dead?

 

are taxes something people normally pay? That’s normal, dude. Not tyrannical behavior.

 

But what if it's more than you want to pay? What if it's not taxes but a law you don't like? What if the government puts a foreign refugee into a house next to you?

 

thats not tyrannical behavior, you’re moving the goalposts. Read the Bill of Rights.

 

I'm not moving anything and the 2nd Amendment says nothing whatsoever about your having a right to murder government officials you disagree with whether you find them tyrannical or not.
What is tyrannical behavior specifically?

 

you’re just making this up again. Of course the second doesn’t say that, you’re being fatuous. How many times does it need to be explained to you that the second exists to prevent the gov from unjustly taking the rights of the people? Is there a reason this has to be explained to you over a dozen times?