...Even if a sweeping ban like in Australia was passed by Congress, good luck getting states to enforce it...
And good luck at those who try to enforce a forced “buyback” by forced confiscation and arrest. That issue was settled at the Lexington bridge and from the woods bythe road as the British retreated to Concord after their failed attempt to do the same thing.
They would run out of confiscators by the end of the first 48 hours.
No gunz for Libtards and their fellow travelers. (Any emotional thinker actually)
HollyWierd is the NRA for illegal gun owners and users.
How are you going to improve on language as precise as “ . . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Concur. The irrational bed-wetters are delusional about the absolute right of self-defense and its companion right to keep and bear arms. They will never learn. The tin Hitlers know exactly what they are doing trying to disarm The People. They will always oppose anything enabling We The People to enforce our sovereignty.
The United States is in desperate need of a new Second Amendment, one that recognizes the fundamentally different views people today have about guns, their role in society, and our rights as citizens.
No we aren't. The gun-grabbers are flat out wrong. What the United States is in desperate need of is to publicly and continuously slap down gun-grabbers until they are too humiliated to voice their worthless opinions. Further, we need to take decisive legal action against all levels of politicians who infringe the right of The People to keep and bear arms.
When the Founders first wrote and passed what we know call the Second Amendment, they viewed the Constitution in an entirely different way than most people do today. Originally, the U.S. Constitution was, for the most part, only understood to govern the relationship between Americans and their federal government. The Bill of Rights was largely meant to protect the states and the people from an out-of-control centralized power in the nation’s capital. Most laws were passed at the state and local levels, and state constitutions determined the limits of those laws, including gun laws.>/I>
Nonsense! The right to keep and bear arms was spelled out in the Constitution as an exclusive right of The People. It was not an enumerated power granted the federal government nor even one reserved to the several states. It was reserved specifically by and to The People. No level of government in the United States has ever been granted the authority to regulate "arms" of The People. All provisions doing so are unconstitutional operating under the color of law.
The Second Amendment is as valid today as the day it was ratified. It was written specifically for times such as these, when we have bed-wetters, tin dictators, and mushy headed "thinkers" all attempting to destroy the sovereignty of The People by disarming them.
This is a fundamental issue. Either ultimate power resides with The People, or we are nothing but subjects wholly owned by those with power.
To save the village ... we had to destroy it ...
On one end of the political spectrum you have millions of law-abiding, peaceful gun owners who know how to shoot and on the other end you have hateful, lawless liberals who are triggered and piss themselves at the very sight of a gun. I wonder who will prevail if they ever get the Civil War they seem to so desperately want?
“The United States is in desperate need of a new Second Amendment, one that recognizes the fundamentally different views people today have about guns, their role in society, and our rights as citizens.”
How about we leave the law the way it was written.
State passes legislation making all adult citizens who speak fluent English automatically members of the state second amendment militia unless they adopt out.
Such legislation authorizes any kind of weapons which would be available to a combat platoon in the United State Army; together with unlimited ammo.
Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas are good places to start.
The 2nd doesn’t give us the right to bear arms - it acknowledges the inherent right and expounds on why a government, that may need to be replaced, cannot remove the obstacles presented by a free and armed society.
[…]