The Tree of Liberty...

[releventchair]

Once upon a time,there was a country that became so civilized guns were no longer needed. Of course manufacturing them ceased also. Average subject had no use for them. Then war knocked on their door,who bailed their butts out and why do they think it would not happen again that they would have us restricted as they have their subjects?watched someone on cnn as little media i,ve watched explain why we should be like them. Suspect the media asked their opinion as no one i know did or would. Heck yes they would have us be unarmed ,why?.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red James Cash]

Alternative meanings are wonderful arent they.The nazis had a good one too called resettlement.Resettlement = deportation to a concentration camp where you had the privilege of either being slowly starved to death,worked to death,or immediately executed.SORRY NO COMPROMISE.

 

[Chadeaux]

I don't think "compromise" is the correct term, more like, an opportunity to find a mutual alternate solution. Our Government does not have to afford us a compromise, we are allowed the right to bare arms and that's it. There is nothing in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that secures our right to own whatever type firearms we want, or in any quantity we want. These have simply been privileges afforded to us. So I think some people are confused as to just exactly what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually provides.

For the sake of debate, if we were only allowed the possession of fully registered single shot 22 rifles we would, in fact, still be afforded the opportunity to bare arms. "Everything else" has been a privilege up to this point. Sure, it's an unacceptable extreme example, but it should make clear the possibilities and the reality of the situation. As long as laws are written in such a way to still afford us the right to bare arms, no matter how inconvenient, ours rights have not been legally violated by definition.

So why work together towards mutual solution? Because your elected Government and fellow Americans do not have to compromise, they do not have to negotiate their desire and right for better gun control measures. All they have to tolerate is the basic right to bare arms, nothing more. No portion of a truly free society will ever be allowed to hold rule over their fellow man or it's government. "Compromise?" If that opportunity is a reality then it had better be jumped upon.

I think too many people are confusing rights with privileges.

I think that is where the anti-gun folks get so confused. They first of all fail to READ the Second Amendment.

First of all, it isn't a right to bare arms. I know you don't understand the difference, but here goes:

TO BARE ARMS would mean that one simply rolled up their sleeves. No one is worried about that because anyone who has sleeves can do it, and the government isn't trying (so far) to take that right away --- even though it isn't mentioned specifically in the Second Amendment.

TO BEAR ARMS would mean that one is allowed the RIGHT (not permission, but the RIGHT) to possess or BEAR firearms. That right is guaranteed under the Constitution's Second Amendment. We were guaranteed that right to protect ourselves from a government out of control. That right, being the second of the original ten, was second for a reason. The first Ten Amendments (also called the Bill Of Rights) were for the most part placed in order of importance.

The right to freely speak one's mind was the most important of the amendments. The next, in order to guarantee the first, was the right of the people to be armed. The founding fathers realized that the without a way to protect that right given under law to speak freely, it would not long exist. For that reason the people were given the Second Amendment so that they could enforce the First Amendment.

It also gives teeth to the Third Amendment: It keeps the government from quartering soldiers in anyone's home without their permission, even in war time.

It further makes possible the enforcement of The Fourth Amendment: The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. How? A government that doesn't have to worry about repercussions for violating any of the Amendments will have no problem coming into your home, place of business or anywhere else they wish to conduct a search without probable cause and without warrant. This right is being eroded by foolish people who would gladly trade liberty for a small imagined gain in security, but that is a discussion for another time.

Likewise, it allows for the Fifth Amendment to stand protecting us against being forced to give incriminating evidence against ourselves and also against being twice charged and prosecuted for the same crime. It also protects us from unreasonable imprisonment without being charged with a crime.

I could go on, but I believe any thinking person should be able to decipher how the Second Amendment is the cornerstone for the maintaining of the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sam 8]

There has already been, "compromise" in the national firearms act, in states and cities throughout the country. "Compromise" in Chicago led to no handgun ownership, period, in the city.
Chicago has topped the 500 number for murders this year.
Conn. has some of the strongest gun "compromise" laws in the country.
The second amendment has been compromised on by everyone from foolish politicians to socialist politicians to the most common politician of all; the one who is simply looking for more power, and the Constitution be damned.
I spent 25 years wearing a badge and carrying a gun. I have investigated cases from the simplest homicide to one or two you may have heard of if you watch the TV.
I am here to tell you that compromise isn't what we need. We need a refocus. We need people control, not gun control. The country will rise and fall based on people control, as in self control, and for those that can't or won't control themselves, guys like me. And then we need a justice system that functions and judges who are held accountable for their sentencing. One of the reasons you've seen the people jump behind 3 strikes and other laws is that they are tired of seeing judicial malfeasance and incompetence failing to remove those from society who fail to meet citizenship standards. Those judges and DA's and the defense bar "compromising" and letting a man who kills his mother with a hammer back on the street again...only to kill again.
Enough.
Compromise is in place, we do serious checks on people buying guns.(Over 159,000 of such checks on Black Friday alone)
Compromise is in place, we pay taxes for background checks and BATF taxes and local taxes when we buy guns.
The American Citizen has been compromised by our elected establishment to the point that we are 16 plus trillion in debt and our elected officials can't come up with a plan to fix it...so they want more of our money.
Compromise is what got us here. A lack of integrity, a lack of honor, a lack of standing for core values and principles. Giving in when the going gets tough isn't going to fix what ails us, it is what got us here.
People need to step back and look at this through a longer lens. This is not a single slice issue that you can cut out. This is part of a long running plan to disassemble this country, and it is a big one. I find it rather ironic that our nations' capital is protected by a huge police force, that gun-toting men ring the halls of congress with metal detectors and video surveillance and whatever newest best high tech security gear with not a single question asked by the leftist elitists who wander those halls, but when we talk about the simplest form of that protection for our schools, they poo-poo it out the door.
If it doesn't work why doesn't that bastion of Liberal America, Ms. Feinstein, send all of those cops (and her security detail) home?
Americans are in a gun buying frenzy right now unlike anything seen in modern times. I seriously doubt any of those people are interested in any further compromise with the left. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is going to wake people the hell up, and we will do a serious look at what we've allowed our country to become. We need to start in the elementary schools, and start teaching civics and citizenship again. We need to completely restructure public education. We need to fire every bureaucrat in the NEA and then close the doors. Schools need to teach Math, reading, ENGLISH, SCIENCE, and all through the entire K-12 system there needs to be a focus on CITIZENSHIP.
We can start with my favorites...Responsibility, Accountability, and Integrity. Start with this generation of children ( I have started with my grandkids) and return to the core values that made us what we once were.
We are the problem. Compromise is what two people do when working together in a marriage. Compromise has a place in life, but right now, in America, compromising on further dilution of the second Amendment is the last thing America needs. And, based on the purchasing patterns going on across the land, I think there are more than a few that agree with me.
You ever notice when the politcians are standing up touting some new gun grab they only have the chief of police or sheriff behind them?
The street level cops wouldn't be there on a bet. Not 10% of the street cops I have ever known support this nonsense. AS a cop myspef, I don't fear an armed citizenry. I revel in it. It is a big part of what makes America what it is
One of my sons and several other family members have served in the armed forces recently. They have been in harms way. Every one of them is incredulous at what is happening. Just like the soldiers of WWII who came home wanting a M1 or M14, and turned those into sporiting rifles, this generation who has served carrying the miltary version of the AR-15 want a civilain version for sporting use in their world.
And we have the same politicans who sent them into harms way seeking to deny them that right.
I wonder how the Syran populace would be doing if they hadn't been "compromised" out of their allah given right to bear arms.

To those of you out there who think their has been enough compromise, get up off of your butts and do something about it. Don't jsut write a check to the NRA or other 2nd Amendment organization, let yoru elected officials know how you feel. Band together with like minded citizens in your neighborhood and start boycotting businesses that don't support your rights. Hit 'em where it hurts, in their wallets. We are all trying to "Buy American" these days, add support for the 2nd Amendment to your litmus test.

Rant off.

 

[Dano Sverige]

Our Bill of Rights are clear to me, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

Look up the word infringed in the dictionary.

Pretty sure Osama Bin Laden had things very clear to him too - America will never invade a sovereign state just to blow me away.
Until a certain government changed the rules to suit themselves!
If they WANT to do it, then bet your mortgage that they WILL do it if it serves their purpose!

 

[packerbacker]

When you speak of "imposing limits" and wondering which limits to impose, you would have to say that ALL GUNS MUST GO! That is the only thing that would stop gun crime. Simple as that. If there were only 1 gun left in this country and it was in the hands of a saint, there would be a million scumballs trying to get their hands on it to commit crimes. The crimes that have been recently committed were executed with legally owned guns in the hands of those that didn't own them. I gotta go but I'll be back.

 

[truckinbutch]

Pretty sure Osama Bin Laden had things very clear to him too - America will never invade a sovereign state just to blow me away.
Until a certain government changed the rules to suit themselves!
If they WANT to do it, then bet your mortgage that they WILL do it if it serves their purpose!

BWAHAHAHA ! There you go , mixing apples and pears , again , to suit your purpose . There is a huge difference between jumping on the band wagon and claiming credit for sanctioning a known dirt bag and trying to sanction millions of law abiding AMERICANS.
>The very team that took out OBL would be on the front line to refuse an order to disarm law abiding citizens of the USA.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

BWAHAHAHA ! There you go , mixing apples and pears , again , to suit your purpose . There is a huge difference between jumping on the band wagon and claiming credit for sanctioning a known dirt bag and trying to sanction millions of law abiding AMERICANS.
>The very team that took out OBL would be on the front line to refuse an order to disarm law abiding citizens of the USA.

BA HA HA! ST 6 would ONLY take out the Leader or the LOUDEST "vocalist" of the anti-gov't group. THAT is the way they operate; LAW-ABIDING citizens? Have NOTHING to worry about...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

BA HA HA! ST 6 would ONLY take out the Leader or the LOUDEST "vocalist" of the anti-gov't group. THAT is the way they operate; LAW-ABIDING citizens? Have NOTHING to worry about...

By law abiding you mean people that just accept the constitution being violated as okay.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

By law abiding you mean people that just accept the constitution being violated as okay.

NOPE! NOT what I meant...

 

[Dano Sverige]

BWAHAHAHA ! There you go , mixing apples and pears , again , to suit your purpose . There is a huge difference between jumping on the band wagon and claiming credit for sanctioning a known dirt bag and trying to sanction millions of law abiding AMERICANS.
>The very team that took out OBL would be on the front line to refuse an order to disarm law abiding citizens of the USA.

Delusional as usual. The very team that took him out would do as their commander in chief damn well ordered them to do, or they wouldn't be there 2 mins later! As would any other involved military unit!
Now i'll grant you, some may balk at an order to shoot US citizens which is fair enough, (though a career ender). But an order to enforce a disarmament ruling?
You're dreaming if you think they'd refuse!
Someone/anyone who opened fire on them trying to "protect their right to the 2nd amendment" or from the "cold dead fingers" brigade becomes an instant criminal and a VERY "clear and present danger", and they'd have not one ounce of sympathy or understanding before blowing him/her/them away!

 

[packerbacker]

Quote from scoop: "For the sake of debate, if we were only allowed the possession of fully registered single shot 22 rifles we would, in fact, still be afforded the opportunity to bare arms. "Everything else" has been a privilege up to this point. Sure, it's an unacceptable extreme example, but it should make clear the possibilities and the reality of the situation. As long as laws are written in such a way to still afford us the right to bare arms, no matter how inconvenient, ours rights have not been legally violated by definition."
Problem with this line of thinking is what if the government, for instance, said there can only be 4 religions worshiped in this country and you are free to choose whichever one you want? Is that "Freedom of religion"? You already can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building................is that infringing on the right to free speech? We supposedly have the right to "Free assembly". Thing is, many places require an "approved" permit to assemble. Constitution says nothing about requiring permits, it just gives you the right. Some cities or municipalities can DENY you that permit for whatever reason they feel the need to. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't have any interest in owning a fully automatic weapon and yet some do have them but they require a special permit. There may be some recent crime committed with an automatic weapon but I'm not aware of any and yet, on the news, you hear about automatics. I don't need a bazooka either but I haven't heard of any crimes committed using one so I guess they aren't a problem. Magazine capacity limits are a joke. There are only a few seconds difference between a 30-round magazine and firing 30 rounds from 3 of the 10-round magazines. Besides that, if I didn't already have some high-capacity magazines and I decided to "go off", I could have all I wanted in just a few hours. Remember the so-called snipers that were shooting people from a hole in the trunk of a car? Those crimes could have been committed with a single-shot deer rifle. Could actually been done with a crossbow.
I've mentioned before, our government officials are talking about beefing up our embassies with more armed people. If they really think a gun law will stop the violence against them, why don't they just have those countries pass laws? How come our officials here in the US have armed body guards but they don't want us to have a gun for self protection? Why is everyone so afraid of armed people in our schools? I feel that, had the killer in that school shooting had been a Muslim terrorist, they would be talking more positive about protecting the children with arms instead of taking arms away from the law abiding. Maybe we need a little more "terrorism" in this country for the Feinstein types to realize that it's not the guns, it's the society. We have random armed agents aboard our passenger planes and no one is complaining about that. Why? Isn't it a SCARY thought? Why is it more important to demonize the scary gun than to use that same, scary gun to protect our kids? It's hard to convince a citizenry to give up their guns when they see how they can be used in a positive, protective way, that's why. Why do cops have guns? All they need is that roll of yellow tape to wrap around the crime scene. They don't stop very many crimes when you look at how much they are paid. There really isn't a "middle-of-the-road" here. We either have the right to bear arms (as we pro-gun people interpret the meaning) or we don't. If we don't have that right or it can be taken away from us by our "government", then, none of our other RIGHTS are safe. If, at the whim of our government, these supposed rights can be changed, limited or done away with entirely, nothing is safe and we are not a truly free society.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

I may err on objectives of introducing bills relating to gun control but have a feeling an effort is underway to pass a (changed of course) version of assault weapon ban that was allowed to expire. Majority of restrictions ,banned items,legal requirements,added to make compromise of passing an assault weapon ban more attractive. While more restriction would be desired,enforcement would be contested,seems it would need to be at a local level. Taxes being made or raised not to popular right now. creating fees to finance new regulations provided by gun buyers/owners would need to be fought by representatives not only for their original purpose but also because it would exclude involvement because of cost. Taxes on certain sporting goods,(like pitman robertson act) could have bills challenging there fairness and how spent too. Nothing original being proposed that i,ve seen yet. But i have no doubt many would ban,restrict all they could. The wait allegedly was due to timings affect on office term. No surprise to many that much planning started long ago and needed support and timing from lame duck(s).recent events make saying wait no longer an option.

By calling semi-automatic weapons "assault" weapons you have played right into the hands of the anti-gun people. An assault weapon is a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. A semi-auto weapon has to have the trigger pulled, and released again, for each shot. The mainstream media started calling semi-autos "assault weapons" years ago, in an attempt to stir up public sentiment against guns. Don't help them do it. Just because a weapon looks like an assault weapon doesn't make it one. An AR-15 is actually less capable than a Remington model 742 in .243 caliber...the .243 shoots farther, and with more retained energy, by far. And nobody considers a Model 742 an assault weapon. It's all in the appearance. As far as gun control goes, the worst thing that can happen is for uninformed people to be making the decisions...well-minded, or not.
Jim

 

[releventchair]

By calling semi-automatic weapons "assault" weapons you have played right into the hands of the anti-gun people. An assault weapon is a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. A semi-auto weapon has to have the trigger pulled, and released again, for each shot. The mainstream media started calling semi-autos "assault weapons" years ago, in an attempt to stir up public sentiment against guns. Don't help them do it. Just because a weapon looks like an assault weapon doesn't make it one. An AR-15 is actually less capable than a Remington model 742 in .243 caliber...the .243 shoots farther, and with more retained energy, by far. And nobody considers a Model 742 an assault weapon. It's all in the appearance. As far as gun control goes, the worst thing that can happen is for uninformed people to be making the decisions...well-minded, or not.
Jim

I am fully aware of the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic as well as weapons with select fire. Agreed semi autos should not be termed assault rifles. Were they not in the previously expired ban? Ak and sks semi autos? As i posted before "assault"rifle based on scary looks. When i mention a possible bill, modified but resembling previous i,m not defining. When one has a number and is submitted i will use caution in how definition applies.
.223 was chosen as a military caliber, as was the 9mm against effective reasoning but not up to me, where legal have at it but to light for my use.

 

[packerbacker]

This is an airsoft rifle that imitates a M15 assault rifle and a sniper rifle. They both shoot "plastic" BB's, not even metal BB's. What shall we do with these? Outlaw guns that LOOK scary? Painting them pink gonna make them less threatening? They think so in Kalifornia. Then, if you have a REAL, semi-automatic would you be able to paint it pink to make police hesitate when confronting you giving you enough time to shoot them? True freedom is not a simple thing to maintain folks.

 

[releventchair]

This is an airsoft rifle that imitates a M15 assault rifle and a sniper rifle. They both shoot "plastic" BB's, not even metal BB's. What shall we do with these? Outlaw guns that LOOK scary? Painting them pink gonna make them less threatening? They think so in Kalifornia. Then, if you have a REAL, semi-automatic would you be able to paint it pink to make police hesitate when confronting you giving you enough time to shoot them? True freedom is not a simple thing to maintain folks.

Indeed. As a youth i could pass through suburbs on foot with shot gun or rifle, or bow. No one freaked out. No harm to any one. what if a youth did that today? What changed? Hardly could have been a decade ago my old dad brought two black powder pistols and many knives to a school. Also taught students as well as teachers how to throw tomahawk. He looked surprised at my worry of public view. Compared to his experience as a young student what he was doing so many years later would seem bland though! Its sure the actions of a few can affect the actions of the rest.