That small % of Americans vastly outnumbers the police and military, and that's not taking into account the number of police officers and military personnel that would side with the people.
That's a surrender not a compromise, the GCA's have noting to offer as a compromise as such the only people who lose when their is a compromise are the law abiding firearm owners.
As seen in conflicts such as in the North of Ireland, behind every small group of actives are a huge number of non active supporters that shelter the actives and provide massive logistics and intelligence assistance, not to mention other Countries that would see opportunity with supplying modern arms to resistance groups, something, the US has done, and is still doing in various foreign conflicts over the years.
Nothing in the Constitution or any amendment says that the right to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed. In 1776 and in 1861, some of the artillery brought to battle was owned by the officers leading the troops who used them.
If China says we can avoid nuclear and all-out naval war with them if we just give up Guam, that's limited compromise and we should do it? Afterall, Guam isn't even a state. Well, of course not. There will never be a war against the US government in which I am not fighting on the side of the US government but the US Government may have to fight against those in our country who are trying to destroy it and replace it with Marxism. People keep talking about some right-wing led civil war perpetrated against the Constitution by those who love the Constitution. That's just plain asinine. Those who are the threat to the Constitution, those who are trying today to violently overthrow it and undo it, are leftists in groups such as Antifa and Berniebros. Conservatives love the Constitution and intend to defend it. The liberty guaranteed by the Founders through the Constitution of the United States are worth fighting and dying for.today as much as they were in 1776.
Absolutely. But it doesn't have any such limitation and to compromise to that is still to surrender rights that are protected. I'm always amazed that those who profess to support the right to keep and bear arms are so willing to limit that right to make themselves look reasonable and to avoid having the left call them extremists.
Please clarify the difference between less useful restrictions and more useful restrictions? What unstoppable force is it that you're referring to? Are you suggesting that the anti-gun lobby is unstoppable and we should just give in now? You are certainly free to surrender yours but you'll have to get a new user name; hard to be a paladin when you surrender the only tools of war you have.
Roughly one third of the American population are gun owners. That would make about 100 million gun owners in the country.
When the Constitution was written they did have bigger arms such as cannons. Im not sure if the 2A applied to those back then or now but it definitely applies to small arms.
You can own antique cannons or reproductions of antique cannons which you might own if you're into reenactments, but Im not sure about modern cannons.
The 2nd US civil war will be between conservatives and these people; it will begin once the state is unwilling to enforce the laws that protect the rights of the people against actions by same. It won't last long.
Theoretically you can own any and everything you could possibly want. Tanks, artillery, fully equipped aircraft carriers, etc...Even a nuke. It'll take a $200 tax stamp (And a few other restrictions [and barriers] may/will apply).
One-third of the American population admits to being gun owners. I, on the other hand, don't own any guns.
The least useful (useless) restrictions in my opinion are restricting bayonets, pistol grips, suppressors, magazine capacity, SBRs and making weed smokers prohibited persons. More useful imo would include restrictions on carrying while intoxicated, restrictions on discharging firearms in public places or in otherwise reckless manners, prohibiting purchase by minors and prohibiting using firearms in a threatening manner. The 'unstoppable force' is the American gun culture. The 'immovable object' is the elite political establishment that will stop at nothing to obtain a monopoly on the use force. Or vise versa, perhaps. Much laughs to the rest of that... I seek a peaceful solution that involves neither the gradual erosion of the right to self defense nor a big war to protect it. TBC, I will fight a war to protect gun rights if someone else starts one and I'll only ever 'surrender my tools of war' posthumously. Compromise on gun control does not necessitate one side or the other losing out because we already have a littany of 'loss' to our gun rights. As OP suggested, we could not only gain some of it back in compromise deals, but we could demonstrate conclusively what works and what doesn't. Here's an example: MBGCs on purchases in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and SBR's, to be reversed after 4 years and not re-instituted without extensive analysis of effects. I think we can both agree that MBGC's will be found, after 4 years, to be highly expensive in maintenance and not effective whatsoever in reducing crime (we already proved this in WA), while it will also become provable (I predict) that there's no benefit in regulating suppressors or SBR's either. And as a bonus, the gun culture in America can be demonstrably 'open to reasonable regulation' without more permanent restrictions on gun rights. This is all theoretical, of course, as the current GC leadership in DC would never agree to any hard sunrise provisions nor any sort of compromise involving a decrease of regulation, because they're not interested in being 'reasonable' either. The bottom line is that if both just keep obstinantly drawing a line in the sand daring the other to cross it, eventually one side or the other is going to, and that will be a sad day for America.
Up to now, you've been doing well but you're going off course. Let me refresh your memory: Can you find any document from that time that excepted any arms? How about this one that includes every arm: "The Militia... when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible."
Can you find any language that would allow congress to enact legislation prohibiting the people of the several sovereign states from possessing arms?
I was at the range tonight and a few stalls down were a couple loudmouths discussing the evils of the Democratic Party and of Biden's promise to make Robert Francis O'Rourke his gun czar. One of them started mouthing off how evil red-flag laws are but, he said, "we do need to have laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. We need to have ways to make sure crazy people or wife beaters don't have guns. If I knew someone who was beating his wife, I'd support taking his guns." As long as gun owners and those who pretend to support the second amendment don't understand liberty or the second amendment then we will lose and our Constitution and way of life are doomed.
