Massive Militia 2nd Amendment Rally To Take Place At Virginia Capitol On January 20th 2020

US News & Politics Guns
408

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Red flag laws can and should be designed to include judicial review (and thus due process). Exigent circumstances could also be defined which in many other contexts have been found to be legal/constitutional.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

UBCs don’t infringe on anyone other than, as you put it, “Criminal classes and those otherwise ineligible to keep and bear”

This what you are looking for?

409

Wrong. Due process has to precede any taking of property unless the seizure is conducted in conjunction with an arrest for a criminal act.

By definition to even encroach upon a right is to infringe it.

You want to replace our rights with heavily regulated privileges and that’s not going to fly with 2nd, 4th, or 5th Amendment Advocates.

Prior restraint on any right is to deny the right completely.

Just as I said all of the political solutions folks like yourself are offering do nothing to affect the criminal class an only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.

So the question remains, do you want to actually do something that won’t infringe on our rights and accomplish the stated goal or is your actual goal simply to further diminish and infringe upon our rights?

410

Let’s address UBC’s.

They infringe on both our 2nd and 5th Amendment rights.

Guns are property and private transfers are none of the gov’ts business unless and until a firearm is unlawfully transferred to someone who can’t legally possess it.

If you have any questions look up the definition of “Private”.

What would be an alternative that infringes on nobody’s rights?

Open the NIC system to the public so we can if we choose to voluntarily do so run a check on someone we may not be sure of.

411

I’m certainly interested in hearing your proposed solutions to keeping arms in the hands of the law abiding while reducing the likelihood of them being used against the law abiding populace.

412

This is a flawed argument! This of course is based on my opinion but if you are basing your argument that Paddock was the only shooter in order to prop up and support your argument for the need for Red Flag laws then you are grossly not seeing things outside the box and lapping up what the MSM sold as a bogus narrative! Just my opinion of course.

413

You’ve already been given one.

Simple fact you have to accept. We have over 300 million guns in private hands already so there’s nothing we could possibly do that will prevent bad people from getting access to guns.

States are woefully deficient in reporting ineligible people to NICS, that has to be fixed.

Crazy people that have no business getting their hands on firearms need to be properly identified, adjudicated, and reported. States are egregiously poor at this, and so too are the various departments and agencies of the federal gov’t. See the Sutherland Sproings Church Shooting for details.

Keep dangerous felons off of the streets, put them in prison where they belong and keep them there till they are too old to reoffend or dead.

Quit screwing around with the drug war. Declare the cartels as terrorist organizations along with the gangs spreading their death and disease on our side of the border.

Secure the damned borders starting with the southern border which is the source for most of the cartel’s entry points into the US.

Fully enforce existing laws and do all of this for a decade and then let’s talk about what more is needed.

Unfortunately democrats aren’t pushing any of these and instead are hell bent on pouring millions of felons back on the street.

85-95% of all “gun crimes” tie directly or indirectly to gangs and the illicit drug trade so put our focus on them before infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

1 Like
414

Funny while being a casual observer here to your many posts extolling the virtues of the “system” and in favour of legislating more laws, not once do I ever read from you about addressing the real problem associated with gun violence. Why do you think legislating more laws is going to fix the problem when in fact the method you so advocate for has already proven to fail? Most of the substance you provide in your post is of a very linear way of thinking and it’s very flawed to its core.

415

I couldn’t agree with you more. Except the fully enforce existing laws as some of those laws I would consider to be infringements and unjust.

From a practical perspective tho, it’s the Columbines and Vegases and Sandy Hooks that can end up putting politicians in a place where they cannot defend the 2nd to their constituents any longer. Maybe there just is no way to stop those kind of things from happening without infringing on the rights of the law abiding, but it feels defeatist to say.

416

That very well may be. No one is perfect and I’m not unable to learn from others.

417

No that isn’t true.

Columbine? Illegally transfered guns to teenagers through straw purchases. No law would prevent that.

Sandy Hook, he murdered his own mother to get access to the guns after failing a background check.

Paddock carefully circumvented the laws by buying a couple of weapons at a time across numerous states and arguably should have been declared ineligible due to mental illness. Numerous people pointed out his plunge into depression and bipolar disorder over a series of several years due to alcoholism and gambling losses.

It’s damned easy to defend the 2nd and discuss actual solutions that can be shown to have a measurable effect, you just have to first hold deference for the BOR and be willing to correct the failures of the existing system.

418

Not true? Back in 2017 right before Vegas there was much talk about pulling suppressors out from under the NFA and making unpermitted universal concealed carry the law of the land. That all evaporated with Vegas. Are you saying that wasn’t political calculus and something else?

419

You are right, no one is perfect but you might try by answering my questions with an honest discourse as a starting point to a broader discussion.

420

Due to a lack of guts and the current climate.

It’s really hard to argue that suppressors are a 2nd Amendment issue to begin with. They are just an accessory.

If Trump wins reelection and republicans regain control of the house the Hearing Protection Act is almost certain to pass.

There has never been any evidence to suggest that suppressors make crimes more common or harder to solve. In fact, since often they leave very distinct markings on bullets it makes it even easier to identify the source of a bullet through forensics.

421

The only question I saw was this:

I’m not certain it would fix anything. I think some legislation could be designed to appease the left, potentially keep weapons out of the hands of the “criminal class and those otherwise ineligible to keep and bear”, and remove 2A infringements that are currently enforced consistently, resulting in a net win.

422

No insult Zoo but what are you 16-20?

Sped some time researching gun control in the US from about 1945 on.

What has appeasing the left ever gotten us with respect to gun rights other than more infringements?

Their goal is to disarm to the greatest extent possible the entire civilian populace. Everything they do is to that end.

423

So, yeah, political calculus. Isn’t this reason enough to press for those things you have mentioned previously? Enforcing existing (non-infringing) laws? Beefing up interstate communication of information about mental health (of course that comes with its own pitfalls re: privacy ind individual rights)?

424

We’ve been pushing for all of those things going back to the 70’s.

Because the NR promotes them however the left hates them. They hate them eve more because they would solve to a very large extent the problems associated with "gun crimes’ thus eliminating any justification for “sensible gun safety legislation”.

425

Thanks. Getting late for me here. I appreciate you finally engaging with me on a meaningful level. Got a lot to think about.

1 Like
426

I’m not well-informed enough about the details of the laws and history of 2A issues to take a side on patricular proposals, but I would like to say this:

Zooligan’s general approach is correct.

That is, we should at least APPEAR to want to deal with the crazed-killer issue. We need to appear reasonable. And in fact there is a real problem, although I don’t think that there is actually much that can be done about crazed kilers because, I believe, the real problem is the serious deterioration in American popular culture that began back in the 1960s. Put it this way: the idea that boys should be able to use the girls’ bathrooms and the idea that killing all your classmates would be a good thing, have the same (deep) roots. I won’t elaborate on this here.

The idea that we’re so well-armed and scary that they won’t dare pass, say, an assault-weapons ban is wrong. They are not stupid, and will use salami tactics: one thing at a time. Automatic weapons are already effectively banned, as are other light-infantry arms. (And this raises an interesting question: should the right to keep and bear arms – if it is intended to provide a last-ditch backstop of an armed citizenry against its own oppressive government - extend to all light-infantry weapons? Should I be able to own a L.A.W. (or whatever the equivalent is nowadays), or an 80 mm mortar, or some Claymore mines. Anyone want to argue for that? Logically, we should be able to. But as a practical matter, lots of luck trying to get that made legal!)

I personally would like to explore the idea of an extension of the concept of the ‘State Defense Force’ – perhaps a ‘County Defense Force’ – which would allow ordinary people to receive basic military training and to have controlled access to serious weapons, but in a legal and regulated manner. But at the moment that wouldn’t fly.

The reality is, we are going into a very dangerous, unstable period, which will get worse, and will last for a long time. We’ve got to keep our cool, and fight politically until it is literally no longer possible to do so. At this point in time, we’ve got to win over, or neutralize, that broad middle of American society which we have lost in the last three years: I think of them as women living in the suburbs who used to vote Republican but now, perhaps reluctantly, vote Democrat. This does NOT mean just adopting their viewpoint of the world, but it does mean thinking about how what we say and do will impact on them.

Because if we lose the support of the majority of voters, we will be in trouble.

427
1 Like