Compromise on the 2nd amendment

If you think all of the laws I cited above are reasonable and consistent with the Second Amendment, try comparing firearms with the treatment of books under the First Amendment. If anyone were even to suggest that publishers be licensed by the government, dangerous books banned, or that individuals had to receive government permission before buying a book, people would turn purple and smoke would come out of their ears.

...unfortunately a rapidly shrinking number of people. I venture to guess the MSM would somehow be exempted from this "licensed publishing" scheme and that people would only need government permission to buy conservative-leaning publications.

BTW did anyone else see the story yet that the NYT is already leaving books authored by conservatives off of their best-seller list??
 
The sad part is , that we have seen this all play out in very recent history.
England being one of the better ones.
Register for "Crime" prevention.
Thank you kindly , now we know who and where.
Knock , Knock , we're here for your semi autos, too dangerous , you don't need them.
Knock , Knock , we're here for that pump action , too dangerous , you don't need them.
Knock , Knock we're here for that Sniper Rifle (Formally known as a bolt action hunting rifle ) too dangerous, you don't need them.
Since we are feeling generous we will allow you to keep your single shots and double barrels.
Locked up at a gun club that most of you can't afford.
Aren't we magnanimous ?
And you still have the right to own a gun.
 
Warning: If you come to KT......(KY) don't bring any liberal politics or belief systems with you as you will not fit.:D

I talked to a realty agent in KY, my worry wasn't fitting in, it was understanding the language.
 
This would still require approval of 3/4 of the states - even amendments like the balanced budget proposal couldn't get near that. Unless a group of states secedes, I don't see any amendments, especially the elimination of the second amendment - getting over the legal hurdles.

Sadly, irrelevant. They need not repeal the 2nd. They've been and will remain very successful just totally ignoring it.
 
Sadly, irrelevant. They need not repeal the 2nd. They've been and will remain very successful just totally ignoring it.

Ultimately being in the sights of 100,000,000 rifles isn't what I call being successful.
 
“According to the FBI, in 2015, 6,447 people were killed by handguns. The total number of people killed by rifles of all types was only 252, less than half the number of people (624) murdered by means of “hands, fists, and feet.” Yet the current obsession is not to ban handguns, but to outlaw AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.”

And knives are more than 1,600/year (2016). Ban knives!!!

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
 
There is a compromise. It just doesnt include us. Its between anti gunners and their FUDD hunter friends. The FUDD's agree about giving up the scary rifles because "if you cant hit the target with 1 bullet you shouldnt be shooting" and the Anti's leave the bolt action rifles and shotguns alone. That is where the Compromise is, there is a reason Anti Gunners always love having those types of "2A Supporters" in their committees, on their panels, etc. It gives them "credibility"
 
Here's a compromise on the 2nd I could live with: your side gets rid of the NFA and stops being a pain in my ass, and my side won't shoot you in the central nervous system. Deal? Hey, there's a give and take in there!
 
I hope they keep going on the full retard gun mantra because the crazier they get the more people resolve to silently vote against them in the next election


Las year, and specifically before VT, I shared that hope .Now I am not sure. I am not sure I trust the election process. There were a lot of lessons learned about how to manipulate a ballot box, census data, and districting. Those are being applied this time around with gloves off if the signs point to what I think they do .

This round of midterms may be the most important in the history of our "not a denocracy".
 
There is a compromise. It just doesnt include us. Its between anti gunners and their FUDD hunter friends. The FUDD's agree about giving up the scary rifles because "if you cant hit the target with 1 bullet you shouldnt be shooting" and the Anti's leave the bolt action rifles and shotguns alone. That is where the Compromise is, there is a reason Anti Gunners always love having those types of "2A Supporters" in their committees, on their panels, etc. It gives them "credibility"
Until they start thinking about this with a shotgun:Washington Navy Yard shooting - Wikipedia


or something like this happens again with a rifle: Charles Whitman - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
 
Last edited:
I had a very (usually) intelligent but very liberal client in the office yesterday. "The NRA is gonna get the GOP absolutely obliterated. They should just realize that there are some reasonable things they should bend on, like magazine restrictions and bump stocks. Those are just stupid and the NRA should compromise on them. . . . "

He's a REALLY good client. If he wasn't, I REALLY wanted to know what compromises he's willing to give back in order to get a 10rd mag and no-bump-stock law. Because my son telling me he wants to stay up an extra hour and I tell him to go to F'ing bed, that ISN'T compromise. LOL
 
I was reading up on my old school - RPI - which made the top 10 schools for suppression of free speech. In fact, their security guards claims to have taken a public sidewalk by eminent domain to kick out leafleteers. One of the reasons gave by the administration is that they needed to take a hard line otherwise they could have things like students passing out NRA literature on campus happen.

I'll sure be ready the next time they call for a donation.
 
Back
Top Bottom