We got ‘til 1am on the HPA/SHORT Act🚨

[BIKER13]

^^^^^^^ Thanks for that brief, some people just dont ****in get it, they always wanna laud over the peons

 

[jonsmith6391]

^^^^^^^ Thanks for that brief, some people just dont ****in get it, they always wanna laud over the peons

I mean, I've been on both sides of this issue and I think there's a middle ground to be had in this. I respect what others have said and (to a point) agree with certain points they make, but I also came to realize that the 2nd Amendment is not so black and white. Do I believe law-abiding citizens should be able to own military-grade weaponry? Depends, and again, not so black and white when you truly think about it. Yet, when I espouse this view, I'm immediately deemed to be anti-2nd Amendment, a bootlicker, or some other anti-gun vernacular. I love the Lord, my wife, my daughter, and the right (and ability) to bear arms, the latter of these which is because I have chosen to follow the law and be an upstanding member of society, but a wretched sinner in the eyes of God in need of His saving grace.

The Founding Fathers were wise men, but they could not have imagined where society would have come to nearly 300 years later and the implications (both positive and negative) of laws written hundreds of years prior. Heck, look at the debates over the 14th Amendment; I believe the spirit of it is understood, but the actual writing is understood quite literally. Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? That's something the Supreme Court must decide one day.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Oh look, I found it in black and white.

 

[Ken Ford]

I mean, I've been on both sides of this issue and I think there's a middle ground to be had in this. I respect what others have said and (to a point) agree with certain points they make, but I also came to realize that the 2nd Amendment is not so black and white. Do I believe law-abiding citizens should be able to own military-grade weaponry? Depends, and again, not so black and white when you truly think about it. Yet, when I espouse this view, I'm immediately deemed to be anti-2nd Amendment, a bootlicker, or some other anti-gun vernacular. I love the Lord, my wife, my daughter, and the right (and ability) to bear arms, the latter of these which is because I have chosen to follow the law and be an upstanding member of society, but a wretched sinner in the eyes of God in need of His saving grace.

The Founding Fathers were wise men, but they could not have imagined where society would have come to nearly 300 years later and the implications (both positive and negative) of laws written hundreds of years prior. Heck, look at the debates over the 14th Amendment; I believe the spirit of it is understood, but the actual writing is understood quite literally. Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? That's something the Supreme Court must decide one day.

No I’ve been on both side as well.

I see no reason for middle ground at all.
But self defense laws should be relaxed, and “self defense” should be easier to show.
All this “middle ground” has led to “little jimmy” being able to kick in a door at 2am and the homeowner being charged because he used hollow points, didn’t retreat, or other stupid nonsense.

Give everyone the ability to defend themselves if desired, if they choose to be a victim then that’s on them and not the Govts fault.

 

[jonsmith6391]

But self defense laws should be relaxed, and “self defense” should be easier to show.
All this “middle ground” has led to “little jimmy” being able to kick in a door at 2am and the homeowner being charged because he used hollow points, didn’t retreat, or other stupid nonsense.

I agree that, pending which state, city, or county you live in, existing self-defense laws are pitiful and, to me, unconstitutional, punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator. Self-defense is a concept that has existed for thousands of years and the desire to neuter those who defend themselves is just laughable.

I'm not sure that "middle ground" led to poor self-defense laws; I would blame this on progressive and liberal policies that constituents in those communities allowed (and welcomed) in.

 

[Ken Ford]

I agree that, pending which state, city, or county you live in, existing self-defense laws are pitiful and, to me, unconstitutional, punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator. Self-defense is a concept that has existed for thousands of years and the desire to neuter those who defend themselves is just laughable.

I'm not sure that "middle ground" led to poor self-defense laws; I would blame this on progressive and liberal policies that constituents in those communities allowed (and welcomed) in.

Yes, traditional thinkers excepted compromise with the more liberal thinking, a middle ground.
It’s incremental and dangerous for society and foundational for “Marxist type change”
Easy enough if you look at other Marxist/ socialist/communist regime changes.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

If you actually read the federalist papers, or any and all other writings, letters, or speeches from our founding fathers, you won't find anything where they talk about the 2nd amendment being for protecting your house from a crackhead burglar or hunting deer or any other type of sporting or fudd nonsense.


It's strictly a political safeguard, particularly against the government they were creating, fear of a standing army. They make very clear the intention of the second amendment is for the people to be as well armed and trained as their government if not even better.

So any government infringement they put on us, that restricts us and not them is unconstitutional in its original intent and meaning.

If you compromise any on that, don't use the constitution for any sort of justification, just go in your backyard and burn it right now.

 

[GeauxLSU]

TL; DR There's no simple answer to your question, but I think, as a community, we can agree that mentally unstable individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others should not be able to possess a firearm.

If they are "so dangerous", why are they walking around freely?....
Think about it ...

 

[Ken Ford]

If you actually read the federalist papers, or any and all other writings, letters, or speeches from our founding fathers, you won't find anything where they talk about the 2nd amendment being for protecting your house from a crackhead burglar or hunting deer or any other type of sporting or fudd nonsense.


It's strictly a political safeguard, particularly against the government they were creating, fear of a standing army. They make very clear the intention of the second amendment is for the people to be as well armed and trained as their government if not even better.

So any government infringement they put on us, that restricts us and not them is unconstitutional in its original intent and meaning.

If you compromise any on that, don't use the constitution for any sort of justification, just go in your backyard and burn it right now.

Hell, I think that if the govt has jets, tanks, or other forms of mass destruction, then we should have them as well.
But alas, I don’t have the power, money or inclination do do so. But if one(or group) did have the wherewithal, then they should obtain them.

 

[Ken Ford]

If they are "so dangerous", why are they walking around freely?....
Think about it ...

True, but again I also worry about who would be the ones to determine that.

In the end I default to “freedom” isn’t a dependance on Govt to keep us safe. It is the freedom to keep ourselves safe.