Becoming a criminal when police come to take my guns

Jeeze, that boating accident is going to become a legend!

Unfortunately I have no body of water near by big enough to loose a 22 round in, so I guess I will just have to make distracting noises about constitutions and truth and such, seems a lot of them can’t bear such talk and may just run away holding their ears!

2 Likes

I would disagree in that the action has nothing to do with it. The intent of the 2A is not at all for hunting, it is for the ability to resist tyrannical government, in which case we need every comparable weapon available to us.

5 Likes

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were criminals for life… after the Revolution.

3 Likes

I would ask where you see in the Constitution that automatic firearms may be prohibited or in any way limited or restricted.

When the nation was founded, our founders had firearms, in some cases far superior to that of the military, including the British Army.

Hunting is NOT what the Second Amendment is about.

The 1934 NFA is actually in my opinion, unconstitutional.

These are the stances that give us ‘Red Flag’ laws…to try to appease the anti-gun left… and if you are subject to Emergency Protection Orders (or ‘Red Flag’ laws), you have no due process, you have no opportunity to cross examine witnesses, no chance to present evidence in your defense… and are found guilty and deprived of property WITHOUT Due Process… and punished.
The red flag law action, puts your name on a database, which may impact your right to carry, your right to purchase, and even have your carry permits revoked…
not to mention…
the ruinous harm done to your name and reputation.

That promotion you worked for, is denied … because of a EPO…
Your job prospects may be harmed, and you may be denied certain jobs… or your business may be harmed… your income and revenue damaged and decreased… all without any recourse.
And if the person lied… and made a false report… how do you prove it.

The harm to your name and reputation may be catastrophic, and may be irrecoverable.

The idea that any ‘gun control’ is acceptable is wrong… other than the only gun control that matters…

Hit What You Aim At

If you allow incremental removal of rights, eventually, the entire right is gone.

The Constitution does not grant our rights, it guarantees those rights. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it is simply additional protection and guarantees for the right… the right that existed before the Constitution.
Government is instituted to secure those rights… and when government becomes detrimental to these ends, it ceases to have legitimacy.

When an act injurious to freedom has once been done and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission ~ Samuel Adams

We the people have a right to keep and bear arms… not just the arms the government determines we are allowed to keep and bear… or we could see our arms reduced to ‘sling shots’.

6 Likes

Indeed… and an automatic firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen is safe… unless and until it is required for defense.

Those who would commit crimes are not in the least concerned with any law prohibiting or limiting automatic firearms.

4 Likes

It was perfect when he said it …

1 Like

I tend to disagree with that as well. Not that I own one, but on principle. Others have made the case for this already. So I’ll just pass on an article. I’ll quote just a portion here…

…a second, competing theory has emerged within the last 100 years which suggests that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege granted by the government, and the kinds of firearms allowed to peaceable citizens depends on what neighbors and government agents would deem allowable at any particular point in time.

The latter is entirely incoherent when contextualized with the words the Second Amendment, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s the position that is broadly recognized as truth for most Americans. Today, it’s just natural to assume that the federal government has the right to curtail gun ownership of this gun or that one among “peaceable citizens” if the federal government feels that some guns are too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to own.

3 Likes

We are all working under the assumption that there will still be an enforceable Constitution. Checks and balances, fairness and blind justice, remember those statues, they tore them down. They absolutely don’t care! They are enemy combatants.
If Kamala, AOC, Pelosi and other turncoat squad members burn it, there is no recourse! They don’t recognize our God given rights, we are no longer recognized as fellow humans, we are a product to be harvested for, I don’t know what! Whatever it is, I’m not buying it!

3 Likes

I believe people are finally seeing that the rules are only being applied to one side. As far as I’m concerned when Pelosi ripped up the state of the union it was literal not just a speech. She showed her disdain for anyone who doesn’t get in line and that attitude is clear as day throughout the media and government.

5 Likes

I stand corrected. You are correct. I just don’t own any fully autos. So I just don’t think about them. It’s like thinking of a Prius when most people just run them off the sidewalk.haha. anyhow you are correct. This does apply to ALL firearms. Personally I’m saving for a BARRET 50.cal. WOOHOO! .

1 Like

Agreed agreed.

1 Like

Melvin, what your saying is true. However have you heard of a nutcase hillary pelosi schiff…those criminals do whatever they want with NO consequences. I wish I lived in the world you are in. Cuz where I live only the elected have a License to break the law. We all see it everyday. ITS BULLSHIT BUDDY. We all can scream and cry it’s against this and that but look what they do over and over and get away with it. I’m sick if this one way street crap. I dare them to come for mine. We’re gonna dance that I promise.

2 Likes

I half-joke that the 2nd Amendment is meant to ensure the Native Nations don’t reclaim the colonies. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the U.S. Army had just lost their worst defeat ever to some American Indian nations in Ohio. It was so bad that- even today- the Army still ranks it as one of their worst disasters. That context is important. The U.S. Army was pitifully small and woefully under-funded. By design, it was supported by militias, which Hamilton had argued would be capable of replacing the type of standing, professional army that so many early citizens feared.

But you’re right, the arguments for 2nd Amendment ratification and the early commentators all referenced the right of the people to resist tyranny, explicitly or implicitly threatened by our own government. Some even made note that gun ownership was limited in England, whereas the United States was egalitarian and recognized the same rights among all people. That principle seems lost, today. We tacitly confer special rights on certain citizens and call it progress.

You’re also correct that the people of the day carried firearms equal to those of the standing army. In some cases they were even superior, since the standing army suffered from the inadequate funding and logistics, previously mentioned. What this for collective defense or individual self-preservation? DC v Heller (2008) should have answered that. Funny how some folks think stare decisis is so important for some issues but shouldn’t apply to 2A cases.

Oh no, I just realized I’m rambling. I apologize, I drank too much coffee and stayed up too late. I’ll stop.

4 Likes

The way to ‘get’ comparable weapons to those of the military is to raid places where they are stored; likewise police department weapons. Of course, to be able to do that in the first place means that there must be a small, seed population of civilian weapons in the first place. Otherwise you are Venezuela. The way we are monitored and can be droned I think we almost have to rely on graffiti symbols scrawled on the ‘right’ walls or fences to know where and when to go to assemble, or else act as individuals seeking ‘targets of opportunity.’ However, that latter situation is very close to the definition of a ‘domestic terrorist’ and I don’t know how many of us would feel comfortable in the role of assassins as opposed to soldiers/patriots/warriors.

1 Like

Ha ha, well, if you’re going to take on the whole U.S. military, just remember that they have A-10s. Good luck finding something comparable to that at your local police department. Also let me know where you’re going to assemble, so I can avoid the area.

In a twist of history, note that the American Revolution (which led to 2A) started with a similar raid on weapons, but it wasn’t civilians trying to steal military weapons. The civilians already had them. It was the army trying to reclaim their own weapons, stored at the magazine in Concord. They were stored there for use by the militia (civilians) in an emergency, but with rising tensions, Gen. Gage decided he could no longer trust civilians with firearms.

Please don’t be patronizing by playing dumb. My remarks were hyperbolic, I grant you, but I hope I’m not merely interacting with a smirking voyeur.

I’m not playing dumb. If anything, I usually try to act smarter than I really am. It doesn’t always work.

I’m glad you say you were being hyperbolic. You never know who’s going to read these posts.

1 Like

I like your thinking and especially the historical grounding. I realize it’s more than merely an oversimplification to try and link past events with current ones.

1 Like

Nothing wrong with being hyperbaric… I’ve heard the hyperbaric chamber can eliminate pain and even cure cancer!!!

2 Likes

Magnets.