Uscca for you

Legal & Second Amendment
41

While true, and the fact the Second Amendment does not grant our right to keep and bear arms, it only guarantees that right, and the right already existed, so removing the Second Amendment would not actually remove the right.
However, the left, when in power, can use the force of government to restrict our rights, and we must either resort to legal battles which may take years and a significant amount of finances and may end with a poor decision, or an armed battle which would be be a dangerous direction to go.

The Constitution does not grant our rights, it guarantees those rights, and government is instituted to secure those rights, deriving itā€™s just powers from the governed. When government becomes detrimental to these ends, it ceases to have legitimacy.

As you state, there are many laws that limit or restrict the right to keep and bear arms, and most, if not all, are basically unconstitutional (regardless of what any court declares).

Would we accept legislation to require ā€˜permitsā€™ to attend church?

Would we accept legislation requiring ā€˜Religious ID cardsā€™ similar to Firearms Owners ID cards?

Would we accept legislation to require public display of your religious faith? (as a note, the religious ID and public display were already done in our not so recent past, by a man with a little mustacheā€¦ and no, I do not mean Charlie Chaplin.

Would we accept legislation to require permits to ā€˜travelā€™? Across town? To a neighboring Town?

Yet, there was on provable evidence that the ban, the unconstitutional ban, had any impact on reducing crime.

While it is sad the officer was killed, you do not deny rights to law abiding citizens for the actions of another, whether a criminal or someone suffering from mental illness.
Limiting the magazine to 10 rds would perhaps cause a home owner to be harmed by not being able to defend themselves from multiple attackers / intruders, and the other side of that, some may train and become proficient with reloading and carry 10 or 20 of those 10rd magazines so that there would be no real advantage for anyone to get to cover.

True, the interpretation is different for many, but there are guidelines and evidence we have available to actually gain a good perspective of what it is, means and how it was intended to be understood and interpreted.

Yes, ā€˜SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDā€™ means just that. However, we have allowed courts to uphold laws that limit that right, and we have had courts create law to limit the right in their decisions, returning to your 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the states to repeal the Second Amendment (which as I said actually does not remove the right since the Second Amendment does not grant the right), is less important than politicians on the left, using power they are not authorized, and seeking court dictates if they can select left leaning courts that rule based on political views and not on the Constitution, they can and already have, put many limits on our rights, not just the Second, but others also.

The court, and historical evidence and founding generation writing clearly shows the right is an individual right.

There was a timeā€¦ but John F. Kennedy could not get the Democrat Party nomination today. Most of the ā€˜Blue Dogā€™ Democrats, those who are moderate to Conservative, are fewā€¦ (fewer than actual Conservative Republicans, but there are not many in either party today it would seem, at least not in office) The radical left being led by those like AOC have steered the party far left, so if those who vote Democrat think their representatives will act in the interests of their constituents, they may need to wake up and realize like many Republicans have, those we elect actually seem to hate us. Do not count on any level headedness from a majority of the elected Democratsā€¦ I sure do not hold my breath for most of the elected Republicansā€¦ some of whom we already see jumping ship from Trump, even as legal battles start.

While it is not likely that our right to keep and bear arms will vanish overnight, a slow death by a thousand cutsā€¦ or a thousand small incremental restrictions by legislation, we may find we are under the thumb of tyranny. Those who say ā€˜this is America, it can not happen hereā€™, may be the ones who wake up one morning and wonder what happened to their nation.

We all must be prepared, we all must know the laws, and we all must fight to defend the Constitution and ensure there are no legislated limits or restrictions, and we need to be well informed and vigilant. While most of us may not be able to take any specific law to court, we can and should be well versed in the issues and seek organizations that will fight in court and write letters to our Representatives and Senatorsā€¦ even though they prefer to not hear from usā€¦ if enough contact them, Republican or Democrat, they do worry about their nice easy financially gratifying and power providing jobs ā€¦ .and may become worried about a serious primary challenge and may actually listen.

3 Likes
42

I completely agree. fb and twitter HAVE to go. PERIOD. There are other sites already in line and set up and all the people need do is quit the two other satanist sites and join freedom. But they wonā€™t because most Americans, and I hate calling 'em that, these days are nothing but spineless, as evidenced by this election.

Welcome to your new potus kamala harris.

5 Likes
43

@fox Fox, I never said anything about political correctness, or really for that matter, niceness, though I was brought up that you can get more flies with honey than vinegar. Just my preference, but Iā€™ll take someone keeping a level head in any kind of situation over someone that feels they need to lead with their anger or emotions. How you practice is how you perform.

2 Likes
44

Yes. Trump has compromised our National security and disrespected our Constitution. He was an illegitimate president all along and most Americans as well as the Free World are glad to see the scourge of his reign come to an end.

45

@Shepherd
I wasnā€™t attacking you Shepherd and I fully understand your reply here. This isnā€™t about pouring my anger out on others, lest you. I consider myself and the people here (sans billyd and the like) family, so thatā€™s the last thing I want.

Those that are Conservatives that felt Trump a betrayal because of the bump stock ban is no different than the current NRA internal issues going on, and I know the NRA has many times betrayed the Right, but no organizations or individuals are going to be perfect by anyoneā€™s standards Iā€™m fairly confident.

With that saidā€¦

Iā€™m just wallowing in sorrow and self pity at the moment and feel now that I will never be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps.

Iā€™m old and I donā€™t know that Iā€™ll make another 8 years of socialist governing and then die with the thought of my kids, grandkids, great grandchildren and future generations facing that kind of life to live through. Itā€™s a pain in my soul that is just too much for me.

Sorry. Again, my response was never an attack on you and I believe you already knew that. Iā€™m just pourinā€™ my heart out at the moment because it seems thatā€™s all I have left.

2 Likes
46

I wasnā€™t feeling attacked and my reply wasnā€™t meant to be mean. I am sorry you are wallowing in sorry and self pity at the moment. My call was for everyone on the forum, Republican, Independent, and Democrat to maintain so that we can continue to be a larger 2A family. Laws will come and go, like the first AR ban, but as the saying goes, you canā€™t put the toothpaste back in the tube and those in support of the 2A need to pull together no matter how they vote. Some people are one issue voters, others weigh the totality of the circumstances, but I would argue everyone here subscribes to their 2A rights (and all the others hopefully).

3 Likes
47

Exactly right. You said our recourse is to use the legal system to which you painted an unhappy resolution (which at this point is hypothetical) or an armed battle. I would say there are more options. The first being, realize use of the legal system more than likely will result in a good resolution based on historical case law. Second, you can run for an elected office and change the system from within, or third, and this is not relayed in a mean way whatsoever, is you can remove yourself from being the subject of that government you feel is oppressing you. If you truly feel America is now a socialist government, you have the option of becoming a citizen of a democratic government elsewhere. Again, I am listing options and this isnā€™t a ā€œlove it or leave it,ā€ declaration. My point is there are more than two options to pursue.

If magazine capacities are restricted, we still have our inalienable right to bear arms and the training you mention is what we all must do to be proficient in a fight. The restriction doesnā€™t remove our right to bear arms, it only mandates how we train with 10 round magazines in order to be as proficient as we were with 30. As you said, with that training, there would be no real advantage for anyone to get to cover, it would also aid in your homeowner v multiple attackers scenario.

With the religions being practiced now that would be ludicrous. What would be your thoughts if I wanted to practice a religion based on human sacrifice or cannibalism? These religious practices have existed in the past. Would you want me to continue to have unlimited, unrestricted rights to practice those things? As other threads state, the rights we enjoy are there only to the point they restrict others from their rights. Some feel their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are encroached when people have access to weapons that allow 20, 30, 40 people to die within 30 to 60 seconds. Just playing devils advocate to get different views to be viewed.

May being the operative word. They may wake up to a world with less violence by the mentally unstable which is where the problem really is, as you and I both know. What might make the 2A crowd a boon or friend to members across the isle could be granting a period of 4 years of limited magazine capacity to 15 rounds WHILE legislation is enacted to put mental health guards in place to treat the real cause of mass shootings. Then after those are in place magazine capacities go back to what they are now. Instead lines are drawn in the sand and people say the only solution is to take up arms to prevent restrictions from happening.

I am 100% with you.

1 Like
48

I do not use Facebook or Twitter. In fact I have never used them. I tell as many as I can not to use them. If you are or have used them, close your accounts and delete the apps. They are nothing but trouble.

3 Likes
49

To Shepherd I never thought it would happen that the governors of states could make executive orders that were against the laws of the states either but it has been occurring very often so saying it would never happen I donā€™t believe that any more why couldnā€™t the president make illegal executive orders just like the governors have I fear for all of our rights

50

You seem to have misunderstood. I see violence as a result regardless of the court outcome. The left will be violent if Biden is given the win, and the left will be violent if Trump is given the win. The legal system will either uphold the rule of law, or it will not. As it is, we already know Pennsylvania violated itā€™s own law, and Wisconsin violated itā€™s law, though it is not yet known if that was intentional or just a failure on the part of those who issued instructions to actually know the law.

I also did not advocate for leaving, unless it is for those on the left who seek a tyrannical nation to leave and go to Venezuela or some other paradise they find more acceptable than our Republic.

Not exactly. If the right is not to be infringed, any limitation does in fact infringe. When the Second Amendment was written, our founders knew repeating firearms existed, and did not limit the arms to only that which the government dictated as being allowed. It would be like saying Freedom of Speech is only for a quill, ink and parchment or newspapers as existed at the time, and only the ink and parchment or newspaper that the government allows.

It did not seem ludicrous in the 1930s

This goes back to the principle of equal rights, and the laws against murderā€¦ your right ends when it meets the rights of othersā€¦ so, your right to practice your religion ends when you attempt to kill another who has a right to life. Regardless of any religious practices in the past, ā€¦ there has also been tyranny in the past with NO freedom OR liberty. That is what would be called a poor argument, as you are trying to intermix historical issues that are not part of the nation.

Yet, their rights are NOT impacted. Until and unless someone actually takes action to do something. And I would question the 30 seconds for 30 or 40 victims with a semi-automatic especially in most realistic scenarios.
Would those same people feel their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be encroached when people drive cars that are capable of speeds well in excess of any posted legal limit? Would they feel that way, if a car passed them on the road going in excess of 100 mph? Playing Devilā€™s advocate can open doors to additional views, but it also allows for the very simple consideration of the argument using different ideasā€¦ firearms versus automobiles.

We may both know it, but there is no way to legislate mental illness, and depending on who is in power, what is declared to be mental illness. There is evil in the world, regardless of what me may hope for, and that is something that is inherently in humans, and can not be legislated out.

No.
Simple and clear. NO.

Once we allow government to enact limitations through legislation, it is extremely rare to ever recover the freedom and liberty, the rights, we allowed government to take.

Look at the current shutdownsā€¦ just this is difficult to recover freedom from.

Remember, this is text, and while some commentsā€¦ mine especially, get long and bloviated, it is still text and while I may include certain views, I have not excluded all views and have refused or failed to consider them, I am only trying to keep to a limit the length and context of the comment. The inclusion of one view, does not prohibit or limit other views that may not be posted simply due to space and time.

1 Like
51

I just donā€™t see the USCCA leaving those platforms as helpful to the cause. NOW, me, as an individual, I may leave those platforms, delete my accounts permanently, and go to Parler.

1 Like
52

I think many of us are jumping the gun. The election has not been certified in any state yet! IT IS NOT OVER YET ! There are many many ballot disputes and they will be settled in the courts before the races are certified. Many of you are acting like Joe has already been sworn in.

3 Likes
53

Agreed! I will wait to see what Prez. Trump will say or do. As long as he is in the fight so am I. I still have faith.
:us: :+1:

2 Likes
54

Anyone can do anything, be it a governor or a president. What happens after that, which is born out by recent history is the courts step in and invalidate the illegal order. Having a fear, doesnā€™t mean we have to give in to that fear and lose hope. Trust but verify works for these situations as well. You can be active and educated to protect our rights and hopeful with out giving in to fear.

55

There is Parler as an uncensored social media platform. More and more people are exiting twitter and fb and are signing up at Parler.

1 Like
56

@Heather13 Welcome to the community, we are glad to have you here. Stay safe, Bruce and Nancy. :+1:

57

Indeed

There is also GAB, but much of the mainstream media declare it neo-Naziā€¦

Notice how anything that allows free speech and opposing views is called far right extremist and neo-Nazi?

Trump denounced white supremacists and Neo-Nazis multiple times and the media repeatedly asked when he would finally denounce them.

4 Likes
58

Iā€™m not sure why you believe ā€œthe leftā€ will be violent regardless. If you are talking about the violence during the recent protests, you canā€™t assume because violence happened during or around the protest that a particular side is responsible. The five police cars that were torched recently were torched by a female from Antifa, the police station that was burned down in MN was started by two Boogaloo Boys. Both sides went to the protest and caused violence and destruction as well as parties that just hate all government that arenā€™t affiliated with either the right or the left. Trump supporters have threatened to kill vote counters in several of the states that have close results.

Your right to freedom of speech ends where it would cause public harm. Your right to yell fire in a crowded theater is restricted. Your right to slander someone is restricted by law. All rights are inalienable and to be protected by the government, but people accept these restrictions on speech. I am curious, and I know this is outside of our discussion, why everyone wants to die on the magazine capacity hill? Saying any infringement is wrong, why arenā€™t people decrying the fact they canā€™t have a tank, anti-aircraft missiles, etc. These would really aid in a well prepared militia. A tank is just a vehicle with a specialized firearm on it, anti-aircraft missiles are just rifles with an explosive bullet. What helps you accept that you canā€™t have those items? There are enough rich people in the U.S. that can afford these things, why arenā€™t people advocating for them to have them? I know this sounds like I am being sarcastic, but I am not.

You assume I want to kill someone. Letā€™s use the cannibalism example. My religion is full of medical doctors, coroners, healthcare providers. Say they procure human bodies legally and meet the letter of the law with their use but then go beyond and practice their religion of cannibalism. Imagine relatives finding out that their loved one who left their body for medical use was having parts of it being used in a religious practice that involved cannibalism? Then having the states or U.S. government making a law against the practice but the Supreme Court stated it was their right, freedom of religion. Or even the human sacrifice religion, practiced in a state where suicide is legal and one of the believers takes their own life on an alter. I can bet there would be several laws passed to prevent these situations occurring, but our rights are inalienable and shouldnā€™t be infringed upon.

Firearms are a right, cars are not according to many people on this forum.

My apologies, that was just for arguments sake, more realistically, 3 to 6 minutes then, before the police can arrive.

My thoughts were not to legislate mental illness but provide better programs for recognizing it and giving aid to alleviate the issues, or recognize that individual should not be allowed to have access to firearms, as already exists in certain situations.

Very well said and true on my part and everyone elseā€™s part on this or any forum. Thank you for the exchange of ideas.

59

Weā€™re on Parler too! Search for USCCA, youā€™ll find us! @USCCA on Parler

2 Likes
60

Gab allows porn so I wonā€™t use that site. There is freedom of speech, but we donā€™t need that kind.

2 Likes