Ammunition Background Check and Unintended Consequences

[USMC06RET]

2A is and should be about self protection of your and your family.

I suppose it is foolish to debate with the moderator of the forum but, so be it.

This is the text of the second amendment:

“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.”​

Citizens and the judiciary have interpreted this single sentence in a myriad of ways since 1791. However, the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is not ambiguous. James Madison proposed the second amendment as a way to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the genesis of the second amendment would be well served to read Federalist Essay No. 46

 

[USMC06RET]

Good luck.

Hey, thanks for sharing!

 

[skb720]

The Constitution, our current one is actually the second version, first was the Articles of Confederation after the Revolutionary War. It barely passed by two or three votes. Debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were very heated, some of the compromise included Not creating a standing army. Then the War of 1812 disaster when British burned down both the White House and Capitol buildings, President Madison barely escaped. A standing army was then created. Of course the standing armies then fought each other in the Civil War 50 years later.

Despite the late Justice Scalia's analysis, my opinion is that the Second Amendment was intended by the Anti-Federalists to Not create a national standing army so to have state militias at the ready, and that leads to the individual right of "bear arms"; so it is not Either Or, it is both. Now that state militias are irrelevant today, does the individual right still stand? Future Supreme Court and the cases it will hear determine that.

 

[USMC06RET]

Now that state militias are irrelevant today, does the individual right still stand? Future Supreme Court and the cases it will hear determine that.

The definition of "militia" has changed over the centuries and it is this ambiguity that has saved the second amendment.

 

[ikeo1]

The definition of "militia" has changed over the centuries and it is this ambiguity that has saved the second amendment.

What does it mean in its current context? IMO, while there are some people who would fight, the vast majority would not given today’s climate. The right have a tighter cling to party than left and I think left overall is too weak to fight. The fringe left doesnt speak for the majority though they have the loudest voice would be at the back of the line to fight.

Also there is no benefit to fighting. You’ll never see Baron or Newsome lead a charge. Those days are in the past. Rich people have poor people fight their battles. Elon would never fight, but would have his companies help. So i think it’s irrational for civil war. Also a civil war here would also cement the US losing global power and BRICS+ would succeed. There’s no point the US loses either way. By showing “strength” from a party it’s really destroying it inside out globally.

2A locally and economically globally were in trouble. Ultimately those that say we’re just going along also don’t have an answer or solution for the problems that come with it. As annoying as it is, violent crime rates are down so that acts as objective data that it works even though it’s correlation not causation.

I don’t have an answer but I can see from both spectrums I like my freedom but I don’t like crime. Discussions like these help to shine light on the complexity of the issue. It’s not as simple as my freedoms allow me to do anything I want.

 

[USMC06RET]

What does it mean in its current context? IMO, while there are some people who would fight, the vast majority would not given today’s climate. The right have a tighter cling to party than left and I think left overall is too weak to fight. The fringe left doesnt speak for the majority though they have the loudest voice would be at the back of the line to fight.

Also there is no benefit to fighting. You’ll never see Baron or Newsome lead a charge. Those days are in the past. Rich people have poor people fight their battles. Elon would never fight, but would have his companies help. So i think it’s irrational for civil war. Also a civil war here would also cement the US losing global power and BRICS+ would succeed. There’s no point the US loses either way. By showing “strength” from a party it’s really destroying it inside out globally.

2A locally and economically globally were in trouble. Ultimately those that say we’re just going along also don’t have an answer or solution for the problems that come with it. As annoying as it is, violent crime rates are down so that acts as objective data that it works even though it’s correlation not causation.

I don’t have an answer but I can see from both spectrums I like my freedom but I don’t like crime. Discussions like these help to shine light on the complexity of the issue. It’s not as simple as my freedoms allow me to do anything I want.

I don't think it really matters what the current definitions are of words found in a 233 year old amendment. What matters is the definition of the words when the amendment was adopted.

In 1791, "militia" meant groups of fighting age / able bodied men who protected their villages / towns / cities, their colonies and ultimately their states. In 1791 it was the responsibility of the states to organize these militias. The other important phrase is "well regulated", back then this did not mean government regulations as we know them today but rather it meant the men were properly organized, sufficiently armed and very importantly, a disciplined fighting force.

As for who would fight if there were a civil war, in the VAST majority of wars it is always a minority of the population who are combatants. I disagree with your assessment of today's climate. Those of us who object to fascism, racism, kleptocracy and totalitarianism do not possess the passivity of the peaceniks and hippies of the 1960s, instead we have the determination of those people who protested and marched against the national injustices and the criminality of politicians in the 1960s. I couldn't care less about Baron and, Newsom doesn't factor into this calculus for me. The rising fascism in this nation is being promoted by the super wealthy as that is who fascism benefits the most.

As for the US losing, Ikeo, we lost the moment we elected a totalitarian to a second term. As for there being no benefit from fighting, conflict is always the final stage of diplomacy and virtually every shift in human society has been precipitated by conflict and protected via conflict. If human beings as a whole were reasonable and rational, we would not worship invisible friends nor would we elect conmen and traitors to lead our nation but, here we are.

You said: "2A locally and economically globally were in trouble." I absolutely have no idea what that sentence means and hence I cannot comment on the entire paragraph. Please clarify this for me.

You said you don't have an answer. I am not entirely sure what the question is, if it is "how do we keep our nation together?", we do whatever is necessary to neutralize the s, we once and for all get all of the profit and big / dark money out of our political system. We modify our constitution to severely limit the powers of the presidency and even consider changing our form of government to a parliamentary model with our leader being a prime minister so as to eliminate the possibility of another wanna-be king bullting his way into the ultimate global position of power.

 

[mattmcg]

Glad you woke up from the liberal Matrix. Libs want nothing than to strip you from your freedoms and control every aspect of your lives. Every law chips away at that freedom.

 

[mattmcg]

I don't think it really matters what the current definitions are of words found in a 233 year old amendment. What matters is the definition of the words when the amendment was adopted.

In 1791, "militia" meant groups of fighting age / able bodied men who protected their villages / towns / cities, their colonies and ultimately their states. In 1791 it was the responsibility of the states to organize these militias. The other important phrase is "well regulated", back then this did not mean government regulations as we know them today but rather it meant the men were properly organized, sufficiently armed and very importantly, a disciplined fighting force.

As for who would fight if there were a civil war, in the VAST majority of wars it is always a minority of the population who are combatants. I disagree with your assessment of today's climate. Those of us who object to fascism, racism, kleptocracy and totalitarianism do not possess the passivity of the peaceniks and hippies of the 1960s, instead we have the determination of those people who protested and marched against the national injustices and the criminality of politicians in the 1960s. I couldn't care less about Baron and, Newsom doesn't factor into this calculus for me. The rising fascism in this nation is being promoted by the super wealthy as that is who fascism benefits the most.

As for the US losing, Ikeo, we lost the moment we elected a totalitarian to a second term. As for there being no benefit from fighting, conflict is always the final stage of diplomacy and virtually every shift in human society has been precipitated by conflict and protected via conflict. If human beings as a whole were reasonable and rational, we would not worship invisible friends nor would we elect conmen and traitors to lead our nation but, here we are.

You said: "2A locally and economically globally were in trouble." I absolutely have no idea what that sentence means and hence I cannot comment on the entire paragraph. Please clarify this for me.

You said you don't have an answer. I am not entirely sure what the question is, if it is "how do we keep our nation together?", we do whatever is necessary to neutralize the s, we once and for all get all of the profit and big / dark money out of our political system. We modify our constitution to severely limit the powers of the presidency and even consider changing our form of government to a parliamentary model with our leader being a prime minister so as to eliminate the possibility of another wanna-be king bullting his way into the ultimate global position of power.

You do realize that the Supeme Court has ruled on this in a number of areas. Militia and People have become synonymous. The Right is a god given right and to all people. The 2A is clear and courts are better defining Arm as anything used to defend life or liberty. The constitution was also written to be timeless, and allows an evolution through a majority.

And to hell with the fascism talk, that’s sounding like an Antifa member. The current administration is fighting to bring back the middle class and build critical knowledge, production, and balance of trade so that our nation stays strong.

 

[Enthused]

Regardless of whatever party you support, keep on doing your parts to support the 2A. Every firearm or box of ammo you purchase puts more money into the industry to not only keep it alive, but to thrive. The federal government, and many state governments, would LOVE for the firearm industry to crash and burn, but quite the opposite is happening right now. The Covid bump is over of course, but it feels like the industry is in a very stable position right now.

The war is lost if the manufacturers and 2A organizations run out of money. It is your patriotic duty to go and buy more guns.

 

[USMC06RET]

And to hell with the fascism talk, that’s sounding like an Antifa member. The current administration is fighting to bring back the middle class and build critical knowledge, production, and balance of trade so that our nation stays strong.

Don't take it from me that he is a , take it from USMC General John F. Kelly ( a man I know well and respect ) and former Trump Chief of staff. A more qualified individual on the topic I cannot name:

In response to a question about whether he thought Mr. Trump was a , Mr. Kelly first read aloud a definition of fascism that he had found online.
“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Mr. Kelly said that definition accurately described Mr. Trump.
“So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” Mr. Kelly said.
He added: “Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of , for sure.”

Mr. Trump “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted,” Mr. Kelly said. “I think he’d love to be just like he was in business — he could tell people to do things and they would do it, and not really bother too much about whether what the legalities were and whatnot,” he said.

When Mr. Kelly left the White House in 2019, he decided he would speak out on the record only if Mr. Trump said something that he found deeply troubling or involved him and was wildly inaccurate. Mr. Trump’s recent comments about using the military against what he called the “enemy within” were so dangerous, he said, that he felt he had to speak out.

Full text of article​

 

[p--and--p]

I wrote a ton, then deleted it and will just say this- im going to stick to the for sale section here. I can't anymore with these posts- just like in the real world, the adults are working and too busy to argue online but the other side is just post post post. I can't

 

[XxwoodshunterxX]

It doesn't really matter how good your PR is, when one mass shooting, especially one that involves children, wipes out all the good PR. It's difficult to convince people that guns are good when someone like Stephen Paddock, in 2017, wounds 413 and kills ~60 innocent concert attendees in Vegas.

So they say that's what happened. im not a conspiracy theorist but ive heard some compelling arguments about that incident and it makes me wonder, if that wasnt some sort of coverup for something else that went down in that hotel that night

 

[psun786]

So they say that's what happened. im not a conspiracy theorist but ive heard some compelling arguments about that incident and it makes me wonder, if that wasnt some sort of coverup for something else that went down in that hotel that night

I always tell people that "mass casualty event" is inevitable in a free society. It is price that I am willing to bear.

 

[TheBlasterMaster]

I always tell people that "mass casualty event" is inevitable in a free society. It is price that I am willing to bear.

Freedom is dangerous. All rights inherently cause chaos. That's why countries like China and the UK eliminate them. Control removes chaos. Control free speech, firearms ownership, and privacy rights, you eliminate that chaos. However, this country was founded on individual liberties, not progressive collectivism. Progressive collectivism is a cancer.

 

[XxwoodshunterxX]

Freedom is dangerous. All rights inherently cause chaos. That's why countries like China and the UK eliminate them. Control removes chaos. Control free speech, firearms ownership, and privacy rights, you eliminate that chaos. However, this country was founded on individual liberties, not progressive collectivism. Progressive collectivism is a cancer.

i dont know ive seen some pretty wild chaos in thos countries in my lifetime

 

[gorgothmog]

As the long weekend is underway, we've got more relatives getting together and we started chatting. They are my younger cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. Topic of ammo background check came up. I told them my experiences and stories that 15 years ago I was a typical young liberal progressive just like them. And I stupidly voted Yes on the ammunition background check thinking that criminals should not get ammo that easily, yes I was so naive and clueless back then. The key takeaway I told them was that the State will sucker us young people into some innocent ideals (e.g. crime prevention) and morph into something else. We thought it was just a simple background check for ammo, but it turned out it is actually a Registry, remember they record the ammunition type, caliber, quantity everytime we purchase ammo. Couple of my nieces just brushed me off like I am just some old right wing nut. Funny that's what I thought of my uncle years ago who introduced me to the shooting sports. Food for thought. This forum has lots of younger generation.

I'd like to point out that when the ammunition background check passed FFL03 and COE holders had a nice little carve out made for them. It would be nice if we could be more muscular in terms of carve outs in future legislation.

 

[DB>)>]

The problem with "common sense" (and just WHO decides what is "sense" and what is NONsense??) gun CONTROL (note that it's not the actual inanimate objects that are being controlled, but CITIZENRY!) is that it overwhelmingly burdens and infringes, financially or otherwise upon LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS.... Law abiding gun owners and firearms companies that are CONSTANTLY being attacked by crazy people passing crazy laws.

If there is any effect upon the criminal class, it is to tack on a few extra months in a plea bargained deal with a typically soft on CRIME (criminals) DA, usually resulting in a rediculously short sentence or release so the criminal can continue to prey upon LAW ABIDING people who may or may not choose to exercise the right to defend themselves, their family and neighbors, and to a very limited extent, their "stuff".

When laws actually lower crime rates, I'm in, as I would expect most here would be, but I for one am tired of having to play cat and mouse games with a state that can't even keep their websites current and accurate (based upon a recent deep dive on the DoJ website, as well as several others I've had to dig into)!

Anti-2A laws are "sold" by playing upon feelings, emotions, and opinions, the more they appeal to "warm fuzzies", the more the Legislative sponsors collect in campaign contributions and continued returns to "represent" whatever the lobbyists tell them to, while banging the "help", betraying the US, and screwing over their constituents. (OK, maybe the last part is a bit too much... but maybe not).

ACTUAL "common sense" would dictate that legislation in progress MUST be required to prove what additional benefit to society and the citzenry is achieved by said legislation, but there's an infinitesimal chance of THAT...


As far as the right to defense... let's say a week from now, hostile aliens attack earth, I'd venture we humans would find sufficient reason to stand shoulder to shoulder with a lot of folks that last week were at each others throats in social media "chats". Perspective is a funny thing. Of course there would probably be a bunch of nut jobs welcoming the hostiles with open arms, because "humans".

 

[5ForFighting]

Firearms aren’t the problem, coddling of criminals is the problem. Bring back the death penalty, penal colonies, loss of limbs for thieving, and 90% of the problems go away. Sorry about your crappy childhood, but the cycle ends with you for the betterment of society.

I don’t care how people “interpret” the 2nd…to me it’s clear: the people are to have access to weapons of war in order to protect themselves from tyranny.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Holy necro post someone did for this, also the militia by us code is able bodied "males" that arent in the national guard or military which includes people like me. Also i believe a majority of states of the OG13 had state constitutions defending owning firesarms besides most of the current states also do. Cali happens to be one that doesnt have it at the state level. Just some food for thought about the whole militia argument is moot when the US considers most adults the miltia

 

[Joker67]

Legal language is different from every day language with very specific meanings . Much of the “debate” is based on not understanding what certain words mean in the context. However in the Federalist Papers, The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the meanings of words and how they are used is consistent. It’s the modern misunderstanding of these terms that gives rise to misunderstanding. I’m saying this without correcting , but a few comments here are based on misunderstanding. The Supreme Court decisions have clarified this.