Let me start by saying that I am an avid gun owner, but the time to compromise has come...

Let me start by saying that I am an avid gun owner, but the time to compromise has come. Gun owners and the NRA have been taking hit after hit lately. Retailers are refusing to sell guns. Florida just passed an anti-gun bill. Let's face it guys, we're fighting an uphill battle.

And I think we can all agree that mass shootings are huge problem. I think that in order to own a gun you should have to go through mandatory psych evaluations every year. Also, if you buy ammo you need to have a background check for every 100 rounds purchased. So if you bought 500 rounds of ammo you'd have to go through 5 consecutive background checks before you could leave the store.

We should also consider giving up a few things like high capacity magazines and bumpstocks or assault rifles. The way I see it is that it's better to concede on a few things than to lose everything.

Mark my words, if we don't compromise now we're going to lose out on more in the future.

T-trust me fellow gun owners, the only way to save y-our guns is by giving them up
t. definitely not an anti-gun shill

Nah.
Its the law we fight.
"necessary" to a free state.
Guns are mandated by law.

My guns are for shooting Democrats.

Why would you go through five background checks for 500 .22lr bullets hahaha
Weak fucking bait

Eat a dick, shill.

You can have my guns when you are lying in my front yard, bleeding to death. Oh wait, no you can't.

I think we could make this all simple with one easy piece of legislation. We can call it the de- pussify america bill, where all pussys like yourself are sent to re-education camps to learn how to fight, defend your rights and stop being pussys to criminals and your fat wives. Then maybe you will learn how to teach your kids some responsibilities.

>Let me start by saying that I am an avid gun owner

post some pics of your collection.

Sage

Nice try, but this is America and I don't have to post anything if I don't want to.

Actually, I have a right to have guns per the founding. You have no right which trumps that.

You don't deserve that flag. Take it off you fucking leaf.

SHALL

SAGE

Hitler disarmed the Jews well before loading them on the trains headed for Ash Camp, or at least that’s how history is written. Everybody is saying we can’t trust our government (Everybody whining about corrupt government with those dang police officers carrying out pretty much executions to unarmed citizens), but they now want to give our only means of protection to that SAME government we can’t trust? Giving up my means of protection = police are trustworthy protecting my life. This is not true, because of the first responding officers LITERALLY SITTING ON THEIR ASSES OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL IN FLORIDA AS GUNSHOTS COULD BE HEARD COMING FROM THE INSIDE. Police officers are not required by law to protect you (google the court case that caused why the words “protect and serve” have been taken off of every police cruiser). If you can’t rely on the police to protect you, then you must rely on yourself. Is it really that hard to grasp?

I'm no leaf. I'm an American just like you. Anyone with a brain knows that we are fighting a losing battle and we MUST give up an inch or two to gain a mile.

I'm no leaf. I'm an American just like you. Anyone with a brain knows that we are fighting a losing battle and we MUST give up an inch or two to gain a mile.

tl;dr

I would, but I lost them all in a tragic boating accident

Hello fellow fourth channers.

NO MORE COMPROMISE
FUCK OFF AND DIE

Show your flag then, shill.

Actually, that's precisely the situation. My paranoid fantasy does trump your rights to appropriate and reasonable public health policies. You're fucked and you should just cope with it.

SHIIIIIIIIIIL
SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS

glow in the dark cia nigger

>Let me start by saying that I am an (((avid gun owner)))

I'm starting to want bans just to watch as the happening unfolds, it's all so tiresome.

You can go fuck yourself. I hope you die in your sleep tonight. The rifles that they are trying to confiscate are used in 2% of the homicides in this country. Gun confiscation in Australia and the UK didn't lower their homicide rate and save lives. You're the worst kind of faggot, and I hope that as soon as you get diagnosed with AIDS, on the ride home from the doctor's office, you get ran over by a truck.

we tougher gun laws as long as we have voter id.

let me start by saying youre a shill, let me end by saying fuck off fag

hmm, you bring up an interesting point. however, after considering your argument, i believe i have a rebuttal. consider the following: kys, and shall not be infringed.

Fuck off kike

Sage

>Gun owners and the NRA have been taking hit after hit lately

The NRA gained 500,000 new members last moth

>the time to compromise has come.
What do you propose the anti-gunners give up as their portion of this compromise?

...

the same shit they said back in 1986 and look how much good that did

Look here, Faggot. We have been "compromising" for nearly 100 years! all these fuckers ever want is more.

>More laws!
>More restrictions!
>More control!

It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Grow a fucking backbone, or accept your role as Ephialtes and live forever as a coward and a traitor, knowing you'll never see the afterlife.

TL;DR enjoy your chains, beeeeiiiitcccch.

>Post your guns then my totally not Jewish friend.

I would like to judge your taste in the freedom you are about to fuck up for every future generation before I join in.

>chambering a clip

Lying faggot. Nobody believes you.

>So if you bought 500 rounds of ammo you'd have to go through 5 consecutive background checks before you could leave the store

Are you sure you can still use that pic? I thought the current progressive stance was that the government IS now fascist.

Hey, you, with the hammer and sickle on your t shirt

Your delusional fantasies of getting food and housing and healthcare for free do not Trump my right to keep the money that I work hard for.

Sincerely, everyone who isn't a nigger or a democrat

Example of shared resources not working: couldn't post this from my phone because the ip range is blocked.

Bullshit you're a Leaf or Jew who's too lazy to proxy.

REPEAL ALL GUN LAWS OR WE GO TO WAR AND JEWS DIE FIRST.

I have no issues with public health policies. That's actually what I support. Taking care of the root causes of violence and mental illness in our society. Making America the best nation on Earth once more.

>says he's a gun owner
>doesn't post gun collection
>says he's american
>hides flag
Neck yourself, goyim.

You sound like a pussy & should surrender immediately.
Why would a pussy try to rally a crowd into pussy thoughts anyway?

You can come get my glock if you want it so bad, faggot.

OP is obviously a shill for the left.

I'm just waiting for the civil war to happen.

>your explicit constitutional rights do not trump my right to violate your explicit constitutional rights

If you're of sound mental health with no violent crimes and have your gun registered then I'm totally fucking fine with you having your glock. If you're a violent criminal, mentally unstable, or purchased the gun illegally then yea we should most definitely come for your gun.

What the fuck is so unreasonable about this.

Compromise? How is you getting what you want, and us getting nothing in return, a 'compromise'?

A year later, you'll try taking away more, and then say "why won't you compromise?" And you'll keep going till we have nothing left.

You say you want compromise. You want to ban assault rifles, and don't offer any concession in return.

A compromise would be "Ban automatic weapons for civilian use, but in exchange, we give back unrestricted open carry on everything else."

But you won't do that, because you're a gun grabber. You want to take all the guns, but do it slowly so the frog doesn't realize the water is boiling.

Gun control hillary voter here,

Let me just say that the recent spat of debates on the subject has completely changed the way I look at the issue.

People say that we have a right in the constitution to own guns, and I read it and think "however, it says regulated militia"... but then I read the rest of the sentence, and it seems that in fact we do have the right to own weapons.

Wouldn't it be strange to say that the money is at fault when somebody tries to bribe a politician similar to how hillary was bribed by russia? Should we ban money so that no bribes can occur? No, of course not. We should maintain our freedoms as best we can.

I think in 2020 I'm going to vote trump even though I'm a died in the wool democrat.

You have a right to own a firearm but you do not have the right to own any firearm. This has been determined by the courts. Or do you not care about rule of law?

let me reply by saying no one cares what you have to say

The constitution doesn't say anything about firearms. It says arms.

You should be saying: "You have a right to own a weapon, but you do not have the right to own any weapon. "

Of course there's no problem if the government decides to ban all guns, because they can regulate what type of weapons we're allowed to own.

Now, if a judge said this, would that be persuasive to you?

Automatic weapons are already banned for civilian ownership and have been for decades, faggot.

How about the CDC is allowed to study gun violence as a public health issue and the NRA isn't allowed to keep pumping money into the hands of politicians?

do it faggot

Actually I have the right bear all arms. How am I suppost to be a well regulated militia that can secure a free state if I can't bear the best arms?

That was already determined in District of Columbia vs Heller. Regulations do not violate the 2nd amendment.

You do not. I'm sorry that you'd rather larp on an anonymous image board than recognize the laws of your country.

Fucking kys

Change your flag, kike.

We've compromised enough don't you think?

The constitution is explicit, I understand what it means, the founders explained it many times in their writings. Some kike politically appointed judge doesn't change that.

...

>Also, if you buy ammo you need to have a background check for every 100 rounds purchased. So if you bought 500 rounds of ammo you'd have to go through 5 consecutive background checks before you could leave the store.
This is when I realized you were baiting.

does anyone know where i can find this vid?

found the liberal faggot who has never held a gun in his life.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

From a court decision penned by Justice Scalia. You can choose to live in contempt of the law if you so desire. Your right is not unlimited no matter how much you stomp your feet and throw a tantrum.

You didn't answer my question.
The constituion doesn't say anything about firearms. Whatever a judge says, i can look at the constitution and see that it says nothing about firearms in the 2nd amendment.

Just because a judge says something, doesn't make it so.

You can continue to repeat yourself, but we are armed to prevent kike judges from taking away our explicit constitutional rights. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Arms, as written in the constitution, is, and has been on multiple occasions, considered by the courts to mean firearms. This has been affirmed multiple times over centuries.

Our courts inform the understanding and application of our laws. We have courts for that exact reason. I'm sorry that you slept through civics.

Have fun arguing that in a court of law, I'm sure it'll go over great.

You're not actually arguing an idea, stating: this is the way things are is pedantic and idiotic.

No. Fuck off.
We hold the power right now.

>has been on multiple occasions, considered by the courts to mean firearms.
Again: whatever the judge says, I can read it myself.
If he claims it says firearms, he's lying.

It isn't within the judge's power to take away my rights.

Today he says it means firearms, tomorrow he may say it means firecrackers. That's not what it says, and i won't accept such a blatant subversion of my constituional rights.

...

you telll them

Are you allergic to reading? Your right doesn't supercede laws found to not be in violation of said right.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

>Shall not be infringed.

Kys faggot.

Automatic weapons are not banned, only highly regulated and expensive. Only post 1986 manufactured weapons are banned from general civilian sale.

Likewise the CDC can study gun violence, they just can't do it with any agenda beforehand.

>Your right doesn't supercede laws found to not be in violation of said right.

It does in the case that the laws are actually in violation of said right. Again: The court doesn't have the authority to diminish my rights. If they make a ruling that infringes upon my rights, it's an invalid ruling.

The constitution says i have a right to own weapons. That means the government has no authority to prevent me from owning a weapon. If they ban a weapon, that is in violation of the constituion.

Do you have the one about 'Steve' or something like that? Where they held these big wargame scenarios and Steve ended up being some fucked up redneck warlord that fucked up all of their plans just by being a crazy redneck taking over a few small towns with sympathetic locals? I thought I'd saved it but can't find it, but by God, it was hilarious.

Fuck you I just bought another case of ammo because of this post.

Yes goy, I mean fellow gun owners. We must give up our guns to protect our freedoms.

By certain class of firearms I take this to mean you think some firearms (let's say "assault weapons") are not protected under 2A.

Currently this has only been tested up to the appellate courts, and has never gone up to the supreme Court. The SC has been reluctant to hear most 2A cases after Heller 2.0, but I imagine if they do hear an AWB case it will be ruled unconstitutional specifically because "assault weapons" already fall under common use (there are 20-40 million ARs in circulation) and because they have multiple legitimate uses including self defense. In other words, there's no legal or logical reason to ban a certain class of weapons merely on asthetic reasons and for your faggot ass.

That's why you can bring your case to court if you feel a local, state, or federal law is violating your right.

In similar cases, the court has found laws that limit certain types of gun ownership to not violate your second amendment right.

Thanks, yeah I think guns are wicked cool and want one just to dick around at a range but there really need more regulations because I don't want children to be shot in schools.

I agree with you, and would not support a blanket ban on a weapon class or type. I'm sick however, of people who are totally ignorant of the court history relating to 2A rights.

What would you say if the courts agreed that a law banning all firearms was perfectly constitutional?

Would you bow for them as you bow to them now?

>"paranoid fantasies"
Says the child killer.
Hows it feel to be attacked after so long of feeling untouchable?

does it feel good to have your reality crashing down around you ?

>The government is too powerful to fight against so we should just give up and let the government have even more power by voting away our own rights.

The absolute state of democucks.

Faggot you forgot to copy the next part of the decision:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” .

The guns you faghats are trying to ban (ARs, sporting rifles) ARE in common use.

I think a lot more children will die when that fascist government exists, which according to a lot of leftist is the person in office.

I sincerely doubt the court would find that to be the case given the history of the 2A's interpretation. You're creating an unrealistic scenario to try to justify whatever fantasy you desire.

HEY YOU.
With the cars.

Your infantile fantasies of achieving more personal freedom by owning and driving your own car do not trump my rights to demand appropriate and reasonable public health policies to stop drunk drivers and such running peopel over.

Sincerely, The Rest of the Fucking World, you piece of shit!

shall not be infringed.

also there will never again in america be a 2/3 majority vote in either house so theres nothing to worry about besides trump getting cucked and writing unconstitutional executive orders