I’d like to see some more focus on the well regulated thing.

For example, all gun owners need to be part of a militia. Said militia needs to have regular drills and to police their own. Militias with too many problem owners get shut down.

In exchange we can get holdout states like Maryland and Illinois to recognize other states legitimate CCW permits or at least to allow storage in lock boxes while going through those states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

The second amendment granted "the militia" the right to possess arms. Not you. Not me. The militia. In other words, the military. Or the national guard. Or the police. It is not an individual right for each person in the way that speech, religion, self incrimination, etc are. It's a right established and reserved for the collective (ie the militia, the government, the state), but it just happened to be included amongst other rights prescribed to individuals. That's the source of confusion here. The other nine amendments in the BoR are for the individual, except for the second amendment, which is for the militia.

It's a mistake, among many, made by the white male slave owners who wrote it.

Reading comprehension is evidently not your strong point. The militia is mentioned only in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment. That clause states the reason for the amendment. The second clause is what the amendment is all about. In it, the framers of the constitution clearly referred to THE PEOPLE, not the militia. The same wording is used in the 1st, and 4th amendments. The 10th amendment clearly shows that the framers differentiated between the United States, the individual states, and the people. If the framers of the constitution meant that the right to keep and bear arms was reserved for the states or to the militia, they would have said so. The amendment would have read, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or, "...the right of the states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they didn't do that. They gave that right to the people, not to the states or to me militia. And I think you know that. You hate it, but you know it's true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

The second amendment granted "the militia" the right to possess arms. Not you. Not me. The militia. In other words, the military. Or the national guard. Or the police. It is not an individual right for each person in the way that speech, religion, self incrimination, etc are. It's a right established and reserved for the collective (ie the militia, the government, the state), but it just happened to be included amongst other rights prescribed to individuals. That's the source of confusion here. The other nine amendments in the BoR are for the individual, except for the second amendment, which is for the militia.

It's a mistake, among many, made by the white male slave owners who wrote it.

SCOTUS ruled otherwise a few years back in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

That was an incorrect ruling, and it will be reversed as soon as the make up the court can be changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the upcoming Senate Bill #16, looks like the Dems will attempt to ban most guns, making a lot of VA citizens into felonies overnight.
We have a collection of antique guns with bayonet mounts, this will force us to sell or keep outside of VA. All or nothing... is there really no middle ground in gun control?

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16+pdf

The definition of an "assault weapon" in the proposed SB-16 covers only "semi-automatic, center-fire" rifles. Under both Virginia and federal law, an antique firearm is defined as being made on or before December 31, 1898. I've been collecting antique guns for many years, and have yet to see any semi-automatic center-fire rifles made before that date.

As to there being a "middle ground on gun control"......I suppose that there could be. The problem is that there are some people out there who are doing everything they can to make it illegal for private citizens to possess any firearms at all. And they won't budge in their belief that nobody except the police and military should have guns. Just take the time to read some of the really crazy posts on this board and you'll see what I mean.

The way the gun nuts and NRA have framed the debate, you can not take a gun away from known terrorist. It’s an all or nothing fight. All reasonable restrictions are fought tooth and nail. So when the day comes and it’s coming, you and op will have no say in how guns are regulated/restricted. Australia is coming and it’s your own fault.

We have guns. You don’t want us to have them. We won’t give them up under any circumstance.

Your move.

I'd say a middle ground is you have youre guns and you're not allowed to give them to anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course we can find a middle ground. SB16 and the banning of firearms is not in that ground.

Expand or enhance background checks.

Funding for enforcement for laws already on the books

Tax credits and incentives for using gun safes

MENTAL HEALTH.

SB16 won’t likely be effective.

I like the legislation supported by the Brady Campaign.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation



THE ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 1112)

Addressing the dangerous “Charleston Loophole" in background checks


EXPANDING BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS (H.R. 8 AND S. 42)

Expanding background checks to all gun sales


EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 1236 AND S. 506)

Allow for the temporary removal of guns from people in crisis.


THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION RESEARCH ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 674 AND S. 184)

Provide funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the gun violence epidemic



THE PREVENT FAMILY FIRE ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 4926)

The Prevent Family Fire Act of 2019 embraces a market approach to increasing safe firearm storage by incentivizing retail sales through tax credits.

Yep. All good, I am impressed that the Brady Campaign has toned it down in recent years.

Anonymous wrote:Of course we can find a middle ground. SB16 and the banning of firearms is not in that ground.

Expand or enhance background checks.

Funding for enforcement for laws already on the books

Tax credits and incentives for using gun safes

MENTAL HEALTH.

SB16 won’t likely be effective.

I like the legislation supported by the Brady Campaign.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation



THE ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 1112)

Addressing the dangerous “Charleston Loophole" in background checks


EXPANDING BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS (H.R. 8 AND S. 42)

Expanding background checks to all gun sales


EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 1236 AND S. 506)

Allow for the temporary removal of guns from people in crisis.


THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION RESEARCH ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 674 AND S. 184)

Provide funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the gun violence epidemic



THE PREVENT FAMILY FIRE ACT OF 2019 (H.R. 4926)

The Prevent Family Fire Act of 2019 embraces a market approach to increasing safe firearm storage by incentivizing retail sales through tax credits.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think I am reading that right. I thought it just pertains to sale not possession? If you already own it, you're grandfathered?

+1

No one would be “turning into felons overnight”, OP.

DISINFORMATION.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

The second amendment granted "the militia" the right to possess arms. Not you. Not me. The militia. In other words, the military. Or the national guard. Or the police. It is not an individual right for each person in the way that speech, religion, self incrimination, etc are. It's a right established and reserved for the collective (ie the militia, the government, the state), but it just happened to be included amongst other rights prescribed to individuals. That's the source of confusion here. The other nine amendments in the BoR are for the individual, except for the second amendment, which is for the militia.

It's a mistake, among many, made by the white male slave owners who wrote it.

SCOTUS ruled otherwise a few years back in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

There's no middle ground because the starting position on both sides is no compromise.

If one side was willing to trade something to the other side, you might see movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

The second amendment granted "the militia" the right to possess arms. Not you. Not me. The militia. In other words, the military. Or the national guard. Or the police. It is not an individual right for each person in the way that speech, religion, self incrimination, etc are. It's a right established and reserved for the collective (ie the militia, the government, the state), but it just happened to be included amongst other rights prescribed to individuals. That's the source of confusion here. The other nine amendments in the BoR are for the individual, except for the second amendment, which is for the militia.

It's a mistake, among many, made by the white male slave owners who wrote it.

As others have told you before, you are not a constitutional scholar and fall on the wrong side of history. Further, the amendment explicitly said, "the right of the people" not the militia.

The white male slave owners also freed the slaves? I don't understand your slavery argument. But you aren't really rational anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

Absolutely, positively 100% correct.

The second amendment granted "the militia" the right to possess arms. Not you. Not me. The militia. In other words, the military. Or the national guard. Or the police. It is not an individual right for each person in the way that speech, religion, self incrimination, etc are. It's a right established and reserved for the collective (ie the militia, the government, the state), but it just happened to be included amongst other rights prescribed to individuals. That's the source of confusion here. The other nine amendments in the BoR are for the individual, except for the second amendment, which is for the militia.

It's a mistake, among many, made by the white male slave owners who wrote it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And you continue to look ridiculous when you say stupid shit like “the mask has slipped no compromise with any of you”

The "compromise" that the gun grabbers want is not a compromise at all. For there to be a compromise, both sides have to give. The gun grabbers say "Well, we really want all of your guns, but we'll compromise and just take the "assault weapons". You can keep all the other ones....for the time being."
That's like someone coming into your house and demanding that you give them all of your furniture. When you object, they say, "Okay. Let's compromise. I'll just take the furniture in the living room, and you can keep all the rest." That's no compromise.
Now if the anti-gunners came up with a proposal that would give us, say, unregulated suppressors (like they have in most European countries), and nation-wide CHP reciprocity, maybe we could work something out. But they're not going to do that, so even talking about it is a waste of time.

Coming from someone who owns several this is not a good idea. I trust myself and most of us, but I think criminals would take advantage and ruin it for all of us.

Do away with the $200 tax stamp and bullshit wait time, but keep them NFA regulated items.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe the problem is that when any gun control proposal is brought up people immediately jump to arguing that it bans or will lead in short order to a ban on every possible form of gun ownership, including antique guns with bayonet mounting.

Well, how can you blame people for thinking that way? Especially when you remember what Pete Shields, the founder of what later became the Brady group, said:
"No private citizen has any legitimate reason to possess any type of firearm whatsoever."

It’s just trolling to come on here and say you wish there was a middle ground but also you think every attempt at restricting certain guns is evidence that a complete ban on gun ownership is the next step.

We are just going off of comments made by the far left in regards to gun control. You guys run with comments from the far right all the time, we can do the same.

Anonymous wrote:Dems are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And you continue to look ridiculous when you say stupid shit like “the mask has slipped no compromise with any of you”

The "compromise" that the gun grabbers want is not a compromise at all. For there to be a compromise, both sides have to give. The gun grabbers say "Well, we really want all of your guns, but we'll compromise and just take the "assault weapons". You can keep all the other ones....for the time being."
That's like someone coming into your house and demanding that you give them all of your furniture. When you object, they say, "Okay. Let's compromise. I'll just take the furniture in the living room, and you can keep all the rest." That's no compromise.
Now if the anti-gunners came up with a proposal that would give us, say, unregulated suppressors (like they have in most European countries), and nation-wide CHP reciprocity, maybe we could work something out. But they're not going to do that, so even talking about it is a waste of time.

Dems are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And you continue to look ridiculous when you say stupid shit like “the mask has slipped no compromise with any of you”