HEY ANTI-GUN AND PRO-GUN, WHAT ABOUT A COMPROMISE?

The only way to own a gun is to be part of one of those private militias and if someone that is part of that militia goes on a shooting spree or something the militia they are part of is fined.

Said militias aren't funded by the government, the leaders of said militia make the rules of their independent militia but they must have training for those that join or be fined.

What might be wrong with this?

Other urls found in this thread:

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885
scribd.com/collections/4010452/9-11-The-Dancing-Israelis-FBI-report
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No compromise.
Ever.

How about you shove your compromise up your commie ass?

Then you have organizations with a monopoly on gun ownership that can quickly become roaming warbands of raiders in the name of "protection".

No. We're done giving up rights for nothing in return. Antigunners will get nothing ever again.

>Compromise

>Then you have organizations with a monopoly on gun ownership that can quickly become roaming warbands of raiders in the name of "protection".
But why would the average joe want that, it's not like a majority of gun owners do that now?

But this way you would only be restricted by the laws of the militia you've joined instead of by the government, wouldn't you rather that?

How is the average Joe going to stop them? He can't own a gun unless he joins their militia. People can't do that now because any random fuck can go buy a gun and shoot back.

it is vastly easier to ban semi auto rifles and pistols.
1 million dollar fine if you are caught with one.

Everybody will turn them in.

No. For one thing states can simply decide to ban private militias, like California did.

Go fuck yourself.

>How is the average Joe going to stop them?
Other militia won't like one militia going around acting like a war band, it would still be illegal to murder.

>it is vastly easier to ban semi auto rifles and pistols.
>1 million dollar fine if you are caught with one.
>Everybody will turn them in.
But that's unrealistic, we've already seen that gun owners don't want restrictions on what they can own so why not let them own whatever but hold them to the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment.

>No. For one thing states can simply decide to ban private militias, like California did.
Okay, lets say in our hypothetical that any such laws would be overruled.

How about since we have saved your faggot ass nation repeatedly you just shut you bitch mouth and mind your own business?

A compromise would he an infringement. Can't have that.

Before I can agree to any compromise, my income cannot be taxed, fined, garnished, or otherwise taken by the state, the federal government, any agency, group, corporation, or company for any purposes unless I opt-in.

We will compromise. Blacks, Latinos, indians, jews were never militia so they get banned from owning them, and whites get their full auto rights back.

I am a male of age natural born of the US. I am already an irregular in the eyes of the US.

no i wont, but i will come looking for your commie ass since im already a criminal at that point....you like cartel vids? i like cartel vids too! wanna make a cartel vid user?!?

and for shill:
ABC News - Israelis Detained on 9/11 Spies
>abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885

FBI report - Israelis caught with bombs on 9/11
>scribd.com/collections/4010452/9-11-The-Dancing-Israelis-FBI-report

Only if you are white.
Anything else, turn them in.

The only reason we even have a nation is because of tyrannical lawmaking. The frontiersman and colonists had guns, knowledge of their land, and a drive towards freedom.The people revolted and made their laws to correct the mistakes, one of which was a STRONG 2nd amendment.

Shall not be infringed.

Don't you have a butter knife to turn in to the police?

Here's my compromise. Anyone who opposes gun ownership doesn't have to own any guns. This is the only solution which respects the rights of all parties involved.

>How about since we have saved your faggot ass nation repeatedly you just shut you bitch mouth and mind your own business?
Not much of an argument, you're no fun.

>A compromise would he an infringement. Can't have that.
Allowing militia to be armed is an infringement of "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."?

>Before I can agree to any compromise, my income cannot be taxed, fined, garnished, or otherwise taken by the state, the federal government, any agency, group, corporation, or company for any purposes unless I opt-in.
Ok, but if that's the case then being asked to pay a toll for using any service that is currently "free" due to taxes unless you opt-in to them would be understandable right?
This would include roads, libraries and other such things.

We will compromise. Blacks, Latinos, indians, jews were never militia so they get banned from owning them, and whites get their full auto rights back.
If they're citizens with an american passport then they're allowed to join a militia and own whatever they like, if a member of the militia commits some sort of gun crime then the militia is fined, society will balance out.

>I am a male of age natural born of the US. I am already an irregular in the eyes of the US.
Did you post this in the wrong thread?.

>Since a well-equipped citizen army is necessary for a free nation, the people of the nation have a right to possess and use firearms.

Coming from a tiny island that is highly urbanized, with cctv on every corner, 1/6 the population of the United States. I understand why you might believe that "getting rid of all those horrible dangerous guns" would be a good idea.

People who break laws, rob, murder, extort will break a law banning guns and then they will have even more power over a nation of weak and unprotected citizens.

>The only reason we even have a nation is because of tyrannical lawmaking. The frontiersman and colonists had guns, knowledge of their land, and a drive towards freedom.The people revolted and made their laws to correct the mistakes, one of which was a STRONG 2nd amendment.
>Shall not be infringed.
This wouldn't be an infringment, it would be sticking to the letter of the law, well regulated militia would still have guns.

>Don't you have a butter knife to turn in to the police?
I'm allowed to use it to butter my toast for 5 more hours before I have to worry about the ministry of love raiding me.

>Here's my compromise. Anyone who opposes gun ownership doesn't have to own any guns. This is the only solution which respects the rights of all parties involved.
In this situation that would still be the case, but that isn't the only solution, in my hypothetical you would still be allowed to own your guns.

There's nothing to compromise on.

>Coming from a tiny island that is highly urbanized, with cctv on every corner, 1/6 the population of the United States. I understand why you might believe that "getting rid of all those horrible dangerous guns" would be a good idea.
>People who break laws, rob, murder, extort will break a law banning guns and then they will have even more power over a nation of weak and unprotected citizens.

Please don't assume that I'm anti-gun, I admire the fact that you guys can own guns but there are some issues, I hope that the hypothetical that I proposed in my original post would help alleviate these issues.

>be me
>have access to firearms
>other side wants to limit my access to firearms
>wants me to give up shit while getting nothing in return
>"""compromise"""

No Capitulation. Freedom isn't negotiable.

>This wouldn't be an infringment, it would be sticking to the letter of the law, well regulated militia would still have guns.

2nd 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
>A militia is necessary for the freedom of the state
>AND, that is
>The people have a right to bear Arms

Historically the founding fathers knew that we won our Revolution because of our conglomerate of ARMED citizens and multiple MILITIAS and were able to repel a foreign invader. With the threat of invasion waning, militias are now more than ever of little importance for maintaining security of the state. But in order to avoid tyranny from within, as all nations must, the citizenry must be able to protect themselves.

Every concession will just lead to more demands further down the road. That's how these things work.

It's like some pansy faggot liberal coming up to you and your wife and saying "hey, lets compromise. I fuck your wife and you watch"

I am already a militiaman in the eyes of the US.

>>be me
>>have access to firearms
>>other side wants to limit my access to firearms
>>wants me to give up shit while getting nothing in return
>>"""compromise"""

You would still have access to firearms, Hopefully without any limit on whatever firearm you want but you'd have to join a militia of like minded people that would also have training that could help you somehow.

>No Capitulation. Freedom isn't negotiable.
The anti-gun people aren't enemies, they are simply very worried, this way you'd still be able to own your firearms and but just be part of a militia.

It seems that quite a few of you pro-gun saw compromise and immediately thought of it as an assault on your rights.

>All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Only once, brit dipshit.

We already have compromised, not one more goddamned inch.

And if another gun owner goes on yet another rampage the anti-gun portion of the public will paint all gun owners with the same brush instead of criticizing a single group separate of other groups of gun owners.

>It's like some pansy faggot liberal coming up to you and your wife and saying "hey, lets compromise. I fuck your wife and you watch"
In what way, could you elaborate?

>We already have compromised, not one more goddamned inch.
Hmm, next time I'll revise the post so that in this hypothetical the gun owner that is part of a militia would have no restrictions on what firearms they can own.

Gun violence is not special. If we had no guns we'd have knife free zones and mass stabbings not shootings. I'm sure the scale would be potentially smaller but again, our country is exponentially larger than yours on a geographic and a population scale making our regulation a lot different. We can't make our population roll over as easily by restricting access and monitoring every detail of life.

Came here to post this.

Constitution Above All

you don't get it. I shouldn't be forced to join an association to own a firearm. I don't have to join a political party to exercise free speech. I don't have to be a member of a secret society before I have the right to remain silent in court.

what compromise faggot? the problem in the states is niggers and spics in terms for violent crime, address that part in your ignorant argument then tell me whether we need them or not

Who's ready for the shit to hit the fan after libs inevitably get their gun ban passed in the next decade?

>You would still have access to firearms, Hopefully without any limit on whatever firearm you want but you'd have to join a militia of like minded people that would also have training that could help you somehow

You keep using the word "compromise" but have failed to show any terms favorable to gun owners. "All for me, none for you" is a hard sell.

>this way you'd still be able to own your firearms and but just be part of a militia.

Already there. See 10USC246(b)(2).

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Im merely stating that gun owners have given away all the rights they wished to, we will no longer compromise on an issue that has already been compromised on. No prerequisite by joining a club, no more restrictions on AR stlye semiautomatics. Just how it is now.

So militia members should own guns. I'm OK with this.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Source: 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

this. according to my state's Constitution, I'm already a member of the militia regardless of whether I want to be or not. So I get a gun. Problem solved. Thanks for the compromise, OP.
Next issue.

>be american
>go to columbine highschool
>get shot
>visit world trade center
>get kamikazied
>participate in marathon
>get bombed
>go to concert in vegas
>get shot
>go to elementary school
>get shot

What a time to be "alive"

I'm sure your parents are proud of you.

I bet they are

I will accept the compromise of nothing less than the complete repeal of ALL gun-control laws and regulations.

>2nd Amendment
>Law that has stood the test of time and served my forefathers well
>Mentall Illness and poor gun ownership leads to tragedies
>A political party takes advantage of tragedy to build platform (ie liberal faggots)
>Only offer to justify their set of rules and ideology is that they'll guarantee your safety through public services
>public services which the same party criticizes and tries to inhibit at every step.
>Their offer happens to be useless in the event that you are a person with common sense, owns a firearm, and understands proper handling and useage.

The government to the left and right of me are trying to control my speech as we sit here typing now, they sure as shit will try and control how I think if I can't defend myself

Mate are you baiting right now or do you really believe this shit?
I'm not joining a militia, I'm not going to bother dealing with that when I already have a firearm and don't need to do a goddamned thing to keep it that way.
In what world does it make sense for me to give up something for nothing?

i sure am

>every 17 to 45 year old male citizen is part of the militia
Awesome. I guess I should arm myself.

Go for it bro.

I'd rather fight in the Civil War 2 than come to a gun control compromise

>Gun violence is not special. If we had no guns we'd have knife free zones and mass stabbings not shootings. I'm sure the scale would be potentially smaller but again, our country is exponentially larger than yours on a geographic and a population scale making our regulation a lot different. We can't make our population roll over as easily by restricting access and monitoring every detail of life.

Ok, first point if there are still gun owners in militia the mass knifer would likely fear getting shot and then get shot, also a mass knifer would have a far lower death toll than a mass shooter.
You're right, your country is far larger so then would you agree that sweden or norway shouldn't be used as a pro-gun argument?
In regards to monitoring and such, the only monitoring would be making sure that a militia has a training program and the member of a militia has some sort of id card similar to a driving license.

>what compromise faggot? the problem in the states is niggers and spics in terms for violent crime, address that part in your ignorant argument then tell me whether we need them or not
Members of a militia wouldn't want people that are likely to commit crime to join them because they wouldn't want to risk receiving a fine, would you disagree with that?

>Who's ready for the shit to hit the fan after libs inevitably get their gun ban passed in the next decade?
A gun ban wouldn't be good for you guys, that's why I've proposed the hypothetical in my original post.

>Im merely stating that gun owners have given away all the rights they wished to, we will no longer compromise on an issue that has already been compromised on. No prerequisite by joining a club, no more restrictions on AR stlye semiautomatics. Just how it is now.
Fair enough.

SHALL

>Awesome. I guess I should arm myself.

It is your civic duty as a militia member.

I don't know why you fuckwits don't just read the laws.

>collectivizing punishments in a society of individual rights and liberties

Suck a dick. The shooter can and should be punished. The end.

notice how the "compromise" is always just more gun control?

Actual compromise would be "you give me a little, I give you a little"

To a lefty, compromise is "I asked for everything you have, but I will compromise and only take half. BTW I will be back again later to compromise what you have left."

>like 10 anti-gun threads up right now
>all UK flag
why don't you take a break from shilling so much you spamming queer

the whole of the people are the militia, this kid is over the age of 16, he was technically militia, wheee, go fuck yourself, there is no compromise

Learn how subordinate clauses work, you illiterate fuck.

14a

>It seems that quite a few of you pro-gun saw compromise and immediately thought of it as an assault on your rights.


case in point... guy keeps pushing "compromise" which is anything but...

Words apparently just dont mean anything to lefties.

Stop infringing on gay transgender peoples rights to own guns you trans phobic twat.

>collectivizing punishments in a society of individual rights and liberties
It would be incentive for the militia to avoid allowing those that are likely to commit a shooting to join

>case in point... guy keeps pushing "compromise" which is anything but...
>Words apparently just dont mean anything to lefties.

Ok, how could it improved? How could this hypothetical help gun owners more while also making it less likely to allow school shooter types from getting guns?

Is there another solution?

the beauty is all of those are unlawful acts (violations: 2a, 4a,5a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 13a, Article VI, Treason Clause) and cannot be legally enforced outside of commission of treason

the militia's only laws are thus: be armed, be proficient, defend the Republic and its Constitution, report to duty when called upon

>the militia's only laws are thus: be armed, be proficient, defend the Republic and its Constitution, report to duty when called upon
So is that a yes or a no? Would you rather only having to abide by a militia's laws instead of the governments?

>be arrested for failing to pay million dollar fine for owning gun
>be brought into court
>prosecuting agent presents bond of surety
>invoke right of subrogation and claim bond as rightfully mine to pay the debt
>invoke Article VI, Amendment 2 and Amendment 5
>my right of arms shall not be infringed and it shall not be seized unless just compensation be offered
>my arms have been banned and no compensation offered for their removal, declare the suit against me as legally null and void
>dismiss the case
>leave with my weapon and a million dollars

>Ok, how could it improved?
It isn't our job nor in our interest to do your homework for you.

I'm a gun owner and the only possible compromise I would consider is not allowing semiautomatic purchases to anyone under the age of 25, unless said person has done some kind of police/military duty. There's a reason why the government made it so kids up to 26 can stay on their parents insurance since a lot of people don't get their shit together until their mid 20s. However, if they did this, I'd also want a nationwide lifting of all the city/county/etc bans on "assault rifles" since I live in cook county where I can't go buy an AR15 legally. If the feral niggers of chicago ever start wandering my way, I really don't want to rely on my handgun for defending my property and family.

quickly, quote me the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, plus Article VI, then explain the difference between militia and people such that one may substantially differentiate them, THEN you need to make a case as to why three amendments to the USC and the core of its authority, Article VI, ought to be violated to allow you idea to succeed legally.

Fuck you I want to own vintage WWI and WWII rifles to take to the range during some free time days. If I want to own a Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr just because I should be able to.

>Fuck you I want to own vintage WWI and WWII rifles to take to the range during some free time days. If I want to own a Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr just because I should be able to.
I agree, you should be allowed to.

I don't think you understand what a compromise is. A compromise is when all parties involved get some of what they want, but not everything they want. Nothing in your post is anything I want as a gun owner.

Here are just some of the things I want.

>Repeal the NFA in its entirety, including the heavy regulation on "destructive devices," barrel length, fully automatic firearms, and sound suppressors
>National CCW reciprocity to protect the "bear" part of right to keep and bear arms
>The immediate and total repeal of all firearms and ammunition related foreign import restrictions
>The implementation of stand your ground in every state and territory in the union

Which parts of these things do I get in your "compromise"?

NO MORE FUCKING COMPROMISES!!

The "compromise" is always just taking away more and more rights for NOTHING in return.

You wouldn't understand because you are a fucking BRITBONG who is two steps away from being banned from the internet from your Orwellian government and three steps away from having any rights at all as a native citizen. Jamal and Muhammed decide who gets the fikki fikki and gibs in your country.

ill compromise, fuck off. You don't want a gun then don't have one.

>You're right, your country is far larger so then would you agree that sweden or norway shouldn't be used as a pro-gun argument?

I don't think we should be comparing the United States to any country, we are literally an expirement with a new, somewhat balanced, form of democracy. I would also say those countries are a relatively homogenous group of citizens, with a high gdp, and again in a small area. So you are right we should not compare the three countries.

>Ok, first point if there are still gun owners in militia the mass knifer would likely fear getting shot and then get shot, also a mass knifer would have a far lower death toll than a mass shooter.

If we hypothetically have militias en masse they still would not be roving the countryside armed and looking for conflict. Militias aren't used now for peacekeeping, they are a just in case in the event of large-scale conflict. We would still have LEOs doing their job.
Mass shootings are only qualified by the event having more than one victim, many go unsolved in the nations current state and there are guns abounding. A mass stabbing is the same situation, although admittedly the scaliing of the two are different in that the CAPABILITY is different.

>In regards to monitoring and such, the only monitoring would be making sure that a militia has a training program and the member of a militia has some sort of id card similar to a driving license.

Militias are LARPing tier in my opinion and I wouldn't trust them with my safety regardless of any training they have. I don't think you understand how impossible it would be to obtain every single gun from a non-militia citizen. There would be mass resistance and the only way to ensure enforcement of an already unjust law (imo) would be to monitor citizens and place possible withholders on a watchlist

it's the keep part, bear only means in war, means means in your house, in your car, on your person, to make use of, retain complete and sole possession of, and to discard or dispose of as one sees fit

keep, means carry

We're already legally "the militia", Britserf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

>the leaders of said militia make the rules

>they must have training for those that join or be fined.

So they're not controlled by the government, except when they are?

There can be no compromise. Additionally, if it'll change your wet diaper: 50% of the gun crime in the US comes from 3 or 4 cities with the strictest gun control. 99% of the rest is suicide. There is no gun problem in the US.

Compromise means we get something and you get something.

"I want to get $10,000."
"No, I want to get $10,000."

"Okay, let's compromise, you give me $5,000."

That's not a compromise, that's just me giving up my shit.

Remove suppressors (hearing protection devices) and short barreled rifles from the NFA, raise the voting age to 21, and I'll agree to increase the age to purchase a long gun to 21. THAT is a compromise.

shall not be infringed mr.bong. not got get acid attacked.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>What might be wrong with this?
I don't want to get off my arse to join a gay arse militia. Just let me enjoy by Canacuck guns in peace.

t. Bong in Canada