Old May Banker said:

---

Remove all of your degenerate behaviors first and you'll find no need for my guns.

---

Excellent comment. No further discussion needed.

jteAg said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

Not a fan of history.....men in robes using AK-47s held out against those tanks for 20 years very recently....try again.

This is well said and well spoken but, as already proven in other countries, people aren't going to call " the cops" or 911 to institutute a red flag. You can bet a " hot line" will be set up to a new governmental agency,
Governed by the DOJ or FBI or ATF or IRS that will then have a " judge" place the red flag on that person etc etc.
No chance for corruption at all. Cause we have no corruption at all now. Should work perfect.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

We need access to every weapon we want Ukrainians to have in fighting a tyrannical government. The second amendment compels this. That's not an illogical statement.
You may well disagree, but this argument is not immediately out of bounds.

---

Agreed

I would agree to a 5 round magazine in exchange for all democrats leaving the country and never returning. They would take with them any Republican that was a RINO. They would also take anyone coming into the country across the southern border over the past 15 years.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

We've had sixty plus years of the left taking our country down the path of moral peril. Let's repeal and roll back all federal government social laws and programs enacted during that time starting with those enacted by LBJ right on down through pedo Joe. Wait sixty more years and then we can talk.

How about we simply live by and enforce the real Ten Commandments as they were written?
They cover every aspect of all our problems.
We would not need the millions of law books and governments making laws.
Just enforce those 10 for a good start.

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

---

What cases in the United States History are you thinking of? The Native Americans post Civil War? The Confederates (Actual Civil War)?

Look, somebody who is talking about how in 2023 they need lots of firepower to protect themselves from the U.S. government coming to their house and arresting or exterminating them…well that is stereotypical 'extreme right wing prepper nut'. Ok…those folks certainly do exist, but it doesn't change the fact that isn't a paranoia that the majority of Americans have and are going to factor into their priorities.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

There is no compromise with the left.

Just curious, have you ever had to deal with nuisance animals, such as wild hogs? My guess is probably not, or you would see the necessity to have a 30 round clip option.

Also, by caliber, there are much much more powerful weapons available. Have you ever heard of an AR10? Probably not.

---

What if ARs were subject to licensing? So a farmer who needs an AR for pest control could apply for an AR license and get one (similar to Australian laws).

---

Will we also need a license to exercise free speech?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

---

What cases in the United States History are you thinking of? The Native Americans post Civil War? The Confederates (Actual Civil War)?

Look, somebody who is talking about how in 2023 they need lots of firepower to protect themselves from the U.S. government coming to their house and arresting or exterminating them…well that is stereotypical 'extreme right wing prepper nut'. Ok…those folks certainly do exist, but it doesn't change the fact that isn't a paranoia that the majority of Americans have and are going to factor into their priorities.

---

Your ignorance of the fate of a disarmed populace is dangerous when you look at the history of authoritarian governments. Did you not notice the authoritarian shift our government took during the covid op? How much farther would our government have pushed had we the people been disarmed? I hope we never find out how far authoritarians will push and I hope we never lose our God given right to defend ourselves from a rogue authoritarian government.

Warning an authoritarian about the dangers of an authoritarian government is wasted energy. They know, they just don't care.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

---

What cases in the United States History are you thinking of? The Native Americans post Civil War? The Confederates (Actual Civil War)?

Look, somebody who is talking about how in 2023 they need lots of firepower to protect themselves from the U.S. government coming to their house and arresting or exterminating them…well that is stereotypical 'extreme right wing prepper nut'. Ok…those folks certainly do exist, but it doesn't change the fact that isn't a paranoia that the majority of Americans have and are going to factor into their priorities.

---

Why are you limiting this to U.S. history? Don't like other examples that prove you wrong?

If it came down to door to door confiscation, there'd be groups of men ready to fight for their right to bear arms. 20-30 guys with ARs is a pretty big deterrent to someone coming and busting down your door. That is exactly what would happen - like-minded conservatives would band together in groups. You think SWAT would want to walk into that? Absolutely not. That's why leftists don't want law abiding citizens to have ARs. They want us to be easily controlled sheep, just like leftists are.

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

SteveA said:

---

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

---

Why would it be futile? I thought these were weapons of war?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

There is no compromise with the left.

Just curious, have you ever had to deal with nuisance animals, such as wild hogs? My guess is probably not, or you would see the necessity to have a 30 round clip option.

Also, by caliber, there are much much more powerful weapons available. Have you ever heard of an AR10? Probably not.

---

What if ARs were subject to licensing? So a farmer who needs an AR for pest control could apply for an AR license and get one (similar to Australian laws).

---

So tell me when a criminal who is about to go on a killing spree will "license" his AR first.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.

I don't need an AR-15 to defend myself against the local police department although it would be very effective for that purpose. I need an AR-15, shotgun, .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle, etc. to defend against the government who would roll up to your house with weapons drawn, threaten your entire family and not let you leave.

It would be a few more steps before things went kinetic but during peak Covid, but I thought it might come down to having to forcibly resist in order to not have to take the experimental medicine that the government was pushing. BTW - here in California, they're still pushing the vax, hard. But at least we're allowed to leave our houses now.

As far as police versus SWAT, how many SWAT officers do you think there are any given department? about 3% at most.

As we've seen in numerous police shooting videos, most cops can't hit the broadside of a barn and keep firing until they run out of ammo. Always cracks me up when they fire like 40 rounds and hit the suspect twice.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

---

What cases in the United States History are you thinking of? The Native Americans post Civil War? The Confederates (Actual Civil War)?

Look, somebody who is talking about how in 2023 they need lots of firepower to protect themselves from the U.S. government coming to their house and arresting or exterminating them…well that is stereotypical 'extreme right wing prepper nut'. Ok…those folks certainly do exist, but it doesn't change the fact that isn't a paranoia that the majority of Americans have and are going to factor into their priorities.

---

The American Government hasn't stormed anybody's house in 30 years. No chance they'd do it again.

SteveA said:

---

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

---

I hope, for your sake, you're not a federal LEO. City and county LEOs where I live would arrest a federal LEO for aggrevated robbery before they would aid them in confiscation.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

---

Another person lacking of history... Plenty of people have been disarmed before being exterminated, or are you just trolling?

---

What cases in the United States History are you thinking of? The Native Americans post Civil War? The Confederates (Actual Civil War)?

Look, somebody who is talking about how in 2023 they need lots of firepower to protect themselves from the U.S. government coming to their house and arresting or exterminating them…well that is stereotypical 'extreme right wing prepper nut'. Ok…those folks certainly do exist, but it doesn't change the fact that isn't a paranoia that the majority of Americans have and are going to factor into their priorities.

---

World History.....try the library. Your posting is either trolling or ignorance. Nice try though

SteveA said:

---

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

---

We don't care what you "think", we have history as a guide.

History proves its not futile, men in robes using Ak-47's fought off the combined US/British/NATO forces for 20 years recently, you seem behind on current events.

I think a lot of people talk big on the internet.

SteveA said:

---

I think a lot of people talk big on the internet.

---

Read my signature of what can and will happen in the circumstance you describe.

It will end badly for everyone involved. What it will look like is The Troubles on steroids.

What is about 'criminals don't follow the ****ing law' that's misunderstood? Removing or restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners and citizens does nothing to stop shootings and/or violent gun crime.

SteveA said:

---

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

---

So you're saying something that happened in another country can't happen here? I don't understand your point.

And yes, I could find 30 guys willing to take up arms if they started going door to door killing people over their guns. The national guard, swat, local PDs wouldn't do that though, you know why? Because we have ARs to defend ourselves. 80+% would completely refuse to go door to door. Seems like the 2A is working just as it is supposed to. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

How are you able to know our fore fathers intent? I'm going by what they actually wrote and they were CRYSTAL CLEAR that I can bear arms, all arms, and that wont be infringed. Anything else is just your liberal interpretation.

---

Because what they wrote was a protection of the individual to bear arms in a maintained militia to provide for liberty. A weapon of mass destruction does not do that as it incinerates all is the antithesis of that goal. It is not an arm to be born. But you knew that already.

---

Hmm but a tyrannical government won't infringe on my rights if i have an armed militia with nukes.

---

Sad thing for you is, you actually think you're making a coherent, logical arguement.

To "bear arms" means to carry. If they make a nuclear weapon that is carried by all our soldiers, then I should be able to have one also. But that's not what nuclear weapons have been intended for, as has been explained to you. Nice obtuse argument though.

SteveA said:

---

I think a lot of people talk big on the internet.

---

That does not change history and what you think is irrelevant.

SteveA said:

---

Because we are in the United States. If they passed an amendment saying you can't have your ar's, are you still going to fight? I don't think you can muster 30 guys with ar's willing to fight the national guard. It would be futile, anyways

---

Good luck finding men willing to die to confiscate said AR's...


"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

"Shall not be infringed. "


Very plain English.

BigRobSA said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

"Shall not be infringed. "


Very plain English.

---

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."- Zachariah Johnson

"The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…"- Richard Henry Lee

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

My 1911 is more than sufficient for an intruder (or at least it was before it ended up at the bottom of the lake in a horrific boating accident).

Multiple intruders call for more than a 7 round mag. That's why I had an AR15 that's currently lying next to the 1911.

---

My Beretta M9A3 sits locked up at my parent's house in Texas because it is illegal to bring to California because it is considered to be an assault weapon.

The first problem of course was the 17 round magazine but you can get a 10 round magazine.

To make it Kalifornia compliant, I have to replace the barrel with one that has a fixed end.

The fact that the end of the pistol's barrel can be unscrewed classifies it as an "Assault Weapon" in Kalifornia.

---

Also, there....it causes cancer.

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

Government should always be afraid of the citizen's weapons!

American Hardwood said:

---

Lots of typical discussion here about the 2A, AR-15 details, and some compromise positions actually requested by the OP.

I'm going to comment on the OP regarding compromise positions.

All of the good 2A reasons for not compromising are perfectly legit and stated ad nauseum, but what isn't mentioned often enough in these debates is that ANY discussion of gun compromises is absolutely a non-starter because one side of the issue are complete liars about every aspect of the issue. They would enter any agreement in 100% bad faith and would have no intention of actually holding up their end of any compromise. They would use any compromise as a launching point for the next compromise. They are liars and corrupt beyond measure. This is your democrat party.

Seriously, how many times do you have to take it in the ass but the party of lies before you pull up your pants, stop trying to deal with them, and start trying to defeat them and eliminate their power? We should stop talking about compromise and start talking about reversing all of the compromises that have already been done. For all the stupid laws we have given ground on, people are still getting killed thus demonstrating the laws are ineffective and should be reversed.

---

Well said.