A Gun Control Idea I Could Get Behind

[SandHill]

Rival militias gathered in Louisville this weekend:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8559841/Black-militia-members-brandish-guns-demanding-charges-against-cops-linked-Breonna-Taylors-death.html

Not the first time this has happened. In this case, one of the NFAC members had a "negligent discharge" and wounded three of his own side. It is easy to see how this situation could quickly escalate into a full-on blood bath if he had hit the opposing side.

So, at the risk of enraging the Second Amendment Absolutists among us, here is an idea for gun control I could get behind: "no armed protests." I haven't drafted the bill yet so feel free to snipe around the edges, but to me it makes no sense to allow organized, heavily armed militias to parade in public. When there are opposing militias, like in this Louisville case, the potential for a full-on battle is obvious. If these protest keep happening, it is only a matter of time.

What do you guys think? Anyone else able to get behind this kind of gun control?

[Cup of Cheese]

What do you guys think? Anyone else able to get behind this kind of gun control?

Why the need to control people and their behavior? The right to be armed and be able to defend yourself doesn't stop during a protest. It doesn't sound like you have a full understanding or grasp of this right.

Creating something like this just makes you another douchebag advocating for a government that tries to control others

[WingDings]

[Calamity Sue]

Rival militias gathered in Louisville this weekend:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8559841/Black-militia-members-brandish-guns-demanding-charges-against-cops-linked-Breonna-Taylors-death.html

Not the first time this has happened. In this case, one of the NFAC members had a "negligent discharge" and wounded three of his own side. It is easy to see how this situation could quickly escalate into a full-on blood bath if he had hit the opposing side.

So, at the risk of enraging the Second Amendment Absolutists among us, here is an idea for gun control I could get behind: "no armed protests." I haven't drafted the bill yet so feel free to snipe around the edges, but to me it makes no sense to allow organized, heavily armed militias to parade in public. When there are opposing militias, like in this Louisville case, the potential for a full-on battle is obvious. If these protest keep happening, it is only a matter of time.

What do you guys think? Anyone else able to get behind this kind of gun control?

Sounds good. One exception though. Legal when it's primary purpose is to remove government personnel, local, state, and esp. federal from office.

Yeah, problem is, if this was the law of the 18th century, we would still be bowing to those awhole royals.

[DDM4556]

Absolutely not.

So we should all be punished for the action/mistake of ONE? Don't mean to be rude OP, but that is core leftist thinking.

When you enter an armed protest, you're aware of the risks. When you get into your car to drive to the supermarket, you're aware of the risks. Nanny laws do nothing but eliminate freedom.

Accidents happen in all facets of life. Doesn't mean we need more laws.

[SCVlongstroke]

So if and when the 2nd really needs to be activated to it’s full intention, the people will not have the right to stand up to an authoritative government.

[plumbum]

I disagree with you, and I will leave it at that.

It’s like saying you have freedom of speech, but only as long as no one can hear you.

[Cup of Cheese]

[theLBC]

and if one side obeys the law and the other doesn't?

[AlHO1966]

Let me check my constitution... nope, still reads “shall not be infringed” .

Not sure what part of that you don’t understand op?

[OlderThanDirt]

[Scratch705]

nah.

i'm fine with people wanting protest fully armed and loaded.

[Spaffo]

That would only favor the Deep State commies. Bad idea.

[tashunkawitko]

ask yourself. Pre-continental congress, pre-Boston Tea Party. Were there armed protests?

nah.

i'm fine with people wanting protest fully armed and loaded.

hear! hear!

_____________________________________________

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”
― Thomas Paine

[pythonfan]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. With that said. I think we should never give up the right to do so. But rather than do it, I say when we, as a group, protest 2a rights we show up with cardboard cut outs of the rifles we aim to protect. Visually it represents the meaning, doesnt turn off people in the middle, and poses no risks of accidental discharge. Of course if in a place where legal to open carry/conceal carry bring along your handgun for your protection. But leave the rifle at home in the safe.

Imagine the difference had they done this in Virginia. Cardboard cutouts of their rifles or rubber blue guns as a visual aid. Hard to look like an extremist or a threat.

Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should. If we want to win this fight nationwide, we need to think about public perception. When carrying of a rifle is needed, say in the middle of a tragic event, I'm all on board; but at a peaceful protest it isnt necessary. And by neccessary I dont mean make a law, I mean collectively as a 2a group decide to do this.

Just my two cents.