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 unless you lack a permit granted by the state, are under a certain age, can’t pay a tax, or lack a valid state-approved reason.
— Tim Pool
In practice, yes that about sums it up.
We’re heading in the right direction though.
Tim Is the best. I listen to him every day. Hes become FAR more to the right over the last 2 years.
He is not right & never was far left.
I don’t think he’s moved right, except on guns. The democrats have moved so far left, that Tim is now closer to a republican. He’s a 90s liberal: he believes in the bill of rights, but thinks the government should tax the rich the provide a social safety net, and should regulate businesses to protect the people.
Also, he’s not a gun rights absolutist. He is okay with some regulations, but feels none of the current ones do anything to reduce crime.
And his knowledge of guns is getting better. We were all newbies once.
+1
Yeah, sounds like a Democrat when Democrats were still Democrats and not hard core collectivist authoritarians.
Yup! Quite an arc for that skateboarding hippy anti-capitalist. Even though he did say a few days ago thst he’s law-abiding and would give up his guns if the law required it.
Before anyone unfamiliar with Tim Poole bursts a vessel. Tim is a gun owner and 2nd Amendment absolutist. This quote was satirical and intended to demonstrate the hypocrisy of gun control.
phew! i was still running it through the detector.
back to rocking/ sumthucking.
Tim pool is a socialist and as far as am aware no where near 2a absolutist. 2A absolutist means all laws related to weapons are illegal. He also almost never knows hwat he is talking about when he talks about guns and he brings people equally as illiterate on the subject on.
Have you watched or listened to Tim Pool in the last year?
I think Tim Pool has taken the red pill. What’s significant is; Tim Pool is reaching a younger generation and has the ability to cross party lines with factual and compelling information. Many ex-leftists have attributed their conversion to conservatism because of Tim Pool’s videos.
AMEN
You obviously have never listened to him if you think he is a socialist.
A few weeks ago, he had a guy on his show from ctrl-pew who explained, as best he could, the confusing laws that even the ATF doesn’t understand. The Ctrl-Pew guy did his best to correct Tim and his co-hosts, but it would take a lot longer to explain most of he tried to do and he explained that, too.
He’s a gun owner now that he’s left the People’s Republic of New Jersey and moved to the free state of West Virginia
I have heard him say that, sarcastically, several times, always as part of a larger conversation on guns and the 2nd Amendment.
Just 2 years he believed there should some restrictions, but in just last year or so he has become an absolutist. He believes there should be a way for convicted felons to regain full rights, that everyone should be allowed to carry and own anything they want. He has stated that people should take personal responsibility for action, an odd sentiment for someone on the left.
His journey from leftist to skeptic of collectivism and big government has been very interesting to watch. He’s worth checking out, even if you don’t agree with him 100%.
I agree.
“that everyone should be allowed to carry and own anything they want”
I wonder if expressing this sentiment could be counter-productive. Suppose a slightly different approach.
We might CONSIDER (in discussion just among us girls) conceding on the registration and tax provisions concerning machineguns; but, attacking the Hughes Amendment. What do we ultimately WANT here?
I hold that what what is NECESSARY to the militia is to be ABLE to make (not manufacture) RDIAS and the like. Today, we can’t create, maintain, and TEST our machining abilities to do this effectively under Hughes. Just get rid of Hughes. Then we COULD and WOULD maintain these capabilities.
(How to do this is the tricky part. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, including apparently, anything “affecting” interstate commerce. Well, OK, so we have the Commerce Clause in conflict with the 2A. So, let Congress regulate manufacture for sale while liberating the militia to make for personal use the arms having a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.)
In the unlikely event that the militia might be mustered to secure a free state, the shortage of machineguns could be overcome within a few weeks – provided, of course, that we have maintained our machining skills.
We could make a similar concession on Destructive Devices. Ski resorts might one day benefit from using artillery to manage avalanches. (Or, some such similar legitimate application in the future.) All we would need to ask for is that explosive shells be regulated like dynamite or Tannerite. You simply need a license to inventory the product, or to mix-on-site.
AOWs, deserve a more thoughtful analysis. That hobbiests should have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for , e.g., a forward grip seems the most troubling argument.
SBS/SBRs and silencers clearly need to be moved to the GCA’68. Here, the argument to be made is that the 11% Pitman-Robertson tax would clearly INCREASE net revenues to the Treasury compared to the $200 transfer tax. Keeping these artifacts in the NFA`34 is not revenue-producing; and, therefore, it’s not defensible under the power to tax “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.
Here’s the argument. If Congress moves these items out of NFA`34, then we PotG will REFRAIN pressing a case that SCOTUS might one day grant cert. If SCOTUS never rules on the issue, then Congress can continue to exercise “the power to tax [as] the power to destroy”. If Congress doesn’t give us what we want, then we will prevent Congress from exercising this power on every other “sin” they want to stamp-out.
Can’t go along. What I would insist on is that if there is to be anything other than 2A absolutism, that should be preceded by/accomplished by an Amendment to the Constitution. It is not for you and I to arbitrarily decide among ourselves what parts of the Constitution may be ignored, and it is not for a politician either. There is a concrete process, and no one has EVER even suggested such a move, because it would be run out of town on a rail. Regardless of unsupported claims, 2A says precisely what the huge majority of Americans wish for it to say, if the claimed 90% or whatever wanted it changed it would be complete in a month.
MarkPA,
I give you high marks for going way above and beyond the call of duty to brainstorm strategies to effect righteous change through the courts. Sadly, I do not have any confidence any more that our nation’s courts will do that. Sure, a few judges here-and-there will do what is right. Then, an appellate court or supreme court will overrule those righteous and correct decisions in order to further Ruling Class objectives to the detriment of We the People.
Case in point:
“Well, OK, so we have the Commerce Clause in conflict with the 2A.”
Not at all. Laws passed at a later date which contradict an earlier law supersede that earlier law. Since the Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and came later than the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment should prevail over the Commerce Clause.
Of course lawyers will cook up some cockamamie “doctrine” trying to somehow merge both laws and keep both in force which is a logical impossibility: something cannot be both legal and illegal simultaneously. That is where our society’s pervasive emotional hysteria comes to the rescue and plays along with schizophrenic legal “doctrines” that are logical impossibilities.
We are in a very dark place when emotional hysteria rules the day.
The commerce clause has been vastly abused. In its context, it was the same powers to regulate commerce between the states as with other countries and Indian nations, i.e., foreign powers. If you can’t do something to a foreign power, you can’t do it to the states.
(Vastly simplified, but the point that the Federal government was only permitted to regulate the interactions between the states, not govern those states.)
“I give you high marks . . . to brainstorm strategies to effect righteous change through the courts. Sadly, I do not have any confidence any more that our nation’s courts will do that.”
Very gracious of you. But I humbly forward your marks to Ms Jamie Caetano. She scored the recent UNANIMOUS 2A holding. (Gist is: Held, the 2A is not just for muskets anymore.) Clever girl. Wish I had her insight.
See, Jamie was a battered homeless mother with the temerity to defy Massachusetts’ ban on keeping or bearing arms, to wit a stun gun. Upon appeal of her conviction, the Supreme Judicial Court of MA upheld her conviction, reasoning that stun guns were unknown to the founding generation.
The Justices, in their supreme (dare I say divine) wisdom: granted cert; did not call for briefings; did not schedule oral arguments; rendered it’s holding in 1.5 pages. The gist of the holding was that THE Supreme Judicial Court of MA could take their reasoning (upholding Jamie’s conviction) and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
How did a penniless (non-gun-owning) woman get cert and a UNANIMOUS ruling in a 2A case.
Oh Ye of little faith, have the widow’s mite of Jamie and miracles might happen for we the PotG.
“Ski resorts might one day benefit from using artillery to manage avalanches.”
They already do, in some places in the US. The video I saw of one resort’s ‘avalanche control’ was a reconciles rifle mounted to a pedestal with the ammo stored in a secured magazine of some sort…
That WAS once true, according to what I read. My next door neighbor was a tank commander (Korea) and confirms this usage from his own eye witness observation.
I think the amendments to the GCA`68 put an end to this usage. Also, surplus artillery shells probably dried-up. Under the application of the Destructive Device treatment of NFA`34 (per amendment by GCA`68) each artillery shell must be serialized and registered individually and a $200 tax stamp issued. This makes the cost of inventorying and using explosive artillery shells prohibitively expensive (even if they might be available at a discount from the military).
The ski resort use is entirely academic. There is probably a cheaper solution to this particular problem today. Maybe dropping dynamite from a drone. The objectionable issue is that making each “consumable” destructive device subject to registration and tax makes ANYTHING that falls into the D-D definition automatically time and cost prohibitive for ANY LEGITIMATE application whatsoever.
It would be simple enough to fix this problem. Simply amend the law allowing an applicant to apply for and register for an inventory of – e.g., a dozen instances bearing a given set of markings. Once one or more units of such an authorized inventory were consumed, the markings could be re-applied to new instances made/manufactured. Compliance would be provable from reconciling paperwork to inventory. Precisely the same effect as current D-D law with no insurmountable time/cost impediment to compliance. It would be the least onerous means of regulating reasonably Destructive Devices (not remarkably different from high explosives which are lightly regulated).
A few years ago there was a news story that WADOT had “borrowed” a tank from JBLM for avalanche control up on US Hwy 2. If I remember correctly, the use of a “weapon of war” had the I-5 corridor Libbie hand-wringers fingers tied in knots.
Militia this, militia that. The right to keep and bear arms is not given to a militia. The right to bare arms but……….
The militia clause matters in two ways:
1) The militia consists of the average citizen capable of fighting, not merely official soldiers sprinkled with the fairy dust of a government paycheck.
2) In order for a militia to protect a free state, it must be capable of fighting and winning a war against any organized force.
And yes, that means that the average citizen needs to be able to own and practice with “arms”, the dreadful tools of war.
Everyone desirous of winning ONLY if it is on his own PERSONAL terms is apt to be left to complain in defeat.
If winning is the only thing, then let’s think of a play that moves the ball between the goal posts.
(I make no claim to purity in principles.)
@EWTHeckman: “. . . the average citizen capable of fighting . . . ”
I’d go FARTHER than this. I think it includes each member of the class “the People” irrespective of his position in the bell curve or his capability of fighting.
I invite you to consider the respective definitions of the term “militia” in Article I Sec 8 vs. the 2A. Are they necessarily a precise identity? Or, might they be overlapping sets? Was this intentionally so?
This takes a leap of openness-of-mind; i.e., to consider whether “militia” has a singular meaning or if it might admit of multiple meanings in different contexts.
Suppose that the Article 1, Sec 8 militia empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline a militia of those it selects to impose a DUTY to perform service.
Then, suppose that 2A secures the RIGHT to the People to be armed so that they may be capable (well regulated) to exercise the RIGHT of self-defense, including securing the free state.
If Madison intended that the Right to arms run only to the former (i.e., Congress’ militia upon whom a duty was imposed) then he needn’t have drafted his proposed amendment to say that the right belonged to “the People”.
He, the first Congress and the ratifying legislators probably more likely thought that the right – to anything – belonged to the class “the People”.
Alternatively, we might try to think of the right to “the free exercise” of religion belonging to only enrolled churchmen. Or the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” to belong to enrolled assemblymen, and so forth.
Did they seriously intend for hostile native Americans on the frontier to inspect women and children for dog tags before executing them as unlawful combatants? Or, instead, that every member of that class – the People – has a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed.
This bifurcated definition pair does nothing to erode the Power of Congress to organize a “select militia”. The Founding generation expected Congress to select men, not women, children or elderly, to exercise and muster for duty.
Moreover, it’s clear that the Anti-Federalists objected to the idea of Congress arming an excessively selective militia of – e.g., the landed gentry.
cue all the marxist trolls saying that’s what “well regulated” means
We live in a meme reality where anything means whatever you want it to mean whenever you want it to.
Math is racist. Scamming activists into buying you four million dollar mansions in the whitest places in the nation is fighting for equality. Not arresting half a million people marching in DC is white privilege while not arresting millions of arsonists in every other major city all year long is also white privilege or that electing a segregationist and crooked prosecutor will spur on “social justice.” Or to combat a flu with a .03% chance of death we need to forcefully inject people with a drugs resulting in .08% (and counting) serious adverse reactions including death.
So why can’t “well regulated” mean the founding fathers created the first NICS and decided 10 musket balls was enough?
America should just lean into this all consuming mass retardation. Why waste time pretending any of it makes any sense? None of it does and it isn’t supposed to.
Now lets invade Ukraine because I heard somebody there was racist and lets keep troops in the desert because I heard somebody there was mean to women and keep buying shit from slave camp running organ harvesting genocidal China because they’re our best buds and we’ll print up a few trillion more Monopoly dollars to pay for it all. Just make sure to bury me in a BLM branded casket draped in a trans flag so I know it was all worth it.
You, sir, get it.
Truth.
..and we ain’t even reached peak retardation yet.
As a Tim Pool follower, it’s been fun to see his gradual conversion to a 2nd Amendment defender.
“lack a permit granted by the state”
I don’t expect SCOTUS to strike-down permitting so long as a qualified applicant CAN get a permit in a short period of time. When a state drags-out the process or stops taking and processing applications, I think they would find an infringement.
“are under a certain age”
So long as the age is 18 or 21, I don’t expect SCOTUS to strike-down an age limit. Too much precedent for other age limits.
“can’t pay a tax”
This is the worst hurdle. It took a Constitutional Amendment to forbid the poll tax. SCOTUS might be willing to strike-down a tax such as the $200 tax on silencers when they cost $10 in 1934. But not when silencers cost $600 today. SCOTUS will be loath to strike a “fee” which plausibly covers the cost of processing an onerous application. Making it expensive to keep or bear arms is the last and toughest hill. It has to be taken politically, and we are a long way away from having that kind of power.
“lack a valid state-approved reason”
This is the most likely to be struck-down soon. It implicates too many other rights; to speak, publish, worship, assemble, decline a search, be represented by council, vote, . . .
A state-approved reason would probably pass muster for a privilege not secured by an enumerated right. (E.g., suppose I want an exemption from emission standards for my antique car. I might have to have a bona fide reason that I want to drive it to exhibitions. If I don’t actually exhibit it, I couldn’t pass the reason prerequisite.)
Here, our problem seems to be our inability to divine why the five conservative justices have not yet seen fit to grant cert in a case challenging May-Issue (Won’t-Issue).
Forgive me for being so cheeky as to reply on my own comment. But, this just occurred to me.
SCOTUS is exceedingly reluctant to take a 2A case based on any argument whatsoever. (They made an exception for Ms Jamie Caetano, perhaps because she was a battered single mother.)
So, we bring our argument in some case NOT involving the 2A.
Find a friendly state (perhaps even a municipality) and get them to pass a law (ordinance). To exercise any 1A right (speak, publish, assemble, worship) OUTside the home you must obtain a license and your application must articulate a “justifiable need”. The designated official – perhaps a justice of the peace – has absolute discretion to dismiss your description of need.
Sister laws might require a justifiable need (‘I have teenage daughters in the household’) to decline to quarter troops, take the 5A, be represented by council, etc. Corresponding suits challenge these laws.
No doubt, the Circuit Court in the applicable jurisdiction would make short work of any such litigation. So, the exercise would probably have to proceed in states/municipalities in pairs of Circuit Court jurisdictions. In one such jurisdiction we would need a court willing to play ball by either upholding the Constitutionality of the law or refusing to hear the case. Somehow, we would need to trigger a circuit split.
How long would SCOTUS allow such an absurd proposition of “justifiable need” continue to stand unresolved?
Might be worthwhile considering bringing some such case in an unincorporated territory such as PR, USVI, etc. That could introduce the doctrine of the “Insular Cases”. Isn’t it racist to regulate enumerated rights based on some doubt that a citizen in a territory isn’t civilized enough to speak, . . . , worship responsibly without a license based on need?
The implications of such cases on the 2A ought to be clear enough. SCOTUS would have the opportunity to take a case that would establish the foundation for/against “justifiable need” OUTSIDE the context of the 2A.
How long could they continue to stall on this justifiable need issue in any other enumerated right?
How about we complicate things. In a territory, we get a case where a “white man” is granted a license to carry a rosary whereas an insular native woman is refused the same license? Now, we have an equal protection and due-process cases based purely on racism.
“How long could they continue to stall on this justifiable need issue in any other enumerated right?”
That place already exists, Washington, DC. Announce you are holding a 100,000 person march on the mall and don’t intend to get a permit, and see what happens…
$10 in 1934 has the same purchasing power as $201.31 in 2021
I like Tim Pool. He did some great reporting for Vice News back in the day. But he is a statist. Like all Liberals and Leftists. And even some so called “Libertarians”. Leftists like Pool eschewed gun ownership. They had total faith in the supremacy of the state.
It has been interesting to watch gays and straight traditional left leaning people begin to embrace gun ownership. But they have not embraced the second amendment. These people still think you need permission from the state to own a gun. And they support gun free zones. They would eliminate all private gun sales, that didn’t have a back ground check.
Tim Pool supports the Welfare Industrial Complex. He has said he supports making drugs legal and taxing them to raise money for the government. He supports taxes on businesses and the government regulations on them.
Tim Pool is not a friend of Liberty. He is a utopian. But I still like what he does. He does go after government corruption. Left or Right. But at this point he is like a Joe Stalin lite. And you can’t take your eyes off of people like that.
Because at some point he and they will turn on you.
He gives me faith in the generation of offended snowflakes gleefully cheering on authoritarianism by the government. I am gen x, and lean liberatarian. Concervatarian to quote Andrew Wilkow would be more accurate. To be honest, the 2A is the only thing that aligns me with the GOP these days. Otherwise, I hate them just as much as I do Dems.
I also like Andew Wilkow. But I’ve not heard of the term “Concervatarian”. I will have to look this up.
If that does not pertain to concerts, I suspect it should be “conservatarian”.
I missed this somehow. I like charles Cooke. He and Milo are good UK imports for America. This conversation is great. But Mr Cooke failed to bring up the many failings of modern Libertarians. And their double standards. They are internationalists. And they don’t support federalism. They do like a large federal government.
Aliens, legal or illegal, are first before american citizens when it come to Libertarians. Libertarians are just Democrat lite.
From 2015, video 25 min long.
The Conservatarian Manifesto: Should Libertarians & Conservatives Unite?
IDK if I’d call him discount Joe Stalin, but my major criticism of him is he does defer back to government authority seemingly in tension with his stated desires of just leave me alone. I think this is best illustrated by his recent conversations with libertarians he has had on his show who advocate with things like total private ownership of roads and water then act like they don’t know what he is talking about when he asks how that will work.
I also think he is a bit alarmist sometimes.
Otherwise I largely agree with you, and I have been watching him for years.
I should add, it seems like he is trying to find the balance between freedom and what many on the left consider a “compassionate” society, ie welfare, gov protection of rights, property, and the commons, etc.
The application of Tim’s re-interpreted Second seems to working sooo well for all those Blue States and their pestilence-filled Blue Cities!
(I realize that Mr. Poole’s comment was satirical…mine not so much))
In today’s world I am suspicious of anyone who “converts” from democrat (communist party USA) to “conservative”.
The left has spies and provocateurs in most if not all organizations with emphasis on anything to do with conservatives.
Yes there are probably people who have truly converted but as Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify”.
I hear “republican” politicians say they can take back congress in 2022 because of what Bitme is doing. Since the left got away with stealing the presidential election and the runoff in Georgia what make anyone think they will not steal most if not all elections in the future?
Pack the court and America is done for sure.
Be Prepared !!!
Tim Poole is an articulate and well-informed dude. I respect what he says and catch his show from time to time. Sure he might not fit a ‘conservative’ frameset, but he’s certainly independent and an example of one of the good younger dudes out there. He certainly isn’t an offended snowflake demanding government taking over everything. I think he’s a gun owner as well.
You need to clarify that this is satirical. Anyone who knows Tim Pool would know that over the last year his stance on guns has basically gone from “not in my house” to “the 2A says bear arms, in some states you can’t do that, why is that ok?”
This post is basically fake news. It is technically true that he tweeted this, but it is extremely deceptive to just post that without context.
He’s publicly stated his tweets are straight up troll bait for authoritarians.
I always love comments from people about the 2nd Amendment. I’ll assume this guy is being sarcastic, but so many people display their absolute childish ignorance about the Bill of Rights. To think, let alone espouse, that the founding fathers, writing a “Bill of Rights,” of the PEOPLE, wrote the 1st Amendment, then said, “Hey, let us now pause, and write one that gives the government power,” is a display of ignorance and just plain stupidity, that is unfathomable!
State granted permits?!? Look folks, black and brown people don’t know how to get online. This sound like Jim Crow 2.1 on an anti-inflammatory. This is Jim Falcon!!
I’m a Tim pool fan and I can attest that he is pro 2A. Between his difficult experience in acquiring his first firearm to watching riots break out and politicians abdicate responsibility for public safety, he came to understand the value of the 2A and it’s basis in the god given right to self defense. He is an ally, especially in reaching out to those who don’t normally embrace the standard 2A positions.
I actually follow Tim Pool and posting this quote like this is kind of stripping it of context. Yes, he is on the left side of a lot of politics. If I had to describe him though he would be more of what used to be called a ‘Blue dog democrat’. Something that’s becoming as scarce as proverbial hens teeth. He may not be a complete 2A absolution, but he he’s damn close and he sure as hell doesn’t support the requirement of a ‘valid state-approved reason’
In other words he’s being sarcastic.
Tim Pool is not Dr. Jordon Peterson, but he like Mr.Trump removing our men & women from the
Midle East. That tells me he is not for big government or war for the sake of war.
South Korea impeached their president because a boat sank.
They threw one of their presidents in prison for 20 years!
Park Geun-hye
“On 6 April 2018, South Korean courts sentenced her to 24 years in prison (later increased to 25 years) for corruption and abuse of power. Park is currently imprisoned at Seoul Detention Center. In 2018, two separate criminal cases resulted in an increase of seven years in her prison sentence.”
Tim pool. A person this time last year was in support of a private transfer ban, red flag laws, magazine ban and, “assault weapons” ban.
He’s come a long way but he is still pro-gun lite. If guns are banned he will be one of the first to give his up.
“Tim pool. A person this time last year was in support of a private transfer ban, red flag laws, magazine ban and, “assault weapons” ban.”
Be grateful for the little victories, especially when they have a strong voice in enemy territory. He can potentially flip a lot of voters to our side…
Sucks to be you, getting deleted!
How *HUMILIATING* it must be for you!
You *lose*! I *WIN*! 😉
“. . . he is still pro-gun lite.”
Methinks we shouldn’t be so eager to burn the heretic at the stake.
OK, so, Tim Pool might not be sufficiently pure-in-spirit as (we all know is required) to be awarded pearl-grips at the gates up yonder. Is it necessarily the right solution that we execute him summarily so that he will go straight to hell and never live a few more years to possibly redeem himself and win his wings/grips?
Regardless of his ultimate fate, his soft-on-gun-rights position might nevertheless enable some – such as doubting members of Gen-X – to see a faint flickering of the light at the distant end of the tunnel. These might begin to entertain a bit of doubt over gun-control as they consider other doubts about the establishment.
Hey, little troll!
Did you see where it happened *again*? TTAG management totally erased one of your pathetic mewlings!
GONE! Erased! like it never existed! That must *REALLY* piss you off! Hahahahahahaha!
You *lose*! I *WIN*! (Dancing!)… 😉
@Geoff
Choked on my lunch while laughing…thank you for the hearty guffaw!
(mental image of Snoopy dancing on top of his doghouse)
You *lose*! I *WIN*! 😉
YEP THIS IS NOT THA YEAR OF A LORD THA 1700’S .
NEED $$$ TO OWN A WEAPON , TAX , TITLE IN ALL .
WAS THER TAX ON BUYING A MUSKET IN 1774 ?
:: rolls eyes ::
Borrrriiinnnggg (and stupid) troll!
…and this peter puffer knows boring and stupid, believe me!
2nd A 2021
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 unless you do not possess the courage to shoot the corrupt government tyrants who steal your tax dollars by their corruption and who wish to enslave you forever in chains.
Signed:
Your Founding Fathers
Our Founding Fathers would already have been finished shooting a second time.
Aw, Come on, Man!! The Second Amendment. Guess I didn’t get the updated PC Woke version of the Second Amendment. Possibly my copy is an old original V1.0 version. Mine doesn’t contain any stipulations or restrictions regarding:
–Need;
–Suitable for sporting purposes;
–In common use;
–No full automatic operation;
–No scary black color;
–Maximum purchases per month;
–Cannot fabricate at home;
–Cannot modify;
–Cannot posses certain parts;
–Maximum number of cartridges;
–Minimum barrel length;
–Minimum overall length;
–No bump stock;
–Must be serialized;
–No stock permitted;
–No pistol grips;
–No barrel shrouds;
–No smooth bore barrel:
–No rifled barrel;
–No forward vertical grip;
–No threaded barrel;
–No bayonet lug;
–No suppressor;
–No collapsible stock;
–No thumb hole in stock;
–Maximum caliber;
–No touchy arm brace to shoulder;
–Minimum number of USA made parts;
–Applicable to collective use only;
–Only applicable within one’s home;
–Cannot cross state line;
–Cannot enter city limit;
–Cannot enter taxpayer funded buildings;
–Must buy $200 tax stamp;
–Must not protect one’s hearing;
–Must not be suitable for defending American soil;
–Must not be suitable for dispatching tyrants;
–Must not be designed to efficiently kill;
–Must wait to take home;
–Must complete Form 4473;
–Faceless, nameless bureaucrat must bless purchase;
–Valid only in Liberal-free zones;
–Minimum age to keep and bear;
–Stops where Liberal touchy feelys begin;
–If a Liberal does not like it, you can’t have it;
–If a politician fears it because of his actions, you cannot have it;
–Shall not make snowflakes uncomfortable;
–Cannot chew cookie into gun shape;
–Toys may not resemble;
–Must not be visible;
–Must not be concealed;
–Must not be readily deployable;
–Must be encumbered by a lock;
–Must keep in bureaucrat blessed container;
–Cannot be loaded;
–Cannot be in same container as applicable ammunition;
–Not valid without bureaucrat issued permission slip;
–Must be listed on government blessed list;
–Must imprint data on projectile and/or cartridge case;
–Susceptible to government modification;
–Old men/women in black dresses may interpret politically any old way;
–Cannot have on tax payer funded property;
–Cannot possess where bureaucrats, elitists are protected by same;
–Cannot have same as tax payer funded camo wearing government employee;
My copy only says “…..shall not be infringed.”
Hmmmmm……my copy seems to meet a free man’s purposes. Thanks, appreciate your thoughts and concern, but I’ll stick with my original version.