Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "The Sheriff Refusing To Enforce Washington State's New Gun Law (HBO)" video.

A well regulated militia: A properly functioning and well armed group of citizens Being necessary to the security of a free State: Being needed for defense The Right of the People to keep and bear arms: The right of the people to possess and carry weapons Shall not be infringed: Will not be restricted or limited I'm sorry but what exactly does the AG think the Sheriff got wrong in his "interpretation" of the Second Amendment? It's really, really easy to understand for anyone with even a basic education and an understanding of the English language. It's only slightly harder for any idiot with a dictionary and a search bar. Anyone who doesn't understand the 2A is intentionally trying to misunderstand it, for fear of what a Constitutional society would look like.
5
Good man. #NotAllHeroesWearCapes
1
@arthurmorgan3260 You should really brush up on your firearms history if you think the musket was the fastest firing/loading gun around at the time the Constitution was written.
1
@arthurmorgan3260 And now the most common and reliable rifle is the AR-15. See how that works?
1
@arthurmorgan3260 I get that. I just don't see what a "better" law would be that would effectively (and drastically) reduce gun crime and also preserve the rights of the people. Personally, I'd like to see better enforcement of current laws. Why would I expect new, "better" laws to be anything more than an inconvenience for myself and other gun owners when that's all the current laws are? I obey all firearms laws but if I didn't I would be able to get my hands on plenty of guns and I don't even live in a large city (where the majority of such problems exist). I'm in California, where even private firearms sales are supposed to go through an FFL and require a background check. Do you have any idea how few of them actually do? The laws in this State only affect those who have no intention of breaking them. Everyone else is still buying and selling "banned" guns to/from each other, as though the laws never existed in the first place. I can't even say I think they're wrong for doing so. The Constitution - as it is written - is very clear. So is the definition of the word "infringe." People can try to talk about altering the Constitution to limit the freedoms of Americans but that didn't go so well last time. The People refused to comply and that particular amendment had to be repealed. If you think prohibition was a bad time, imagine trying it with something that has been specifically enumerated as a natural right of the People. All that badness was just over booze. What we're talking about now is the real stuff. People will sacrifice their lives, en masse, to protect the second amendment. It would be a bloody war on American soil, with only American casualties. Laws can change with the times but trying to reduce people's rights will end in blood. Especially when we're talking about the one right that's meant to protect all of the others. Welcome to the paradox.
1
@arthurmorgan3260 See why I don't have much faith in new laws? We need massive reformation in many areas in this Country before we can count on more ink on paper doing anything.
1