The constituion states we the people have the right to bear arms and SHALL NOT be infringed.
Gun rights for citizens only.
Modifications should not be regulated
…please comment on suggestions
12 Likes
It’s a crying shame that an American has to put out a policy suggestion to ask our governments to follow the Second Amendment of our Consitution! (Not the 22nd…not the 202nd…not the 2002nd…but the SECOND - as #2) It is flat out embarrassing to me, as another American! WTF??? 
5 Likes
Remove the tax stamp from suppressors, they are an over the counter purchase in New Zealand. They consider it poor manners to be shooting an unsupressed rifle around groups. The people who are allowed rifles in Europe through licensing use them.
7 Likes
Agreed, we need to go back to when it was prioritized
1 Like
Suppressors and short barrel rifles. It’s all a pathetic joke taxing people for a piece of metal.
5 Likes
I agree that we need to abolish all “Unconstitutional” gun laws. But can anyone name a constitutional one?
Art. 1 Sec 8 says congress can “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal”.
That must mean that cannon and ships of war can be maintained by private citizens or “Reprisal” would be meaningless.
It also implies that if the Government can have it so can I.
I want a fully armed aircraft carrier. I just can’t afford it on Social security…
5 Likes
Thoughts on this policy suggestion Policy for Automatic Restoration of Firearm Rights for Rehabilitated Violent Felons (Non-Firearm Offenses) Second Amendment 2ndA 2A
1 Like
Thats the point there are no constiutional gun laws lol
2 Likes
Barring violent criminals and people with certain mental conditions, I agree.
However, if anyone commits an armed robbery or other felony with a gun, they should not be trusted with a gun.
1 Like
ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.
2 Likes
And the creation of the 2nd-most-important of our Amendments was not so that we can go hunt game with it – our Founding Fathers did that as a part of their daily routine (much like going shopping at Walmart today). The purpose was to ensure that we keep our Constitutional Republic in place, operational, and out of the clutches of tyrant statists and monarchical armies by privately arming the American People with the same caliber of weapons, equal to those weapons pointed back at us (whether those weapons were foreign OR domestic). If it was a cannon or a battleship, then by God, the American People need to aim a cannon or a battleship right back at that threat.
Demonstrated logic: If a Communist Chinese Party official held a gun at you, and you were holding one back at him, and he told you that, as the new ruler of these lands, he just sent out a written order, that every person in your village could have only a single bullet in his gun at any given time, would you start unloading all of your bullets but one, while he kept his full magazine of bullets aimed in your direction? Probably not.
With that in mind, and an over-bearing state government who would like its citizens disarmed…this is exactly the reason why our Founding Fathers wrapped up 2A with “…Shall Not Be Infringed”.
3 Likes
I just want to submit a point of clarification here that
“guns”
are a small subset under the total right to bear
“arms”
As arms defined and used in the 2A includes “anything that can be used offensively or defensively in wrath against another person” that currently exist or will exist in the future.
If the people are not able to find justice in the courts, the founders gave us several very peaceful ways of nullifying laws such as mass disobedience and jury nullification. It may time to begin utilizing those methods, but the people must be educated enough in the nuances and ramifications so they can withstand the consequences together and push back in a unified manner, peacefully.
For example, if the people were to publically announce
a “national 2a day of extremely peaceful noncompliance to illegal government overreach”
Legal protest on December 15 2025
to celebrate the ratification of the bill of rights, that would send a powerful message if millions of unified and educated citizens of all classes and affiliations “showed up” by just going about their daily routines open carrying their arms of choice.
3 Likes
This is big enough of an issue, that I encourage everyone reading this to IGNORE all 2nd amendment violations. Stockpile.
Our forefathers stockpiled muskets and cannons in barns when such actions were taken against the colonists.
ANY attempt at disarming the population is a step towards TYRANNY.
No amendment or right could be protected without the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Remember that our guns are for politicans, not just self preservation.
2 Likes
*the above statement is not official legal advice. speak with an attorney regarding your specific circumstances and risk tolerance. There is strength in numbers.
3 Likes
Nope! You’re right, it’s not legal advice… it’s historically informed, PATRIOTIC advice! 
3 Likes
Satan and FSM save matt hoover
1 Like
Absolutely NO government arms control is legal or constitutional, repeal it all! Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint”, the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
Bill of rights Supporters claim protected constitutional rights. Opponents counter, government was granted the general power to place restraints on those rights. These assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble called the brown letter. It stated the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning unalienable rights enumerated in Amendments.
By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over an individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical.
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.
If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.
Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.
Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Supreme Court rulings have affirmed Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1 Like
how about abolishing ALL unconstitutional laws instead? (which according to the Constitution should be null and void, being unconstitutional, anyway)
1 Like
Thats the point, get rid of them
Make a proposal about the ‘reasonable restraint’ and the overstepping of the People’s innate rights.