The right to bear Arms is the right of everyone but not everyone should be entitled to bear arms. Background checks should be mandatory for anyone who wishes to acquire a firearm and laws should be put in place that stipulates that should your firearm be used in any criminal activity irrespective of your knowledge, The person should be held culpable.
For a while I was in favor of 'reasonable' measures such as gun owners carrying a bond. After all, it is not in my interest for dirtbags to be armed either.
Over the last half-decade or so it has become abundantly clear that the Leftists in particular don't give two shits about gun violence and public safety and 'saving the kids' and what-not. Nope, this is about monopolization of force in the hands of the government. Period. Sure, many of the progressive drones are indoctrinated and actually do believe the propaganda, but that doesn't make it valid.
At the end of the day, gun circulation is not really all that big of a problem in the first place, and any realistic programs to 'solve' what problems do exist will simply result in fewer armed good guys and a lot more violence.
I've mentioned it before here, but back in the day when thinking people in the government really did want to address what problems did exist, they implemented a workable solution which worked well. That is, punish the shit out of criminals who used firearms in the commission of a crime. If it works, don't fix it.
I went from being 'reasonable' to not wanting to hear another word from these slime. Not even such things as high capacity magazine limitations. It's just the camel trying to get more of it's nose in the tent door and is not worth the risk. The best way to teach these fuckers a lesson about why it's counterproductive to be a sneaky and disingenuous fuck in the U.S. is by rolling back a bunch of the bullshit that is already achieved. e.g., 'gun free zones' and such.
FWIW, we now see exactly why the big push to castrate the public in a manner which is the direct opposition to what the founders wrote into the 2nd. As I tap this out we've got a bunch of treasonous globalist scum brainstorming about how they could possibly avoid having the person we voted for take power. The fact that we are a heavily armed population is throwing a serious monkey-wrench into the gears of some of the otherwise possible mechanisms they might be able to use. Exactly as the founding fathers planned.
If you and I never agreed about anything else, we agree here.
This is why the message of Karl Lentz is so important:
1. The 9th Amendment says we have all the rights we did before Government came around;
2. The 6th and 7th Amendments say that we can have a jury trial in anything;
3. Government is paperwork - can't do anything; if Government harms us, it is people doing it; people can be sued man to man for any harm they have done to us, even if they are government people, but they have to be sued as people;
4. Federal district courts are courts of record in common law, this means the judge is separate from the court operation... an operation which includes a claimant, a wrongdoer, the jury... called a tribunal;
5. If you are represented by an attorney or anybody (even yourself), you have given up your rights as a man/woman.
6. Without these 4 things, there can be no court, and these things have to be attested to under oath or affirmation from the stand:
a. An accuser;
b. One being accused;
c. Injury that is evident injury to some man or woman;
d. Witness and evidence that proves the one being accused did it.
Just some of the stuff that has been in the law all along. And people rarely use it.