Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   2nd Amendment Debate. (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/2nd-amendment-debate-95751/)

texaswoodworker 08-20-2013 05:49 PM

2nd Amendment Debate.
 
This should be pretty interesting, but most like one sided for the most part.

Does the 2nd Amendment forbid the States from enacting gun control?

Does it protect ALL guns (everything from black powder to full auto MGs)

Does it protect both open and concealed carry?

Does it make background checks and gun registration illegal?

Does it cover all the accessories that go with guns such as magazines, scopes, ect.

Does it ban ALL anti gun laws?

Let the debate begin.

texaswoodworker 08-20-2013 05:52 PM

I say yes to all of the above. The Federalist papers show that the Founders wanted us as well armed as the average soldier (today that would mean full auto guns), and I believe that the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own, carry, and improve our guns in anyway we see fit WITHOUT any kind of Government interference.

hawkguy 08-20-2013 06:48 PM

Quote:

texaswoodworker;1341158]This should be pretty interesting, but most like one sided for the most part.
heh. every time i post in these discussions, somebody normally gets mad. i respect all viewpoints on the matter...agree or not. hopefully, i get the same respect in return? ;) here goes.....

Quote:

Does the 2nd Amendment forbid the States from enacting gun control?
although the 2nd is related more to the federal....i almost think i'd prefer it in the hands of the states sometimes. i believe in FAR more states rights myself. as it has been said, the gov could START by enforcing the laws they already have.

and i believe in common sense and effective gun moderating laws (i'll take control out....its the wrong word imo).... i support laws that make it illegal for convicted violent criminals to purchase, sell, or own guns.

the main prob is, so many gun laws proposed would not make our world safer in any way...and i will never support something that won't have a chance to be effective.

Quote:

Does it protect ALL guns (everything from black powder to full auto MGs)
imo....i am fairly comfortable with gun laws as they stand (in texas:)...not in NY :(). i feel like any standard weapon available to law enforcement should be available to law abiding citizens.

this is perhaps THE MOST undefined part of the 2nd....whether we like or or not...there is no definition of what "arms" is in the second....IT IS open for interpretation...and compromise imo

Quote:

Does it protect both open and concealed carry?
i'm not, and never will be a fan of open carry. but that is just my opinion....i think concealed carry has so many advantages, and open carry turns into politics and showboating more often than not.

i'm on the fence on open carry, to many people (not me)...it is the equivalent of smoking in a restaurant...it just bothers and disturbs a lot of people. i don't care about that....i just think it doesn't accomplish anything conceal doesn't do better.

Quote:

Does it make background checks and gun registration illegal?
imo, NO & YES. in our modern society...and if people had SENSE...it is conceivable that lawmakers could pass one gun moderation law and a gun owners protection law simultaneously (some might call this compromise, our founding father did MORE than a bit of compromise to get our constitution set up ;))....

make a background check to keep guns out of the hands of the violent criminals, and pass a law that says any documentation of the check is a FEDERAL CRIME. this could and would work. background checks w/o registration!

if our lawmakers passed effective laws (with real consequences) for our safety and benefit, while also passing laws to protect and respect our constitutional freedoms...we might find that compromise....

Quote:

Does it cover all the accessories that go with guns such as magazines, scopes, ect.
imo, its just dumb that this is ever even a part of the argument. pistols grips, scopes, flash hinders...sorry...but who gives a s**t? none make a gun more dangerous.

mags are the only subject here worth debating. i feel ok with 30 round mags being a limit...its what soldiers carry....i don't feel ok with less than that....some may disagree obviously

Quote:

Does it ban ALL anti gun laws?
well, yes....but that question is a bit of a trap....NOT ALL gun moderating laws are ANTI GUN! are some of them? certainly! obummer's assault weapon ban is perfect example of an ANTI GUN LAW. background checks? not imo...an inconvenience does not equate to a violation of the second in my point of view...

Quote:

Let the debate begin.
oh! i think i just started the debate.....;)

Angry_bald_guy 08-20-2013 07:08 PM

I want to read more responses before chiming in so I'm just going to subscribe for now...

texaswoodworker 08-20-2013 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkguy (Post 1341219)
heh. every time i post in these discussions, somebody normally gets mad. i respect all viewpoints on the matter...agree or not. hopefully, i get the same respect in return? ;) here goes.....

Yep, keep it civil guys. I'm looking at you Hawk :D :p

Quote:

although the 2nd is related more to the federal....i almost think i'd prefer it in the hands of the states sometimes. i believe in FAR more states rights myself. as it has been said, the gov could START by enforcing the laws they already have.
I believe strongly in States' rights, but I also believe that the Constitution's power is not discussable. I see it as the supreme law of the land that everyone from the Federal Government, to the smallest Local Government has to follow.

Quote:

and i believe in common sense and effective gun moderating laws (i'll take control out....its the wrong word imo).... i support laws that make it illegal for convicted violent criminals to purchase, sell, or own guns.
Yes, and no. Should criminals be given guns while in prison? Heck no! Should they be given back that right once they are free? Absolutely. There is a catch though. VIOLENT criminals should never be released. That would solve a lot of problems by itself.

Quote:

the main prob is, so many gun laws proposed would not make our world safer in any way...and i will never support something that won't have a chance to be effective.
I have yet to see a gun law that would be effective. They all target us, not the criminals. Criminals won't follow laws period. There's no wat to stop that other then to take them off the streets. Gun control is not necessary.

Quote:

imo....i am fairly comfortable with gun laws as they stand (in texas:)...not in NY :(). i feel like any standard weapon available to law enforcement should be available to law abiding citizens.
I'm fairly comfortable, but I want a little more comfort. Open carry, Constitutional Carry, and getting rid of the NFA laws and the GCA of 68' laws would be great.

Quote:

this is perhaps THE MOST undefined part of the 2nd....whether we like or or not...there is no definition of what "arms" is in the second....IT IS open for interpretation...and compromise imo
I disagree. I see no place for compromise when it comes to our rights. As for the definition of arms, well that's pretty simple. The point of the 2nd Amendment is for us to be able to defend our rights from tyrants. Do you really think the Founders would want the citizens armed wit sticks while the tyrants have guns?

Quote:

i'm not, and never will be a fan of open carry. but that is just my opinion....i think concealed carry has so many advantages, and open carry turns into politics and showboating more often than not.

i'm on the fence on open carry, to many people (not me)...it is the equivalent of smoking in a restaurant...it just bothers and disturbs a lot of people. i don't care about that....i just think it doesn't accomplish anything conceal doesn't do better.
Leaving the politics and irrational responses aside, do you believe we have a RIGHT to it? I do. That is all that matters. We have a right to do it.

Smoking isn't really comparable since it truly does bother most people and can cause health problems if your around it long enough. The only way open carry can bother people is if they allow their irrational fears to bother them.

Quote:

imo, NO & YES. in our modern society...and if people had SENSE...it is conceivable that lawmakers could pass one gun moderation law and a gun owners protection law simultaneously (some might call this compromise, our founding father did MORE than a bit of compromise to get our constitution set up ;))....
As I said before, there is no compromise when it comes to rights. If you giver them an inch, they WILL take a mile. What have background checks really done? How do they keep criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the streets anyways?

Quote:

make a background check to keep guns out of the hands of the violent criminals, and pass a law that says any documentation of the check is a FEDERAL CRIME. this could and would work. background checks w/o registration!
That IS the law. It's failed. If the government wants to document the checks, what's really stopping them? Your basically leaving the wolf in charge of the sheep. Look at New Jersey for example. They did it. Plus, the criminals still have guns.

Quote:

if our lawmakers passed effective laws (with real consequences) for our safety and benefit, while also passing laws to protect and respect our constitutional freedoms...we might find that compromise....
I've yet to see a law like that.

Quote:

imo, its just dumb that this is ever even a part of the argument. pistols grips, scopes, flash hinders...sorry...but who gives a s**t? none make a gun more dangerous.
I agree.

Quote:

mags are the only subject here worth debating. i feel ok with 30 round mags being a limit...its what soldiers carry....i don't feel ok with less than that....some may disagree obviously
Why? Why stop at 30? Why is 30 ok, but 31 dangerous?

Actually, soldiers also carry belt fed machine guns with hundreds of rounds in them. ;)

Quote:

well, yes....but that question is a bit of a trap....NOT ALL gun moderating laws are ANTI GUN! are some of them? certainly! obummer's assault weapon ban is perfect example of an ANTI GUN LAW. background checks? not imo...an inconvenience does not equate to a violation of the second in my point of view...
I see that inconvenience as a violation of my rights, it's the first step towards gun registration. It also does nothing. Do you really think criminals will go to a gun shop to buy their guns when they can get them cheaper and easier on the streets?

Quote:

oh! i think i just started the debate.....;)
Yes you did.

mahall 08-20-2013 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaswoodworker

Yep, keep it civil guys. I'm looking at you Hawk :D :p

I believe strongly in States' rights, but I also believe that the Constitution's power is not discussable. I see it as the supreme law of the land that everyone from the Federal Government, to the smallest Local Government has to follow.

Yes, and no. Should criminals be given guns while in prison? Heck no! Should they be given back that right once they are free? Absolutely. There is a catch though. VIOLENT criminals should never be released. That would solve a lot of problems by itself.

I have yet to see a gun law that would be effective. They all target us, not the criminals. Criminals won't follow laws period. There's no wat to stop that other then to take them off the streets. Gun control is not necessary.

I'm fairly comfortable, but I want a little more comfort. Open carry, Constitutional Carry, and getting rid of the NFA laws and the GCA of 68' laws would be great.

I disagree. I see no place for compromise when it comes to our rights. As for the definition of arms, well that's pretty simple. The point of the 2nd Amendment is for us to be able to defend our rights from tyrants. Do you really think the Founders would want the citizens armed wit sticks while the tyrants have guns?

Leaving the politics and irrational responses aside, do you believe we have a RIGHT to it? I do. That is all that matters. We have a right to do it.

Smoking isn't really comparable since it truly does bother most people and can cause health problems if your around it long enough. The only way open carry can bother people is if they allow their irrational fears to bother them.

As I said before, there is no compromise when it comes to rights. If you giver them an inch, they WILL take a mile. What have background checks really done? How do they keep criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the streets anyways?

That IS the law. It's failed. If the government wants to document the checks, what's really stopping them? Your basically leaving the wolf in charge of the sheep. Look at New Jersey for example. They did it. Plus, the criminals still have guns.

I've yet to see a law like that.

I agree.

Why? Why stop at 30? Why is 30 ok, but 31 dangerous?

Actually, soldiers also carry belt fed machine guns with hundreds of rounds in them. ;)

I see that inconvenience as a violation of my rights, it's the first step towards gun registration. It also does nothing. Do you really think criminals will go to a gun shop to buy their guns when they can get them cheaper and easier on the streets?

Yes you did.

Laws are like locks, they are made for law abiding citizens! To stay civil and live together in a measure of peace!! Bad people(criminals) are going to break locks and laws no matter what they are!! To limit our ability to arm ourselves, in any way we see fit! Limits our ability to defend our selves! It makes absolutely no sense to limit good to give bad a distinct advantage!! I think this the Universal argument toward any gun laws!!

Devin556 08-20-2013 08:07 PM

I agree with texaswoodworker on this one. The constitution says we have a God given right to "arms" to protect against tyrrany foreign and domestic. IMO, that means we need the same armaments as the average soldier the government would put against us during all out tyrrany. As for the people that would say "Oh, so that means civillians should have nukes and bombs?", no. The average soldier doesnt have access to these types of munitions, so neither should we. There shoulnt be any laws concerning full auto, mag limit, assault rifle, or any of the like.

JW357 08-20-2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin556
I agree with texaswoodworker on this one. The constitution says we have a God given right to "arms" to protect against tyrrany foreign and domestic. IMO, that means we need the same armaments as the average soldier the government would put against us during all out tyrrany. As for the people that would say "Oh, so that means civillians should have nukes and bombs?", no. The average soldier doesnt have access to these types of munitions, so neither should we. There shoulnt be any laws concerning full auto, mag limit, assault rifle, or any of the like.

I'm in agreement with texanwoodworker and Devin on this one.

However, I do think its important to not allow violent (violent is the key word) criminals to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

So how do we do that? I don't know. IMO, background checks are unconstitutional. Because it infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. Anything that hinders my right to keep and bear arms is, IMO, unconstitutional, since I am not a violent criminal. I've started talking in circles.

You all get my point.

The question I pose is: how do we prevent violent criminals from walking into a gun store and buying a gun, while keeping with the Constitution?

(The only thing I can think of, is as soon as they are convicted of a violent crime, maybe getting a tattoo on their forehead that says "VC" or something, much like "The Scarlet Letter." That way, you don't have to perform a background check on someone to know they are prohibited from owning a firearm legally. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not endorsing the tattoo idea. It's all I can think of.)

JimRau 08-20-2013 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaswoodworker (Post 1341158)
This should be pretty interesting, but most like one sided for the most part.

Does the 2nd Amendment forbid the States from enacting gun control?

Does it protect ALL guns (everything from black powder to full auto MGs)

Does it protect both open and concealed carry?

Does it make background checks and gun registration illegal?

Does it cover all the accessories that go with guns such as magazines, scopes, ect.

Does it ban ALL anti gun laws?

Let the debate begin.

YES it does.:) Any 'arm' which would be issued to an individual soldier or less is our right to obtain, own, and carry without 'infringement'.
The synonyms to 'infringe' are 'limit' and 'restrict'.
Read and weep progressives!!!!:cool:

Devin556 08-20-2013 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW357 (Post 1341434)
I'm in agreement with texanwoodworker and Devin on this one.

However, I do think its important to not allow violent (violent is the key word) criminals to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

So how do we do that? I don't know. IMO, background checks are unconstitutional. Because it infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. Anything that hinders my right to keep and bear arms is, IMO, unconstitutional, since I am not a violent criminal. I've started talking in circles.

You all get my point.

The question I pose is: how do we prevent violent criminals from walking into a gun store and buying a gun, while keeping with the Constitution?

(The only thing I can think of, is as soon as they are convicted of a violent crime, maybe getting a tattoo on their forehead that says "VC" or something, much like "The Scarlet Letter." That way, you don't have to perform a background check on someone to know they are prohibited from owning a firearm legally. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not endorsing the tattoo idea. It's all I can think of.)

I think tex said it best when he said dont let them out. Its kinda hard to walk into a gun store when your in prison or 6ft under. Now, I'm not saying the 2 guys in the bar parking lot that had a brawl last week should be locked up and throw away the key right off the bat. I'm saying that someone who has proven they are going to hurt people with no thought about any punishment disserve this. Not to mention the faact that with more gun owning LAC's out there with better hardware there would be less crime anyways.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.