2nd Amendment Debate.
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > 2nd Amendment Debate.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2013, 06:49 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default 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 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 08-20-2013, 06:52 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

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.

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 07:48 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,428
Liked 3137 Times on 1873 Posts
Likes Given: 2188

Default

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.....
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 08:08 PM   #4
Resident JackHole
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Angry_bald_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perryville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,631
Liked 350 Times on 187 Posts
Likes Given: 58

Default

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

__________________
Darrel

No, you can't take my gun. I'm gonna need it when you try to take my truck...

Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm a mechanic. I fix things. This is why I will never be able to hold public office.
Angry_bald_guy is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 08:17 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
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

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.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 08:57 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 892
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker

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

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!!
__________________
mahall is offline  
5
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 09:07 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arley, AL in "The Free State of Winston"
Posts: 552
Liked 257 Times on 150 Posts
Likes Given: 185

Default

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.

__________________
Devin556 is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 11:33 PM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JW357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,716
Liked 3727 Times on 2284 Posts
Likes Given: 1224

Default

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.)
__________________

Always have clean socks.

JW357 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 11:35 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,152
Liked 2072 Times on 1225 Posts
Likes Given: 1007

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
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!!!!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!


Last edited by JimRau; 08-21-2013 at 02:15 PM.
JimRau is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 11:43 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Arley, AL in "The Free State of Winston"
Posts: 552
Liked 257 Times on 150 Posts
Likes Given: 185

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW357 View Post
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.
__________________
Devin556 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Debate TWMIM Politics, Religion and Controversy 43 10-31-2012 08:50 PM
Vp debate Mosin Politics, Religion and Controversy 76 10-14-2012 04:01 AM
Age old debate stevem8 Semi-Auto Handguns 21 06-16-2012 03:11 AM
GOP Debate Ploofy Politics, Religion and Controversy 31 09-30-2011 06:11 AM
AR Debate. Comeswithbacon AR-15 Discussion 20 07-11-2011 07:23 PM