Do you really support the Second Amendment? - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Do you really support the Second Amendment?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-06-2010, 09:01 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Normal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 58
Default

I think that people use the 2nd amendment for an end-all for every debate about guns that ever happens. I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing some idiot who can't name one of the other amendments quote 'What part of "shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand?' to a logical question about a gun policy/law; which to me is ignorant.
All the research I have done tells me that during the era that the 2nd amendment was written, most of the weapons of a town were locked in a single building. When the town was attacked, the men would all gather there, unlock and distribute the weapons in order to defend their town and then locked back up afterwards. Families kept one rifle in their cottage for hunting. This was the norm of the time. Now-a-days, we have people literally stockpiling weapons and ammo in their homes and screaming about infringement on the 2nd amendment rights when someone says "Maybe psycho Joe-schmoe does not need a fully automatic rifle with him on the subway during rush hour.

I just think things get taken a little too far sometimes, and instead of engaging in debate, people are called anti-2nd amendment and gun haters, for raising very valid questions.

I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privlidge... not a right.

__________________
Normal is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 11:00 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 32 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal View Post
I think that people use the 2nd amendment for an end-all for every debate about guns that ever happens. I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing some idiot who can't name one of the other amendments quote 'What part of "shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand?' to a logical question about a gun policy/law; which to me is ignorant.
All the research I have done tells me that during the era that the 2nd amendment was written, most of the weapons of a town were locked in a single building. When the town was attacked, the men would all gather there, unlock and distribute the weapons in order to defend their town and then locked back up afterwards. Families kept one rifle in their cottage for hunting. This was the norm of the time. Now-a-days, we have people literally stockpiling weapons and ammo in their homes and screaming about infringement on the 2nd amendment rights when someone says "Maybe psycho Joe-schmoe does not need a fully automatic rifle with him on the subway during rush hour.

I just think things get taken a little too far sometimes, and instead of engaging in debate, people are called anti-2nd amendment and gun haters, for raising very valid questions.

I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privlidge... not a right.
And I support your right to feel this way, but strongly disagree. Guns were a part of everyday life for our founding Fathers. They also understood that the only way to stay out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government was for the general population to be armed with the latest, state of the art firearms.

I humbly suggest you re-read some of your history and check out the Federalist Papers.
__________________
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 04:20 AM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
diggsbakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pueblo,Colorado
Posts: 1,680
Liked 8 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal View Post
I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privlidge... not a right.
Sure. . . that would be freedom. Freedom to make your own choices as to how you want to bear arms with out someone else telling you what your limits are.

As far as I know the "privileges" you describe are only rights:

1. In certain parts (states) of the country in which the people deemed them to be so.
2. If the person with access to firearms has not been convicted of a crime that would result in the suspension of his/her right to bear arms. (loss of privilege)
3. If they are used responsibly.

Many of us own guns that only come outta the safe to shoot. . . AT THE RANGE! ! !. Why should we not have the right to keep these firearms safely at our homes and practice, hunt or carry them safely and responsibly when we please?
__________________
diggsbakes is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 04:40 AM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Reno,NV
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal View Post
All the research I have done tells me that during the era that the 2nd amendment was written, most of the weapons of a town were locked in a single building. When the town was attacked, the men would all gather there, unlock and distribute the weapons in order to defend their town and then locked back up afterwards. Families kept one rifle in their cottage for hunting. This was the norm of the time.
What "research" did that notion come from? Have you got any reputable references? Let's see them!
__________________
I do my hunting with a camera
alhefner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 05:38 AM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

It's the Militia argument again. Some believe that this "central location" is what the founding fathers were getting at. I'm sure that some areas might have had an armory for the men folk to gather at to protect the town. I really don't see all these men "stockpiling" weapons in some place to be passed out later as the norm. Just who provided all these weapons? I guess then out right was not ever to actually own the Militia weapons? The government just send them to the Militia HQ? No, people bought their weapons and they store them at home.

The reason "John Q Public gun nut" wants that full auto weapon can be for many reasons. Maybe they like turning money into noise. But what need be thought about is that in the times of forefathers just as now it might be the government that the people might have to fight against. Laws that keep the armed citizen in underdog category mostly is the idea that they can not have the weapons that the government has. And any government that wants to make sure that the people they are supposed to be serving subservient is to make sure that they can not get the weapons that they themselves have. You hear it all the time. "How could a bunch of civilians go up against a military with the weapons they have?"

Do I NEED a full auto to deer hunt? Of course not. But saying I can't have it I really do not believe is because of public safety. It's more because I'm much less likely to organize and confront those that do have them. And I believe that one of the biggest reasons for the amendment in question is to be able to protect me and mine not just form Johnny Crackhead but maybe to keep in check those that are supposed to be working for me..Not against me.

So yeah..It is my right to "stockpile" weapons in my home in a safe manner. They are locked up until I need one/them for range fun or practice. The central local can just give me a call if there is a need to assemble. And just who is supposed to be responsible for the armory anyway? More government? hmmm

__________________
DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 05:56 AM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal View Post
I think that people use the 2nd amendment for an end-all for every debate about guns that ever happens. I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing some idiot who can't name one of the other amendments quote 'What part of "shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand?' to a logical question about a gun policy/law; which to me is ignorant.
All the research I have done tells me that during the era that the 2nd amendment was written, most of the weapons of a town were locked in a single building. When the town was attacked, the men would all gather there, unlock and distribute the weapons in order to defend their town and then locked back up afterwards. Families kept one rifle in their cottage for hunting. This was the norm of the time. Now-a-days, we have people literally stockpiling weapons and ammo in their homes and screaming about infringement on the 2nd amendment rights when someone says "Maybe psycho Joe-schmoe does not need a fully automatic rifle with him on the subway during rush hour.

I just think things get taken a little too far sometimes, and instead of engaging in debate, people are called anti-2nd amendment and gun haters, for raising very valid questions.

I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privlidge... not a right.
Not trying to pick on ya, but, you do realize your last sentence is exactly how the opening post starts? You can't have it both ways, you can't support the 2A and then turn around and put conditions on it, period.
Quoted from my Pop: when you use the word BUT, everything you said BEFORE the word BUT, means NOTHING!!
__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:14 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2057 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

It is good to see this topic still being debated. Though I am some times a little paranoid where this country is going this is the one topic that I have the more passion for.

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 09:06 AM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2057 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal View Post

I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privildge... not a right.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I will defend that. But you need to show me where these statements you made are privileges and not a right are. Along with the people kept weapons in central armory's until they needed them.

This is exactly what this debate is about the "I support the 2A except". You should remember that a privilege can be taken away for no reason at all by the government and that is any government regardless of it is federal, state, or city. A right cannot be taken away unless the populace is to chicken **** to make a stand against it.

Just to make something clear about me, is that I am not here in this world, and on this board to appease anyone, I neither bow to others nor do I sheep to social excepted beliefs. I will lay down my rights only when I am dead and then it will not matter.

The statement you made is exactly why we got so ****ed up beliefs in this country and the very reason why we keep loosing rights. Because of the "but" that you believe in.
__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 09:22 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

The thing that irritates me most about the current regime in this country is the sentence "A few common sense regulations/guidelines."

It seems that is the new buzz phrase in DC..AS in "Sure I support the Second Amendment. I just thing we need a few common sense regulations to keep guns out of gangsters hands." But I have yet to see how these regs are keeping firearms out of the hands of gang bangers.

I'm just waiting for the "Sure we are all for people being allowed to vote. We just need a few common sense guidelines to make sure that they are voting the way they should"

__________________
DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 09:51 AM   #40
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

In fact, shiny new American citizens did privately own pistols, muskets, rifles, cannon, grenades, powder kegs, etc. Practically speaking, these were rarely used; one needed a means to hunt food on a regular basis and one usually didn't use cannon to do that.

2A exists for the purpose of defending liberty from any threat. When our own government works specifically to deny us the ability to defend our liberty, those in government become the threat.

Would I be OK with a neighborhood armory? Someplace very secure where I could store the bulk of my ammo and firearms, retaining at home only what I believe is necessary to defend my home? Maybe, but only if I trusted those who guard the armory with my life and only if they truly understood what the purpose behind the armory -- and 2A -- is.

In light of the fact most people do NOT understand what 2A means and that I don't trust most people in my neighborhood with my life, I choose to keep my ammunition and firearms at home, securely stored and very accessible.

Quote:
I do support my right to keep and bear arms, but I see owning as many as I want, not having to register them, concealing/open carry them in public areas, and not having to lock them up as a privlidge... not a right.
If you acknowledge that what the Constitution says the Federal government must do is all it may do, then there is no basis for suggesting they are graciously letting us do what you say above. The government has no legal obligation to limit arms, register them, etc. therefore the right falls to us by default.

Local governments are another matter, of course. They may impose laws that abridge these "privileges". But then there is the issue of how much gun control is too much? Does 2A apply to states or only to the Feds?

McDonald v. Chicago should clear that up one way or the other.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Support the SEALS vid Gatekeeper Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 01-18-2010 06:21 AM
HR 615 Looks like a bill we need to support. Last Crow Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 11-21-2009 04:00 PM
Ranger Up & ASP Support The 2nd Amendment opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 08-05-2009 09:49 PM
Need your support Imapizon Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 04-01-2009 08:38 PM