Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/you-supporter-2nd-amendment-do-you-support-restrictions-75798/)

partdeux 11-06-2012 11:08 PM

Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions?
 
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Read that sentence carefully, then read it again.

Nowhere in that sentence, does it mention limiting number of rounds
Nowhere in that sentence does it mention "military" rifles
Nowhere in that sentence does it mention upscale urban areas

Libtards have MASTERED the ability to turn us against each other. No one needs to carry more then 10 rounds. Nobody needs "assault" rifles. Nobody should carry X gun in public.

This really started to come to a head in my little pea brain when talking to a long term friend who is also a closet liberal. He said, why do you need a gun, the police are there to protect you, and then followed up with "I'm not for gun restrictions, people should be allowed to hunt". Tom Gresham on his guntalk show pointed out that NOBODY needs to hunt, they can go to the grocery store... but people NEED self defense.

In too many forums, there are groups of people that say, "he shouldn't have carried that firearm". Other groups say, "he shouldn't be allowed to carry there" Others will fall on to "OC should be illegal, it's too dangerous".

We have enough battles to fight against Libtards, and yet we insist on infighting, instead of presenting a united and common front.

I'll leave you with this quote
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Coyotenator 11-06-2012 11:32 PM

About 8 years ago I sent an E-Mail to all of the Supreme Court Justices.

It contained the Websters Dictionary defintion of the word "infringe".
I wrote that since they had somehow in spite of all their years of higher education and years on the benches of lower courts, had apparently never actually understood the meaning of the word.
Of course I never even got an acknowledgement they received my E-Mail ,and from their actions, I still don't know if they all know the meaning of this very important piece of the English language.

Axxe55 11-07-2012 12:00 AM

1 Attachment(s)
full and passionate supporter of the 2nd admendment. i even strongly support the right to fully auto firearms without permits of fees, suppressors, SBR and SBS without restriction. none! if a person is legal to buy a firearm, they should be allowed to buy whatever their heart desires and their checkbook allows! "Shall Not Be Infringed"

gmwilkes 11-07-2012 01:01 AM

I'm for keeping firearms out of the hands of those that Should not have them. But I feel like as a legal owner I shouldn't have to try and find $15000 for a select fire rifle when LE can buy a post ban select fire for only $1400. We should be allowed to purchase what we want if we have the means of doing so and I disagree with the legislation that prevents that. I just wish people understood that the laws they are imposing is only hurting LEGAL gun owners and criminals will not follow them because they are CRIMINALS. But common since is not common.

therewolf 11-07-2012 01:14 AM

Back when the law was written, you were allowed to have

any firearm the government did, or didn't, possess.


Weapons were less advanced back then, but our revolution

was fought, and won, by @ 3 % of the overall population, using

guns which were state-of-the-art, at the time...;)

partdeux 11-07-2012 01:25 AM

Wolf,

And they used MILITARY firearms :)

robocop10mm 11-07-2012 01:25 AM

While I supprt the 2nd Amendment, I feel there are SOME restrictions that are reasonable. "Arms" is a very broad category that were not even inagined by the Founding Fathers. Grenades, Mortars, Artillery (cannons, not .50 Desert Eagles), Nukes, Chemical weapons, etc. are innapropriate (IMHO).

Felons, especially violent ones, are deserving of restrictions. If the right to vote can be restricted for this category of people, so can the right to bear arms.

Adjudicated insane or mentally deficient? Restrictions.

Age as a restriction? I do not think there is any reason Kindergarteners need to keep and bear arms.

Citizenship as a qualifier? At least legal residency. No reason for illegal aliens to be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens.

Most of us can agree there are SOME reasonable restrictions. We just argue over WHAT restictions are reasonable.

KG7IL 11-07-2012 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 1004580)
Most of us can agree there are SOME reasonable restrictions. We just argue over WHAT restictions are reasonable.

I'm not in favor of restrictions. It seems they only impact us good guys.

Small Arms, Explosives, Full Auto is already available to those who choose to get them. Nothing will stop the insurgents, terrorists or other bent on breaking the law.

nitestalker 11-07-2012 01:54 AM

The Bill of Rights is to control the reach of the Federal Government. This allows the idividual states to enforce their own controls. As we all know the Supreme Court is the final word on which laws are in conflict with the Bill Of Rights.

Most all guns laws are state and local. A big problem is the American voter who can change gun laws in the states and cities. As long as voters elect local antigun officals there will be a loss of firearms rights. Look around some states have unlimited freedoms in gun ownership and others are very controlled. All politics are local.:)

zedpapa 11-07-2012 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 1004580)
While I support the 2nd Amendment, I feel there are SOME restrictions that are reasonable. "Arms" is a very broad category that were not even imagined by the Founding Fathers. Grenades, Mortars, Artillery (cannons, not .50 Desert Eagles), Nukes, Chemical weapons, etc. are inappropriate (IMHO).

Felons, especially violent ones, are deserving of restrictions. If the right to vote can be restricted for this category of people, so can the right to bear arms.

Adjudicated insane or mentally deficient? Restrictions.

Age as a restriction? I do not think there is any reason Kindergarteners need to keep and bear arms.

Citizenship as a qualifier? At least legal residency. No reason for illegal aliens to be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens.

Most of us can agree there are SOME reasonable restrictions. We just argue over WHAT restrictions are reasonable.

^ what he said. while i agree that the government is infringing on our right, i also feel that there does need to be some kind restrictions in place. kind of like drivers licenses.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.