Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-06-2012, 11:08 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 2,339
Liked 501 Times on 319 Posts
Likes Given: 109

Default 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
__________________
partdeux is offline  
13
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 11-06-2012, 11:32 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Coyotenator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern Spokane County,Washington
Posts: 128
Liked 47 Times on 31 Posts
Likes Given: 72

Default

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.

__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.--Red Green
Coyotenator is offline  
6
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 12:00 AM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 24,457
Liked 16825 Times on 9750 Posts
Likes Given: 43881

Default

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"



__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
12
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:01 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
Liked 8 Times on 2 Posts

Default

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.

__________________
gmwilkes is offline  
7
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:14 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,205
Liked 2184 Times on 1253 Posts
Likes Given: 1777

Default

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...

__________________
therewolf is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:25 AM   #6
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 2,339
Liked 501 Times on 319 Posts
Likes Given: 109

Default

Wolf,

And they used MILITARY firearms

__________________
partdeux is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:25 AM   #7
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 9,581
Liked 2261 Times on 1188 Posts
Likes Given: 155

Default

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.

__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
8
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:31 AM   #8
Camo, you are lucky to see it.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KG7IL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Eatonville,Washington. My nearest neighbors are cows.
Posts: 2,283
Liked 1572 Times on 868 Posts
Likes Given: 4775

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
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.
__________________
KG7IL is online now  
Pasquanel Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:54 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4781 Times on 2677 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

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.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 02:19 AM   #10
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zedpapa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North San Diego,Ca
Posts: 271
Liked 116 Times on 73 Posts
Likes Given: 9

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
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.
__________________

Brian

zedpapa is offline  
Vincine Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Second Amendment Restrictions Imposed Sniper03 Legal and Activism 9 12-28-2011 03:56 PM
Do you really support the Second Amendment? opaww Legal and Activism 48 04-09-2010 08:12 PM
Ranger Up & ASP Support The 2nd Amendment opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 08-05-2009 09:49 PM



Newest Threads