[opaww]

The only restriction I believe that there should be is if anyone votes for osamaobama they should not be allowed to own any firearms or knife

[orangello]

Originally Posted by robocop10mm

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.

...

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

My problem is not with the restrictions but with who decides who is a member of a restricted group/class and the particulars of what is restricted from that group/class. I don't trust the state or federal government to do that. Until a trustworthy entity with something like mind-reading abilities for judging the worth of a man or men to defend themselves is found and agrees to be the judge of OUR RIGHTS, then i will consider all restrictions on the right recognized by the Second Amendment unconstitutional and unjust.

It is the duty of every American to do what they can to subvert, avoid, dishonor, and decry unconstitutional laws.


I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for how a felon, after completing his sentence, is no longer a citizen of these United States. Irregardless of that felon's citizenship, he still has the natural right to an armed self defense, though it isn't recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

[rjd3282]

So we all agree that the "no firearms" signs are a restriction that don't work. So how are other restrictions going to work? We have severe restrictions in most of the major metropolitan areas, has it stopped crime or even put a dent in it? We have laws against robbery, assualt, rape and murder let's start enforcing laws that pertain to bad behaviour and stop making laws against inanimate objects.

[robocop10mm]

Originally Posted by orangello

My problem is not with the restrictions but with who decides who is a member of a restricted group/class and the particulars of what is restricted from that group/class. I don't trust the state or federal government to do that. Until a trustworthy entity with something like mind-reading abilities for judging the worth of a man or men to defend themselves is found and agrees to be the judge of OUR RIGHTS, then i will consider all restrictions on the right recognized by the Second Amendment unconstitutional and unjust.

It is the duty of every American to do what they can to subvert, avoid, dishonor, and decry unconstitutional laws.


I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for how a felon, after completing his sentence, is no longer a citizen of these United States. Irregardless of that felon's citizenship, he still has the natural right to an armed self defense, though it isn't recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

I don't disagree that the decisions are somewhat arbitrary.

When the right of the Supreme Court to judge the Constitutionality of a law is subverted, we have ANARCHY! (Not that a little Anarchy would not be a good thing to shake things up a bit).

I agree that some Felonies are greater than others and not all Felons should lose their gun rights for life. I support a system like Texas has that restricts firearms ownership for a period of 5 years after the discharge of the sentence. Keep your nose clean for 5 years, good to go. People are fallible and also redeemable (at least most are, redeemable). Losing your gun rights for a period of time is part of the punishment for ones transgressions against society. WTS there are a number of "crimes" that exist simply because our Government has arbitrarily decided that they want to control over us.

[CHLChris]

"...and bear..."

Americans should have total rights to own and CARRY their guns.

[Vikingdad]

I am not at all for any restrictions on firearms. I am all for restrictions on people who can possess them, meaning that people who have been convicted of a felony, even after being released from prison, should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. People who have been determined to be mentally incompetent too. They should have recourse to regain their right to possess firearms and it should not be an overly cumbersome process. Not all should regain these rights though.

I know a guy who is a hard core felon, he's a three striker. His first two convictions are for strongarm robbery. He is a gangbanger but I don't know if he is still associated with the gang. He lives in a really bad part of town with his extended family. This guy has a really short fuse and is a dangerously violent person. If it were up to me I would say that there is no way in Hell he should ever be able to possess a firearm again for self defense or any other reason.

I know another guy- good friend of mine- he was convicted of felony drug possession not too long out of high school (late '80's), no weapons involved. He has cleaned up his act since he got out of jail and has been clean ever since. He has a good job (construction foreman) with a great company, married with two great kids. Can't have a gun in the house. I believe he is a good candidate for having his gun rights restored.

So, in short, no blanket restrictions that affect every law abiding citizen, but restrictions on people can be reasonable.

[orangello]

Originally Posted by robocop10mm

When the right of the Supreme Court to judge the Constitutionality of a law is subverted, we have ANARCHY! (Not that a little Anarchy would not be a good thing to shake things up a bit).

When a car drifts too far left, crossing the centerline, the proper correction is to move the car in the opposite direction. The level of control this country's government has available against its citizens has "drifted" too far toward complete control of the citizenry; the proper correction is away from control, which happens to be in the direction of less government, just up the path a ways from Anarchy. Anarchy should be reserved for later, upon further review of the government's performance and hopefully its improvement.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by orangello

When a car drifts too far left, crossing the centerline, the proper correction is to move the car in the opposite direction. The level of control this country's government has available against its citizens has "drifted" too far toward complete control of the citizenry; the proper correction is away from control, which happens to be in the direction of less government, just up the path a ways from Anarchy. Anarchy should be reserved for later, upon further review of the government's performance and hopefully its improvement.

Anarchy is for if the Revolution doesn't work out.

[QsGadgets]

So, now that Obama is back in we wont have any second amendment rights to fight for.

[Old_Crow]

Everyone wants to blame the liberals. But what we have is mob rule instead true democracy. Our government responds to what a large segment of the population wants instead of upholding the constitution as it was written. After all a large segment of the population in certain states or counties can make or break a politician's career. Both political parties are equally to blame.

I believe in upholding the second amendment. I put my hand on the bible and swore to God that I would defend the constitution. Once I swear to God I will never back down on that promise. My ideas might be different than many of my friends here. I make no excuses. But my goal is the same as everyone that took the same oath I took, to defend the constitution.