Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions? - Page 5
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 11-08-2012, 03:06 AM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: St. Louis,Missouri
Posts: 465
Liked 41 Times on 30 Posts

Default

I know I am poking the bear, but I feel certain restrictions have their place. Obvious things like preventing felons from firearms ownership is something I support. I can not stomach the idea of the reinstatement of the AWB. The limitations placed on gun owners by such legislation is a huge shot at our freedoms! Another restriction that pisses me off is the no carry districts and regions. If the law abiding masses are not allowed to legally carry then how can they protect themselves? Take the shootings in Colorado at the Batman movie...
The individual who committed those crimes did so with the intent to cause mass harm and knew beyond all doubt he would be a wolf amongst sheep. Those people walked in there with no ill will but he enterred with the intent to break the law. He knew he was enterring a gun free zone, a violation by itself given what he had in his possession. He intended to end many lives, clearly breaking multiple laws. What Colorado needed was a guard dog to be amongst the sheep. An individual legally carrying a defensive weapon could and likely would have ended the violence before so much tragedy passed. Can I say no one would have died? No. But far fewer lives would have had to be lost before a responsible individual stepped in and did their part. I agree that there should be legal steps required to become a concealed carry holder, but there should not be so many places where that privilege that you must acquire through legal steps be removed. By establishing gun free zones you place the lives of law abiding citizens in a trough for the wolves of society to have an all you can eat buffet of would be victims...

__________________
Werminator is online now  
Vikingdad Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 03:59 AM   #42
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 820
Liked 156 Times on 115 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Werminator
I know I am poking the bear, but I feel certain restrictions have their place. Obvious things like preventing felons from firearms ownership is something I support. I can not stomach the idea of the reinstatement of the AWB. The limitations placed on gun owners by such legislation is a huge shot at our freedoms! Another restriction that pisses me off is the no carry districts and regions. If the law abiding masses are not allowed to legally carry then how can they protect themselves? Take the shootings in Colorado at the Batman movie...
The individual who committed those crimes did so with the intent to cause mass harm and knew beyond all doubt he would be a wolf amongst sheep. Those people walked in there with no ill will but he enterred with the intent to break the law. He knew he was enterring a gun free zone, a violation by itself given what he had in his possession. He intended to end many lives, clearly breaking multiple laws. What Colorado needed was a guard dog to be amongst the sheep. An individual legally carrying a defensive weapon could and likely would have ended the violence before so much tragedy passed. Can I say no one would have died? No. But far fewer lives would have had to be lost before a responsible individual stepped in and did their part. I agree that there should be legal steps required to become a concealed carry holder, but there should not be so many places where that privilege that you must acquire through legal steps be removed. By establishing gun free zones you place the lives of law abiding citizens in a trough for the wolves of society to have an all you can eat buffet of would be victims...
This is exactly what I mean, the feds have it all wrong...
__________________
95sniper is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 04:40 AM   #43
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21723 Times on 12313 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

the only restrictions i see, would be restricting violent criminals and the mentally defective.

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 05:43 PM   #44
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,977
Liked 1365 Times on 805 Posts
Likes Given: 3441

Default

I posted this once before on another thread and took heat rounds for it, but I do not care.

This is my stance on restrictions for firearms:

AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Exceptions as quoted from DEFINITIONS GCA Sec.921 section B

(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Many states automatically reinstate gun ownership rights upon completion of sentence, some depend on the crime convicted of, and others have a petition process. Those convicted of a federal offense have no remedy for disability.

According to a 21 Sep 2011 "Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees" from ATF, holders of state-issued medical marijuana cards are automatically "prohibited persons" under 18 U.S.C 922(g)(3) and "shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition" by a medical marijuana card holder is a violation.[3]

Additionally, 18 USC 922(x) generally prohibits persons under 18 years of age from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition with certain exceptions for employment, target practice, education, and a handgun possessed while defending the home of the juvenile or a home in which they are an invited guest.[4]

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."

If a person has commited a crime, has paid for his/her crime, and the State that they live in permits it, they should get all of there rights back.

BTW, this is the only part of GCA68 that I like.

__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
Coyotenator Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 02:12 AM   #45
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,294
Liked 3027 Times on 1809 Posts
Likes Given: 2051

Default

i support 2A and feel the right to keep and bear arms is an american right that needs to be protected.

but "infringe" isn't the only word to consider in the second amendment.

the hard one is....what is "arms?"

when written, it was muskets. at present day, there is no definition.

i am totally against another awb. however, by restricting mags or gun features.....the gov. hasn't actually infringed your right to keep and bear arms, they have infringed your rights to keep and bear CERTAIN arms. it is legally a twist on words, so to speak. "arms" is a general word that can mean a single shot .22 or an RPG. the constitution, unfortunately, does not define the word "arms" at all.

to answer your question, i support 2A with logical, useful, and reasonable restrictions. most of those restrictions would be in place to try and prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

__________________
hawkguy is offline  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 12:35 PM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,645
Liked 2547 Times on 1453 Posts
Likes Given: 1980

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by partdeux View Post
Wolf,

And they used MILITARY firearms
O-M-G-!

NOT military firearms!
__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 12:50 PM   #47
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,977
Liked 1365 Times on 805 Posts
Likes Given: 3441

Default

@hawkguy,

Not meaning to nit pick your response, but the ATF has put out the rules and regulations that cover just about every type of weapon on the market. It list specifically what is needed in order to obtain those weapons legally.

It is too easy for the law abing citizen to obtain the weapon that they want LEGALLY. And all of us lawful folks follows those rules. In fact, we have no problem doing so.

The term "Arms" covers weapons in general. Firearms are just a sub class of "Arms". Our Founding Fathers had enough foresight to know that weapons would be improved upon has time went on, hence the term "Arms".

The problem started when the "Bad Guys" chose not to follow the rules and the Court System chose not to enforce maximum penalties on the "Bad Guys". The problem is compounded by the elected idiots who choose not to educate themselves on the rules because the are too smart to be educated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i support 2A and feel the right to keep and bear arms is an american right that needs to be protected.

but "infringe" isn't the only word to consider in the second amendment.

the hard one is....what is "arms?"

when written, it was muskets. at present day, there is no definition.

i am totally against another awb. however, by restricting mags or gun features.....the gov. hasn't actually infringed your right to keep and bear arms, they have infringed your rights to keep and bear CERTAIN arms. it is legally a twist on words, so to speak. "arms" is a general word that can mean a single shot .22 or an RPG. the constitution, unfortunately, does not define the word "arms" at all.

to answer your question, i support 2A with logical, useful, and reasonable restrictions. most of those restrictions would be in place to try and prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:31 PM   #48
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,690
Liked 6334 Times on 3163 Posts
Likes Given: 6828

Default

Infringe means exactly what its definition is and we should have none of that without a change to the Constitution. None, whatsoever, period...

__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 06:10 PM   #49
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,245
Liked 8499 Times on 4918 Posts
Likes Given: 11050

Default

Dammit! I had a great response all written up and apparently didn't hit "submit" when I was done...... Here goes an attempt at reiterating what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i support 2A and feel the right to keep and bear arms is an american right that needs to be protected.

but "infringe" isn't the only word to consider in the second amendment.

the hard one is....what is "arms?"

when written, it was muskets. at present day, there is no definition.
While you are correct that muskets were the state-of-the-art in firearms in 1787 and the Colonial Rebels were using the very same arms as the British had, the word "arms" still has the same definition in the context of the Constitution as it does today if you look it up in any real dictionary like Oxford or Websters (not just online dictionaries). The Founders were incredibly well educated for that time in History, and incredibly intelligent as well and as a result of these facts they were acutely aware of the fact that technology (ooopps, there's a word that did not exist back in 1787- let alone the concept of technology) was going to advance as time progressed.

Another thing is that in 1787 the Internet, radio, television, the interstate highway system, the automobile, telegraph and any number of communications developments didn't exist and this is not to mention the Church of latter Day Saints, Scientology, and probably a hundred or more other religions did not exist wither. Does that mean that the First Amendment does not apply to them? I think not.

Quote:
i am totally against another awb. however, by restricting mags or gun features.....the gov. hasn't actually infringed your right to keep and bear arms, they have infringed your rights to keep and bear CERTAIN arms. it is legally a twist on words, so to speak. "arms" is a general word that can mean a single shot .22 or an RPG. the constitution, unfortunately, does not define the word "arms" at all.

to answer your question, i support 2A with logical, useul, and reasonable restrictions. most of those restrictions would be in place to try and prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.
Defining guns into features and sub-categories, etc., is in fact an infringement as the Constitution uses the much broader word "arms" intentionally. As you say, it is legally a "twist on words" (pop quiz: Which famous person used the sentence "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." in a defense?). The Founders were attempting to prevent this by their specific usage of the language. It is also readily apparent by their brevity. The fewer words that are used the more difficult it is to twist those words into different meanings. Can you imagine where we 2A supporters would be if the Second Amendment had been a full page long???

The Founders did not attach an index, bibliography or a list of definitions to the Constitution because they fully understood that the Constitution was going to be a de facto definition of the words arranged in it and that all of the authorities in language at the time would for all the ages carry forward those definitions. The English language is a living thing, changing as we go along. Every year the Oxford and Websters dictionaries (among others) put a lot of work into adding new words and removing obsolete words into their dictionaries as appropriate. (I like how the word "meh" was added a couple of years ago, defined as a word indicating ambivilence.). The words in the Constitution will always remain in the leading dictionaries for as long as the Constitution remains a defining document in society.
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 06:17 PM   #50
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5733 Times on 3359 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad View Post
Can you imagine where we 2A supporters would be if the Second Amendment had been a full page long???
California basically?
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
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