Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions? - Page 6
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 11-09-2012, 06:25 PM   #51
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,213
Liked 8453 Times on 4897 Posts
Likes Given: 11020

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
California basically?
Aw geeze, I go make a good point and ya gotta get personal!
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 06:27 PM   #52
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
Aw geeze, I go make a good point and ya gotta get personal!
At least, it doesn't sound like you are in the worst part of Kali. Enjoy the lovely weather.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 06:45 PM   #53
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,213
Liked 8453 Times on 4897 Posts
Likes Given: 11020

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
At least, it doesn't sound like you are in the worst part of Kali. Enjoy the lovely weather.
Actually, I am. Or at least on the wild Western borderlands of the very worst part of CA. What do you know of Palo Alto? I am sitting on the city limits right now.
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 07:03 PM   #54
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston,Texas
Posts: 252
Liked 127 Times on 64 Posts
Likes Given: 364

Default

It's simple to support the 2nd Ammendment...

Get the House and Senate to repeal the Gun Control Acts of 1934, 1968, and 1986. Then, the President can sign off on them.

eldar

__________________
eldarbeast is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:00 PM   #55
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

This sounds good when you say fast considering we cannot even get them to solve the budget problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eldarbeast View Post
It's simple to support the 2nd Ammendment...

Get the House and Senate to repeal the Gun Control Acts of 1934, 1968, and 1986. Then, the President can sign off on them.

eldar
__________________
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, 08:36 PM   #56
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,371
Liked 1777 Times on 918 Posts
Likes Given: 1353

Default

'Bear Arms' means using weapons for self defense, or aggression, by one force on another. It means using weapons, any weapon, to fight, from arrows to missiles. It doesn't mean hunting and it doesn't even mean self defense on an individual basis.

Personally I believe hunting & self-defense was presumed. Like having a horse or a plow. It was a frontier environment.

The restrictions at the Federal level are unconstitutional. Not so the state and local restrictions. Those restrictions depend, I guess, on the individual state constitutions, and their citizens.

__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."

Last edited by Vincine; 11-09-2012 at 08:40 PM.
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 10:51 PM   #57
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,287
Liked 3021 Times on 1805 Posts
Likes Given: 2040

Default

Quote:
@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.
nitpicking responses is what a debate is all about....

Quote:
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.
true enough.

Quote:
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".
somewhat true. saying our founding fathers had the foresight to know what weapons would be like in the future might be stretching a bit. of course they wrote the laws to be open and changeable, but i seriously doubt they envisioned citizens using guns to kill dozens of people in seconds, or biological or nuclear weapons.

the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. but most importantly, imo firearms need to separated from those with a history of violence. i would support almost any restriction that is effective in keeping these people from legally obtaining firearms. as well as STIFF consequences for those who obtain or sell firearms illegally.

Quote:
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]

hard to argue this....
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 11:14 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,287
Liked 3021 Times on 1805 Posts
Likes Given: 2040

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincine View Post
'Bear Arms' means using weapons for self defense, or aggression, by one force on another. It means using weapons, any weapon, to fight, from arrows to missiles. It doesn't mean hunting and it doesn't even mean self defense on an individual basis.

Personally I believe hunting & self-defense was presumed. Like having a horse or a plow. It was a frontier environment.

The restrictions at the Federal level are unconstitutional. Not so the state and local restrictions. Those restrictions depend, I guess, on the individual state constitutions, and their citizens.
i somewhat disagree. arms just means weapons. if someone wanted to get TRULY technical, and consider the 2A literally, then the gov could say "ok, as long as we allow muskets, the citizens are "armed."

i'm NOT saying this is what i believe, but i AM saying...if you interpret "infringed" literally and precisely, you must interpret "arms" precisely. arms simply means weapons, not any specific weapon. the constitution DOES NOT, as it reads, say we have rights to ANY specific weapon. it is open to interpretation.

i of course believe citizens have rights to modern weapons. but the line has to be drawn somewhere. a reasonable compromise would be the smartest position by far, vs an "all or nothing" approach.

the problem form my view is the anti-gun folks only want to pass PLAIN STUPID restrictions like banning semi autos or awb, and (some of) the pro-gun crowd thinks 2A means we should get nerve gas and explosives.

the smart ones know it ought to be somewhere in the middle of that.

i just wish the laws were was more focused and effective at keeping guns out of the hands of the violent, not the law abiding citizen.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 11:17 PM   #59
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21697 Times on 12308 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
nitpicking responses is what a debate is all about....



true enough.



somewhat true. saying our founding fathers had the foresight to know what weapons would be like in the future might be stretching a bit. of course they wrote the laws to be open and changeable, but i seriously doubt they envisioned citizens using guns to kill dozens of people in seconds, or biological or nuclear weapons.

the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. but most importantly, imo firearms need to separated from those with a history of violence. i would support almost any restriction that is effective in keeping these people from legally obtaining firearms. as well as STIFF consequences for those who obtain or sell firearms illegally.


i have to disagree with your statement, that they wrote the laws to be open and changeable. the 2nd admendment isn't a law and the founding fathers never meant for it to be interpretateed as being a law. it's a God-given right and they never menat for it to be open or changeable, period. that's just some people interpretation of the 2nd admendment. simply put as they menat it to be, "Shall Not Be Infringed" is what they meant, and is exactly how i read it. they may not have been able to foresee firearms technology, but they were definately intelligent enough to know that firearms would advance with time. so that's exactly why they wrote the 2nd admendment as short and sweet as it is. simplicity. IMO, you either support the 2nd admendment as it's written or you don't. there isn't any this part or that part or they menat this or that, either in or out. there is not middle ground when a person says they support the 2nd admendment. either you do, in it's entirerity, as it's written or you don't.

Edit: also the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to add the 2nd admendment as a way for the citizens to have power over the government, and not the other way around. they never envisioned a government of what we have today, and i fully believe that if they were to see what has become to be, they would frankly be appalled and ashamed of us for allowing such a travesty to occur. what they fought for and sacrificed to achieve, to become what it has, is franky IMO a total disgrace and slap in the face of all who have fought and died to defend the rights and freedoms of this country.
__________________

Last edited by Axxe55; 11-10-2012 at 12:10 AM.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 11:39 PM   #60
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,371
Liked 1777 Times on 918 Posts
Likes Given: 1353

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i somewhat disagree. arms just means weapons. . . . . .etc
Well yes, 'arms' does mean weapons, but Bear Arms or Bearing Arms, didn't/doesn't mean just carrying them around, or in the back of the buckboard (or pickup truck). Bearing Arms means having and using them Militarily (Militia-ly?) to shoot people. That's what the 2A is meant to protect, not just having them around.
__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."
Vincine 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