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, 11:57 PM   #61
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
shadecorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: S.E. of los angeles
Posts: 999
Liked 474 Times on 266 Posts
Likes Given: 2126

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad View Post
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.

Yep.
Well Said.
__________________
shadecorp is offline  
Vikingdad Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 12:08 AM   #62
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Vikingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 13,086
Liked 7361 Times on 4266 Posts
Likes Given: 9480

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincine View Post
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.
You sort of have it. In 1787 firearms were a necessary tool for all households in most everywhere in the rural areas (not so much in the cities). The Founder's concerns had absolutely nothing to do with shooting sports, hunting, home defense or anything of the sort. Nothing. Nada, Zip, zero, bupkus. It was entirely about the citizens having the ability and the means to take up arms against the government should it grow into an oppressive government like the monarchy they had just won independence from. With that in mind they were ensuring that we had the right to bear the same arms against the government as the government had to use against the citizens.

Somebody here said that the Founders had no way of foreseeing what was to come, which might be true (I disagree), but they did understand that if the government had an advantage militarily over the citizens that was a recipe for oppression.
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:20 AM   #63
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,201
Liked 2040 Times on 1196 Posts
Likes Given: 1234

Default

Quote:
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.
i respect your opinion. but agree to disagree is where we stand here. to me, anything is hardly ever that black & white. was 2A written simply and concisely? yes. however, the definitions of these words are very much debatable. YOU may have YOUR definition of what ARMS means, but that doesn't make your definition a fact (or mine either for that matter). the fact remains that all the 2A LITERALLY states is " government shall not infringe the right to keep and bear weapons." there is no definition of what these weapons are or are limited to.

and amendments, like our constitution, ARE meant to be adapted and changed with the times. one of the great ideas of the constitution was to make it an adaptable set of laws for an ever changing society.

bottom line, i think we both support and respect the second amendment (whether you feel i do or not ). my only point is, it CAN be interpreted in different ways and respected in different ways. the "you like or spike it" attitude can only cause separation between citizens who think more alike than different.


Quote:
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.
i'm sure the f. fathers WOULD be ashamed of some policies and actions of our modern government. but since their departure, america has some amazing things to be proud of as well.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:29 AM   #64
War and Peace
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas by God, Texas!
Posts: 24,567
Liked 16913 Times on 9803 Posts
Likes Given: 44108

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i respect your opinion. but agree to disagree is where we stand here. to me, anything is hardly ever that black & white. was 2A written simply and concisely? yes. however, the definitions of these words are very much debatable. YOU may have YOUR definition of what ARMS means, but that doesn't make your definition a fact (or mine either for that matter). the fact remains that all the 2A LITERALLY states is " government shall not infringe the right to keep and bear weapons." there is no definition of what these weapons are or are limited to.

and amendments, like our constitution, ARE meant to be adapted and changed with the times. one of the great ideas of the constitution was to make it an adaptable set of laws for an ever changing society.

bottom line, i think we both support and respect the second amendment (whether you feel i do or not ). my only point is, it CAN be interpreted in different ways and respected in different ways. the "you like or spike it" attitude can only cause separation between citizens who think more alike than different.




i'm sure the f. fathers WOULD be ashamed of some policies and actions of our modern government. but since their departure, america has some amazing things to be proud of as well.
if you read some of the thoughts and opinions of the founding fathers, yes they may have wanted the admendments to be flexible and adaptable, but in regards to the well being of it's citizens and not the government. IIRC, i think they wanted the government that "of the people, by the people and for the people" not the government itself. they envisioned a government that was subordnate to the people and not vice versa.

IMO, the Constitution has been butchered, bastardized and in many ways, ignored by our government for at least the past 100 years. yes there may be some things to be proud of in this country in it's history, but the government we have and have had, isn't one of them.

the founding fathers had a great notion and many fine ideas when it came to a govermental system, much too sadly, the politicians got involved and ruined thes fine plans. there was a time when a man served in government representing the citizens, with honor and distiction, with their needs first and foremost. sadly that is not the case today. politicians do it for the money.

until we see no restrictions on what arms a LAC may purchase, (FA, SBR, SBS, supressors, ect.,,,,) without any type of restriction, then IMO, the 2nd admendment has been infringed. many liberals and anti gun groups would try to have us believe that these bans, restrictions and gun laws would curb or prevent crime, and time has proven them wrong, many times over. but they still try and force this agenda upon us, but many are just not buying it. to deter or prevent crime, there need to be stiffer penalties, and more criminal control, not gun control. if you want to see a major increase in crime rates, then afford every LAC the freedom and right to defend themselves, their families, and their property without reservation or prejudice. make it open season on the criminals, those who happen to get caught or survive, punish them harshly and rapidly. then i feel there could be a drastic reduction in crime rates.
__________________
Coming from the Village of the Damned.
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:52 AM   #65
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Vikingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 13,086
Liked 7361 Times on 4266 Posts
Likes Given: 9480

Default

Another thought that has occurred to me is that the Founders would be quite astonished to see that the United States has become the most powerful free nation on Earth. They would be pleased I am sure that the nation has gotten here, but horrified to see how oppressive the government has become at the same time. Something of a dichotomy there it seems.

__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 03:12 AM   #66
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 813
Liked 155 Times on 114 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad
Another thought that has occurred to me is that the Founders would be quite astonished to see that the United States has become the most powerful free nation on Earth. They would be pleased I am sure that the nation has gotten here, but horrified to see how oppressive the government has become at the same time. Something of a dichotomy there it seems.
Thats true, the founding fathers didn't want a large government at all
__________________
95sniper is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 09:40 AM   #67
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 4,413
Liked 4596 Times on 2303 Posts
Likes Given: 4730

Default

Technology limitation wasnt specified by the founders because they understood that the actions one takes are what can and will be judged not the possibilities of what action one could take if they have technology.

Since the day Neanderthal realized he could sit up high and drop boulders on aggressors, Technology has been advancing. Having a boulder in your possession wasnt against the law but if you dropped it on someone who didnt deserve it, my guess is that you would have been punished for it!

Thousands of years later, the same laws of nature apply, technology aside. Sure its a scary thought that items that can be dangerous may be owned by people with serious mental issues but trying to limit those items to everyone to avoid the unavoidable possibility of misuse is a disservice to all that arent crazy, evil or intent on hurting others.

Arguably, The two greatest tragedies in our Nations recent past were committed by loonies with things that cannot be banned or eliminated as weapons- Fertilizer and Jetplanes! What the heck does limiting access to Firearms do to stop mass murderers like this?

Back to the basis of the thread, I cannot support anyone or anything that violates the only laws of man that are absolute in our Country. There are no exceptions to the rule, otherwise I would have been sworn to them as well back in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996, I dont remember any addendum's. Actual actions and Criminal Intent are the only items we are endowed by our creator to judge and punish in his physical absence, weve superseded our own laws FOOG and they ensnare and inhibit the innocent while empowering and valuating the guilty.

__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:20 PM   #68
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,229
Liked 2200 Times on 1263 Posts
Likes Given: 1787

Default

Soo, we're going to tax ourselves to prosperity, with no

shovel ready jobs, an economy in the crapper, while the

administration uses the Constitution as toilet paper.

I would say, "NO, I don't support ANY,restrictions, for

500$, Alec..."

__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:09 PM   #69
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Vikingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 13,086
Liked 7361 Times on 4266 Posts
Likes Given: 9480

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
soo, we're going to tax ourselves to prosperity, with no

shovel ready jobs, an economy in the crapper, while the

administration uses the constitution as toilet paper.

I would say, "no, i don't support any,restrictions, for

500$
, alec..."
wtf??........
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:29 PM   #70
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
shadecorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: S.E. of los angeles
Posts: 999
Liked 474 Times on 266 Posts
Likes Given: 2126

Default

I am all for us "GOOD" guys having unlimited rights to any firearm.
Including Full Auto.
However,
That does NOT include my gangsta neighbors.
We MUST have laws and restrictions.
Sadly, Laws and restrictions apply only to us "GOOD" guys.
Be careful who you vote for.
Amen.
__________________
shadecorp is offline  
axxe55 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