2nd Amendment Debate.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by texaswoodworker, Aug 20, 2013.

  1. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    This should be pretty interesting, but most like one sided for the most part.

    Does the 2nd Amendment forbid the States from enacting gun control?

    Does it protect ALL guns (everything from black powder to full auto MGs)

    Does it protect both open and concealed carry?

    Does it make background checks and gun registration illegal?

    Does it cover all the accessories that go with guns such as magazines, scopes, ect.

    Does it ban ALL anti gun laws?

    Let the debate begin.
     
  2. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    I say yes to all of the above. The Federalist papers show that the Founders wanted us as well armed as the average soldier (today that would mean full auto guns), and I believe that the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own, carry, and improve our guns in anyway we see fit WITHOUT any kind of Government interference.
     

  3. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,987
    71
    48
    heh. every time i post in these discussions, somebody normally gets mad. i respect all viewpoints on the matter...agree or not. hopefully, i get the same respect in return? ;) here goes.....

    although the 2nd is related more to the federal....i almost think i'd prefer it in the hands of the states sometimes. i believe in FAR more states rights myself. as it has been said, the gov could START by enforcing the laws they already have.

    and i believe in common sense and effective gun moderating laws (i'll take control out....its the wrong word imo).... i support laws that make it illegal for convicted violent criminals to purchase, sell, or own guns.

    the main prob is, so many gun laws proposed would not make our world safer in any way...and i will never support something that won't have a chance to be effective.

    imo....i am fairly comfortable with gun laws as they stand (in texas:)...not in NY :(). i feel like any standard weapon available to law enforcement should be available to law abiding citizens.

    this is perhaps THE MOST undefined part of the 2nd....whether we like or or not...there is no definition of what "arms" is in the second....IT IS open for interpretation...and compromise imo

    i'm not, and never will be a fan of open carry. but that is just my opinion....i think concealed carry has so many advantages, and open carry turns into politics and showboating more often than not.

    i'm on the fence on open carry, to many people (not me)...it is the equivalent of smoking in a restaurant...it just bothers and disturbs a lot of people. i don't care about that....i just think it doesn't accomplish anything conceal doesn't do better.

    imo, NO & YES. in our modern society...and if people had SENSE...it is conceivable that lawmakers could pass one gun moderation law and a gun owners protection law simultaneously (some might call this compromise, our founding father did MORE than a bit of compromise to get our constitution set up ;))....

    make a background check to keep guns out of the hands of the violent criminals, and pass a law that says any documentation of the check is a FEDERAL CRIME. this could and would work. background checks w/o registration!

    if our lawmakers passed effective laws (with real consequences) for our safety and benefit, while also passing laws to protect and respect our constitutional freedoms...we might find that compromise....

    imo, its just dumb that this is ever even a part of the argument. pistols grips, scopes, flash hinders...sorry...but who gives a s**t? none make a gun more dangerous.

    mags are the only subject here worth debating. i feel ok with 30 round mags being a limit...its what soldiers carry....i don't feel ok with less than that....some may disagree obviously

    well, yes....but that question is a bit of a trap....NOT ALL gun moderating laws are ANTI GUN! are some of them? certainly! obummer's assault weapon ban is perfect example of an ANTI GUN LAW. background checks? not imo...an inconvenience does not equate to a violation of the second in my point of view...

    oh! i think i just started the debate.....;)
     
  4. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    I want to read more responses before chiming in so I'm just going to subscribe for now...
     
  5. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    Yep, keep it civil guys. I'm looking at you Hawk :D :p

    I believe strongly in States' rights, but I also believe that the Constitution's power is not discussable. I see it as the supreme law of the land that everyone from the Federal Government, to the smallest Local Government has to follow.

    Yes, and no. Should criminals be given guns while in prison? Heck no! Should they be given back that right once they are free? Absolutely. There is a catch though. VIOLENT criminals should never be released. That would solve a lot of problems by itself.

    I have yet to see a gun law that would be effective. They all target us, not the criminals. Criminals won't follow laws period. There's no wat to stop that other then to take them off the streets. Gun control is not necessary.

    I'm fairly comfortable, but I want a little more comfort. Open carry, Constitutional Carry, and getting rid of the NFA laws and the GCA of 68' laws would be great.

    I disagree. I see no place for compromise when it comes to our rights. As for the definition of arms, well that's pretty simple. The point of the 2nd Amendment is for us to be able to defend our rights from tyrants. Do you really think the Founders would want the citizens armed wit sticks while the tyrants have guns?

    Leaving the politics and irrational responses aside, do you believe we have a RIGHT to it? I do. That is all that matters. We have a right to do it.

    Smoking isn't really comparable since it truly does bother most people and can cause health problems if your around it long enough. The only way open carry can bother people is if they allow their irrational fears to bother them.

    As I said before, there is no compromise when it comes to rights. If you giver them an inch, they WILL take a mile. What have background checks really done? How do they keep criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the streets anyways?

    That IS the law. It's failed. If the government wants to document the checks, what's really stopping them? Your basically leaving the wolf in charge of the sheep. Look at New Jersey for example. They did it. Plus, the criminals still have guns.

    I've yet to see a law like that.

    I agree.

    Why? Why stop at 30? Why is 30 ok, but 31 dangerous?

    Actually, soldiers also carry belt fed machine guns with hundreds of rounds in them. ;)

    I see that inconvenience as a violation of my rights, it's the first step towards gun registration. It also does nothing. Do you really think criminals will go to a gun shop to buy their guns when they can get them cheaper and easier on the streets?

    Yes you did.
     
  6. mahall

    mahall New Member

    918
    0
    0
    Laws are like locks, they are made for law abiding citizens! To stay civil and live together in a measure of peace!! Bad people(criminals) are going to break locks and laws no matter what they are!! To limit our ability to arm ourselves, in any way we see fit! Limits our ability to defend our selves! It makes absolutely no sense to limit good to give bad a distinct advantage!! I think this the Universal argument toward any gun laws!!
     
  7. Devin556

    Devin556 New Member

    552
    0
    0
    I agree with texaswoodworker on this one. The constitution says we have a God given right to "arms" to protect against tyrrany foreign and domestic. IMO, that means we need the same armaments as the average soldier the government would put against us during all out tyrrany. As for the people that would say "Oh, so that means civillians should have nukes and bombs?", no. The average soldier doesnt have access to these types of munitions, so neither should we. There shoulnt be any laws concerning full auto, mag limit, assault rifle, or any of the like.
     
  8. JW357

    JW357 New Member

    6,716
    1
    0
    I'm in agreement with texanwoodworker and Devin on this one.

    However, I do think its important to not allow violent (violent is the key word) criminals to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

    So how do we do that? I don't know. IMO, background checks are unconstitutional. Because it infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. Anything that hinders my right to keep and bear arms is, IMO, unconstitutional, since I am not a violent criminal. I've started talking in circles.

    You all get my point.

    The question I pose is: how do we prevent violent criminals from walking into a gun store and buying a gun, while keeping with the Constitution?

    (The only thing I can think of, is as soon as they are convicted of a violent crime, maybe getting a tattoo on their forehead that says "VC" or something, much like "The Scarlet Letter." That way, you don't have to perform a background check on someone to know they are prohibited from owning a firearm legally. Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not endorsing the tattoo idea. It's all I can think of.)
     
  9. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,093
    153
    63
    YES it does.:) Any 'arm' which would be issued to an individual soldier or less is our right to obtain, own, and carry without 'infringement'.
    The synonyms to 'infringe' are 'limit' and 'restrict'.
    Read and weep progressives!!!!:cool:
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  10. Devin556

    Devin556 New Member

    552
    0
    0
    I think tex said it best when he said dont let them out. Its kinda hard to walk into a gun store when your in prison or 6ft under. Now, I'm not saying the 2 guys in the bar parking lot that had a brawl last week should be locked up and throw away the key right off the bat. I'm saying that someone who has proven they are going to hurt people with no thought about any punishment disserve this. Not to mention the faact that with more gun owning LAC's out there with better hardware there would be less crime anyways.
     
  11. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    The problem with 2A is that it's part of the Constitution; and since the Founding Fathers purposely left the Constitution vague enough to give it elasticity, everything in it is open to interpretation. We may think it gives us the right to keep and bear arms but every word is subject to legal challenge. How the Supreme Court interprets it at any given time is what it ultimately means.
     
  12. sputnik1988

    sputnik1988 Active Member

    2,883
    2
    38
    Answers in blue.
     
  13. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,987
    71
    48
    t
    i'm a pretty good boy outside of the cave....;)

    i agree....but this isn't how our fed gov has worked in the last few decades..they have stomped on the constitution with regularity....i'm Leary of the fed at this point to say the leasst, part of why i would rather have some more state control....that and imo, gun culture is very regional.


    ahhh...i would agree with that...but here's the catch....it isn't reality. unfortunately, violent criminals are released as i type this...that is why there IS a need to have buffers in place and laws that state it is illegal for them to own guns, which are a threat to everyone in their hands.



    agreed. they SHOULD be off the streets, but they simply aren't. TRUST ME...i'm a ZERO TOLERANCE guy when it comes to violent crime. lock em up...and only let em see daylight if labor is involved.

    i'm good in good ol TEXAS. if i were in NY, cali, NJ....well....i will never be so i am thankful for that.

    i agree. it is obvious that the founders put 2A there to defend from gov corruption and oppression. BUT...........the most advanced weaponry in the world means NOTHING to complacent citizens unwilling to sacrifice for change. i fear a mosin nagant in the hands of a a man willing to die FAR MORE than a belt fed machine gun in the hands of a the unwilling.

    the average grunt in the mideast carries an m-16 with 30 rounders...the swat team member carries an AR-15 with 30 rounders....equal enough imo. and i will always believe the CONVICTION of the fighter carries more importance than the weapon....

    good points. and something to consider. this is why i debate, not to beat MY viewpoints into others, but to gain insight and knowledge.

    i don't like open carry....i'm on the fence....that is where i am.

    how do you stop murder? you can't! how do you stop rape? you can't!

    laws are moral perimeters, nothing more....none of them STOP anyone ever!

    state it is illegal....issue consequences...that is it.

    compromise is the only true way we will get solid protection for our rights AND for our safety....look back at history....the founding fathers were just as divided on many issues as we are today on guns....they got business done!....what is different?...the complete inability to compromise due to BS partisanship..

    yes..in reality...like keeping criminals locked up...it fails.

    it doesn't have to, but it often does anyway.


    unfortunately, i agree.

    again, average grunt/swat team...equal enough imo. and citizens CAN have full auto belt fed remember? ;) heh....if ya got the $$$$$...

    i beleive a line gets drawn with almost everything. every great debate almost always includes where to draw the line....you draw a line, its just different than mine perhaps.

    i simply must agree to disagree here. the second amendment does not state you should not be inconvenienced to my knowledge...background checks do not infringe on the right ot bear arms in any way imo....i'm totally against registration cause we know where that goes historically....but i would support background checks that had a specific clause to make registration illegal...but since that won't likely will never happen..i could see myself against check that don't include that protection...

    whew! that was a bunch of typing....:rolleyes:

    well, you know i have my ways.....:rolleyes:

    seriously, i have gone toe to toe with more liberal gun grabbing types than you can imagine. i have even changed the tune of one or two in my time....but i'll have a good debate with any of you as well......i make the best judgments i can, having given careful thoughts to most matters...and i try in earnest to remain open minded.

    my beliefs have never been a popularity contest....maybe that is why i have no friends...LMAO! ;)
     
  14. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    For all the people who think it's a "states rights" thing. How about if the state bans your free speech or ignores the 4th and 5th amendments as well. Still think the Constitution is a violation of states rights? Why is the 2A the only thing in the Bill of Rights that libs think are states rights? I bet old racheal madcow on msnbc would throw a hissy fit if her state told her she couldn't say what she wanted. Or if the state police searched her home without a warrant. The first thing she'd say is that this is unconstitutional, so what makes the 2nd amendment any different?
     
  15. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    I gotta say, I think you said it all. The basis for us bearing arms was clearly not for hunting ducks and Hancock knew that the types of arms we must have access to win were firearms not pigstickers. It was created for us to be able to win a revolution against a tyrannical Government, any Government not just the federal government.

    The only folks who really can be limited are those that have diminished rights due to being under some type of government custody or a minor under someones guidance. Even then, the guardian should have more say than the government as to what the minor may or may not do.

    Thats the fact that most politicians dont like to recognize even if they call themselves pro-2A. Even the NRA HFMIC failed to mention that in his keynote speech at this years big conference. They dont like that cause they are the government but they havent changed the BOR's, just stomped on them.

    The Constitution and our BOR's were written at a time when most of the nation couldnt read or understand a dissertation. It was written to be understood at a 6th grade comprehension level and when read to someone who couldnt read, could be easily understood and followed. It is not a document that needs deep thinkers to encode, decode and interpret, its simple and clear. Using words like Unfettered and unalienable wasnt just for flair, it was a verbal exclamation point.

    Trillions a year are spent on lawyers and courts because ambiguity, smoke and mirrors are thrown in our faces to confuse us. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
     
  16. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    4
    0
    These are all noble sentiments, however,

    if you are in a state which holds strict

    gun law, you will find yourself lunching on Knish,

    and playing hide the salami with Biff, in prison,

    until it gets straightened out. Fight it you can,

    win it you may, but until you do, it may cost thousands

    of dollars, and take many months. Meanwhile,

    you're learning to yodel "When I'm Calling You" in

    soprano. Out of prison? THEN you get to petition the

    governor for your gun rights back...
     
  17. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    What I believe and what I do are sometime two different things all together. Generally, I must follow the laws in my state because Im no fan of prison food or Bo Bo. We are fighting back in NY and we will win, Coumo has cast his shadow on the wrong folks and he wont be asked back. If his Safe Act survives his governorship, it will Parrish quickly once hes gone.
     
  18. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,987
    71
    48
    good post. and yes....this is the reason the debate will continue....
     
  19. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    first of all i passionately support the 2nd amendment.

    yes, IMO the 2nd does forbid the states from enacting gun control as long as that state is a part of the United States.

    IMo, yes again it should or is suppose to protect all firearms with no restrictions as to type.

    again, the 2nd is the right to bear arms, and IMO, carrying a firearm open or concealed is bearing a firearm.

    reistration of any firearm i oppose very strongly, just because of past events in history have shown that a registration ultimately leads to confiscation, eventually at some point and with a registration, they know who owns what.
    now background checks? i am just a little on the fence with that one. simply because, most of us will agree that there are certain people that should be restricted from owning firearms, such as repeat violent criminals, mentally unstable persons, ect.,,,,, but at what level a background check is done and where the information comes from might be where i have some difficulty with it. now if a person has a past criminal history of drugs or violence, or is habitually a repeat offender, has been legally by the courts committed to a mental institution, because they are mentally unstable, if they are in the country illegally and can't prove citizenship or residency, ect..... then i have no problems with it to a degree. i also thingk that a person convicted of even a felony, that was non-violent such as embezzlement for example, that when they are released, they should be able to regain their rights to own firearms.

    any firearms attachments or accessories should hold the same as the firearms themselves, with no restrictions. if a person can own a F/A SMG, and they want a 100 round magazine, and also want a silencer, they should be allowed to own them as well, if they so choose to. no restrictions at all on any type of accessories, parts or attachments.

    IMO, all gun control laws, bans or restrictions are in violation of the 2nd amendment. imposing taxes and having to have permit is just another revenue generator IMO. if a person is a LAC, they should be able to own whatever they want, with no restrictions or having to pay a tax to the government to own it.

    all gun control laws, bans and restrictions have only hobbled and affected the LAC, and has never detered the criminals in any way ever. the past has proven this beyond any doubt.
     
  20. wittmeba

    wittmeba New Member

    1,097
    1
    0
    Personally I feel some laws should have a life window. They should have an effective date and expiration date. Allow the law makers to reinstate if needed but they should not go on the books forever. They may require modification at time of reinstating - so be it. If they are not slated to be reinstated, they die a natural death and go off the books. Technology and other developments are changing too fast for all laws to live forever.

    You have a right to own weapons. Should that include nuclear or chemical warfare weapons? In the days of the cowboys when many laws were booked I think those having guns in their holsters is one thing. To think a neighbor might have a tank is another.


    Overall, I personally feel any attempt of gun control is a waste of time. It doesnt affect the problem and that is in the hands of the criminals. They dont follow ANY laws - why would they follow gun control laws? You cant stop the thief from steeling a gun at which it becomes a "black market" item - not traceable. You only know where it may have been purchased and by whom...but it ends there.

    What good does it do to control guns of the honest people - the law abiding citizens?

    It is a criminal offense to lie on the background check for the purchase of a new weapon.

    Gun control may affect the purchase of of new guns but that isnt where the problem lies.

    I pretty much agree with texaswoodworker and hawkguy.