Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by partdeux, Nov 6, 2012.

  1. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    4,622
    143
    63
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    Read that sentence carefully, then read it again.

    Nowhere in that sentence, does it mention limiting number of rounds
    Nowhere in that sentence does it mention "military" rifles
    Nowhere in that sentence does it mention upscale urban areas

    Libtards have MASTERED the ability to turn us against each other. No one needs to carry more then 10 rounds. Nobody needs "assault" rifles. Nobody should carry X gun in public.

    This really started to come to a head in my little pea brain when talking to a long term friend who is also a closet liberal. He said, why do you need a gun, the police are there to protect you, and then followed up with "I'm not for gun restrictions, people should be allowed to hunt". Tom Gresham on his guntalk show pointed out that NOBODY needs to hunt, they can go to the grocery store... but people NEED self defense.

    In too many forums, there are groups of people that say, "he shouldn't have carried that firearm". Other groups say, "he shouldn't be allowed to carry there" Others will fall on to "OC should be illegal, it's too dangerous".

    We have enough battles to fight against Libtards, and yet we insist on infighting, instead of presenting a united and common front.

    I'll leave you with this quote
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed​
     
  2. Coyotenator

    Coyotenator New Member

    143
    0
    0
    About 8 years ago I sent an E-Mail to all of the Supreme Court Justices.

    It contained the Websters Dictionary defintion of the word "infringe".
    I wrote that since they had somehow in spite of all their years of higher education and years on the benches of lower courts, had apparently never actually understood the meaning of the word.
    Of course I never even got an acknowledgement they received my E-Mail ,and from their actions, I still don't know if they all know the meaning of this very important piece of the English language.
     

  3. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    full and passionate supporter of the 2nd admendment. i even strongly support the right to fully auto firearms without permits of fees, suppressors, SBR and SBS without restriction. none! if a person is legal to buy a firearm, they should be allowed to buy whatever their heart desires and their checkbook allows! "Shall Not Be Infringed"
     

    Attached Files:

  4. gmwilkes

    gmwilkes New Member

    58
    0
    0
    I'm for keeping firearms out of the hands of those that Should not have them. But I feel like as a legal owner I shouldn't have to try and find $15000 for a select fire rifle when LE can buy a post ban select fire for only $1400. We should be allowed to purchase what we want if we have the means of doing so and I disagree with the legislation that prevents that. I just wish people understood that the laws they are imposing is only hurting LEGAL gun owners and criminals will not follow them because they are CRIMINALS. But common since is not common.
     
  5. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Back when the law was written, you were allowed to have

    any firearm the government did, or didn't, possess.


    Weapons were less advanced back then, but our revolution

    was fought, and won, by @ 3 % of the overall population, using

    guns which were state-of-the-art, at the time...;)
     
  6. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    4,622
    143
    63
    Wolf,

    And they used MILITARY firearms :)
     
  7. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.

    Adjudicated insane or mentally deficient? Restrictions.

    Age as a restriction? I do not think there is any reason Kindergarteners need to keep and bear arms.

    Citizenship as a qualifier? At least legal residency. No reason for illegal aliens to be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens.

    Most of us can agree there are SOME reasonable restrictions. We just argue over WHAT restictions are reasonable.
     
  8. KG7IL

    KG7IL Well-Known Member

    3,155
    37
    48
    I'm not in favor of restrictions. It seems they only impact us good guys.

    Small Arms, Explosives, Full Auto is already available to those who choose to get them. Nothing will stop the insurgents, terrorists or other bent on breaking the law.
     
  9. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The Bill of Rights is to control the reach of the Federal Government. This allows the idividual states to enforce their own controls. As we all know the Supreme Court is the final word on which laws are in conflict with the Bill Of Rights.

    Most all guns laws are state and local. A big problem is the American voter who can change gun laws in the states and cities. As long as voters elect local antigun officals there will be a loss of firearms rights. Look around some states have unlimited freedoms in gun ownership and others are very controlled. All politics are local.:)
     
  10. zedpapa

    zedpapa Member Supporter

    423
    0
    16
    ^ what he said. while i agree that the government is infringing on our right, i also feel that there does need to be some kind restrictions in place. kind of like drivers licenses.
     
  11. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    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
     
  12. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  13. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.
     
  15. CHLChris

    CHLChris New Member

    2,523
    0
    0
    "...and bear..."

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

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    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.
     
  18. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Anarchy is for if the Revolution doesn't work out.
     
  19. QsGadgets

    QsGadgets New Member

    1
    0
    0
    So, now that Obama is back in we wont have any second amendment rights to fight for.
     
  20. Old_Crow

    Old_Crow New Member

    990
    0
    0
    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.