How Second Amendment Are You?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by partdeux, Feb 9, 2020.

  1. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    Gotta love face book, I shudder at the number of gun owners that believe since they don't use, don't own, don't need "X" nobody else needs "X".

    I support 2A but.

    Today really brought it to a head in my pea brain. Guy was ranting about how police would never confiscate guns if ordered, and yet he supports the current MI law making a felon out of someone carrying a loaded firearm in a car, even if their CPL is one day expired. And continued his rant about training should be required before someone is allowed a firearm.

    I support 2A but.

    Me personally, I've gone from being agnostic, to training, to constitutional carry. I do struggle with felons tho. Why should a felon that has paid their debt to society and become a good citizen not be allowed a firearm... but I also know, some felons can not be rehabilitated.
  2. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    No right is absolute. None.
    Denying firearms, voting rights, etc to felons falls within the purview of the rights of society to protect itself from people who have proven themselves to be a danger.

    Just as the 1A does not protect slander and Libel, the 2A or any other amendment/right can be abridged under extraordinary circumstances.

    Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is what it is.

  3. SRK97

    SRK97 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Im Recreational nukes level second amendment
  4. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel Active Member

    I'm not exaggerating. Had an argument with some people today on a presumably PRO GUN and PRO 2nd AMENDMENT FORUM. A forum poster said he was in a McDonalds and a homeless man (not uncommon in the area) came in and ordered some food. He was carrying a hatchet, and acting a little "erratic" but not threatening anyone. Homeless guy paid for his food and left. There was a debate and an alarming number of people were in the "call the police," camp.

    Mind you, this is a state where open carry of a loaded firearm is legal, and everyone on that particular forum owns and carries a handgun. Most of them complain about leftists constant attack on citizens rights to carry a weapon, "red flag" laws, calls to the police about open carry, etc.

    I cannot wrap my brain around folks who take the position that THEY should be able to carry a lethal weapon in public, but they wet themselves and call the cops when they see someone carrying a camping tool carried in what would essentially serve as a crude self defense tool, like a hammer. A marginal lethal weapon. Apparently in their minds a homeless guy cannot have a self defense implement?! The hypocrisy is astounding.
  5. freefall

    freefall Well-Known Member

    I just keep coming back to the fact that a lot of the guys who WROTE the Second Amendment owned cannon and warships.
  6. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Well-Known Member

    I think Jesus is going to come back soon and it won't matter. Having said that,


    If it was up to me I would repeal the gun control Act of 1934, the gun control Act of 1938, parts of the gun control Act of 1968, the Hughes amendment and the Brady Bill.

    I don't have a problem with a convicted felon losing their civil liberties as a result of their specific behavior. I also believe that there should be a mechanism in place so that after they've served their time, completed their parole and after they've demonstrated their rehabilitation by living in society for X number of years without reoffending they can petition the courts to have their civil liberties restored but only on the first offence.

    The second time they're convicted of a felony they forfeit their civil liberties forever.

    I don't believe that background checks should be conducted because they're nothing more than back door registration. If someone fails a background check it's almost never followed up on.

    Since 80% of the homicides that are committed with a firearm in this country are committed by someone who already has a felony conviction on their record (FBI Uniform Crime Report) I believe that prosecution for a felon in possession should be mandatory. No plea bargain and you serve the entire sentence.

    As a law-abiding citizen I should be able to walk into Walmart and buy anything that's on the TO&E for an 11B.

    I support constitutional carry and I believe that should apply to the whole of the United States.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  7. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    The 2A doesn't have any buts, ifs , except when, etc.
    And the 2A does not even grant the RTKABA . Simply seeks to protect it as the pre existing, natural right that every person is born with.
    If a person is to dangerous to be armed they are to dangerous to be free.
    Once released the RTKABA returns to that person, despite ineffective and illegal laws passed fairly recently as time goes that attempt to say otherwise.
  8. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    True what you say, BUT it is up to WE THE PEOPLE not the guberment to decide when our RIGHTS have been violated. When a 'agent' (legislator, LEO, prosecutor, judge) of the guberment passes/enforces/ interrupts a 'law' which violates our rights as being 'Legal/Constitutional' WE, as individuals and as a group, MUST oppose it by EVERY MEANS possible. :mad:
    But here is the problem, MOST people will not do this as they AFRAID of the guberment and they simply 'GO ALONG TO GET ALONG'!!!:(
  9. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    JMSO but if one supports one violation of the 2A and RTKABA, one may as well support them all as the right has at that point become permission and the BOR so much scrap paper.

    One cant support something which plainly states it is not to be interfered with, while at the same time opposing it.
  10. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    Only because the Statists have convinced enough voting citizens that following "precedent" is FOOG.
  11. RKtullahoma

    RKtullahoma Well-Known Member Supporter

    "I'm 2A-er than you"?

    BVAL and Caveman Jim like this.
  12. PaBushMan

    PaBushMan Well-Known Member

    I think a person should be allowed to own what they please. Even fellons of they did not do a firearm related crime.
    bluez and towboater like this.
  13. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim Well-Known Member

    My elected representative will tell ya he is a staunch 2A supporter...:mad::mad::mad:
    This is what we are up against folks, they actually have a problem with definitions.

    "James, thanks for sharing your thoughts on guns and gun control measures. As a former law enforcement officer, owner of multiple firearms, a concealed weapons permit holder and the father of a US Army soldier I am staunchly pro 2nd Amendment. That said I believe in responsible gun ownership and I believe certain weapons have no place on our streets.

    I did sign on to the bill banning the purchase of assault rifles. I have also supported the safe storage of firearms and I have never been upset at background checks, waiting periods or responsible requirements. I co-sponsored limiting the magazine size and I support further training of gun owners.

    See I believe responsible gun ownership by the majority protects the 2nd Amendment rights of all citizens and that without reasonable guidelines and restricting some types of weapons (fully automatic weapons have been restricted for years) all of our 2nd Amendment rights are at risk. I understand that not everyone agrees with me and I appreciate all views on this issue as that is what makes our Country great. Your opinions are as valid as mine and we can have respectful, open and free debate and dissent. I respect your opinion and I ask for the same courtesy. While we don’t agree on the issues you raise here we can find agreement in other areas with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

    I take these positions out of sense of conscience and moral duty to those I am sworn to protect and serve. I have been decorated in the line of duty by my Country and I take my responsibility as a State Legislator very seriously.

    Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. "

    Representative Mike Chapman (D)

    24th Legislative District
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  14. RJF22553

    RJF22553 Well-Known Member

    If one is incarcerated for a lawfully convicted crime, all rights should be suspended. Once having served one's "time", all rights should be re-instated. Selective granting of one's God-given rights is just evil.

    If one can vote, or serve on a jury, or be subject to the draft, or whatever, one should have the RTKBA.


    An armed HO, BTW...
  15. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    Translation. I want to violate my oath, gut the RTKABA, weaken the citizenry as,much as possible.
    So agree with or not I dont represent you.
  16. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    Obviously him carrying a hatchet would get my attention in Mc Donald's as well as anyone open carrying any weapon.
    Not that I would be overly concerned. But just being aware of the surroundings and what ever was present. I am sure the homeless guy was carrying the Hatchet for his protection out on the street. And for his piece of mind as those of us who carry concealed or open! And I do not blame him it is surely not safe in his world. Or if he had a large knife in a scabbard no difference! There would be some factors that I would be aware of however. 1. Does he have it in a leather holder on his belt. Or #2 Openly individually stuck down in his belt! Would constitute my level of concern. But in my opinion he had the same right as those of us who carry regularly.
    Like back during the days of the Brady Bill. The Anti Gun Folks expressed there was a danger of Bayonetting's and removed Bayonet Lugs on the ARs! So evidently for some there has been a lot of people threatened or killed in Hatchet attacks by homeless people!:p
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
    JRDallas and Ghost1958 like this.
  17. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    My US Congresswoman goes on a rant that she supports hunting, but we have to do something about guns.
    bluez, Caveman Jim and Ghost1958 like this.
  18. BVAL

    BVAL Well-Known Member

    There ya go,,,,,,,dip stick on the loose.
    Caveman Jim and Ghost1958 like this.
  19. RKtullahoma

    RKtullahoma Well-Known Member Supporter

    Untrue... dip sticks are useful. what you have loose there is the Wannabe Career Politician. God help us all.
    Caveman Jim and Ghost1958 like this.
  20. Mister Dave

    Mister Dave Well-Known Member

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Sounds pretty absolute to me. It says government shall not infringe. It has no delineations about arms types.

    And since it was brought up.....

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    This addresses our right to speak against government we disagree with, and to practice our faith rather than a faith (or prohibition of) chosen by government such as was done in Europe and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with libel/slander against a private or public figure outside of government.

    There is no basis for drawing a comparison between the two.

    Funny, but not far off either. The second amendment has been trampled on in many ways. Fuss over your bump stock, but ignore that you should be allowed tanks and fighter jets, and every sort of ordinance. Consider please that you're fighting over floor scraps.