Results 1 to 10 of 85
-
January 30th, 2011, 01:42 PM #1Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
What I mean is, in your opinion, how closely should the following be followed no matter any negative consequences?
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.
No background checks?
No carry permits?
No purchase cards?
No weapons bans?
Do you think there should be any restrictions?
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:13 PM #2
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
the only appropriate restrictions in a supposedly free country would be Nuclear, Biological or chemical weapons.
MORDENTE MEUM
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:17 PM #3
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:18 PM #4Super Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
-
*
- Posts
- 811
- Rep Power
- 24639
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
No carry permits, no purchase cards/gun permits, no weapons bans, unless they apply to the military as well. The 2a was not put in place to protect your right to shoot sporting clays, it was put in place to ensure that you would never be outgunned by the government should the need arise to 'water the tree of liberty'. Restricting civilians from owning WMDs should also restrict the .gov from owning them.
Background checks... If someone has been released, they've been released because they were deemed to no longer be a threat to society, so there's no need for that either.
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:25 PM #5
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:29 PM #6
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
The 2A should goes as far as not requiring a license/permit to carry or even to own. Tench Coxe, one of our founding fathers, made it clear that the people should own what the military owns.
As for background checks - yeah, I do support instant checks for commercial transfers. There are people that are prohibited that shouldn't be able to buy a gun. They gave up their rights when they chose to commit whatever crime it was. And said rights were lawfully forfeited via Due Process once they were convicted. Sure, those prohibited folks can get guns by other means. But the BGC's do help some. The Instant Check system does need some work, but it is not a total failure.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:34 PM #7Super Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
-
gardeners,
Pennsylvania
(Adams County) - Posts
- 603
- Rep Power
- 113428
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
what part of shall not be infringed. do you not under stand??
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:44 PM #8
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
...the right of the people...shall not be infringed, means what it says.
Arms are weapons, right is the natural unalienable right of every human being, bear means to carry, keep is to own.
Civilians now privately own fighter jets, artillery, machine-guns, tanks, rockets, etc. Either we trust honest law-abiding citizens or we don't. Restricting citizens from owning a nuclear missile does not deter a terrorist from getting and using one.Veritas Vos Liberat
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:49 PM #9
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
If I'm correct, there were no prohibiting factors for 2A, when 2A was written.
Prohibitions were born out of necessary due to people's illegal use of arms.
Those prohibitions won't save us from illegal use of arms, no more than laws deterring drunk driving.
As far as restrictions, how many civilians can afford an F-16, Abrams tank, or a Blackhawk helicopter? Without these, how do civilians have equal footing with the government?
-
January 30th, 2011, 02:51 PM #10
Re: How far should the 2nd Amendment go?
I know we gun owners love to concentrate on the "shall not be infringed" part...but we have to realize that the anti-gun folks like to focus on the " well regulated" part. So whatever that means, an argument needs to be made against it. Individual citizens aren't part of a militia, so therefore we shouldn't be subject to the regulation.
Then they will argue if we're not part of a militia, then we don't have the right to own guns at all, because, as the 2nd Amendment says, 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.
So then we argue "the people" does not refer to the militia. "The people" refers to us as individuals, and as such, our right to bear arms is not to be regulated nor infringed.
The argument can go on and on, and it's obviously not as clear cut as we'd like to believe.
Personal beliefs aside, we have to obey the law and the Constitution, and as you can see, it can be interpreted in different ways by different people.
Similar Threads
-
Why even have the 2nd Amendment?
By NJEMTGUY3007 in forum GeneralReplies: 36Last Post: November 13th, 2009, 11:42 PM -
2nd Amendment
By tacticalreload in forum GeneralReplies: 16Last Post: September 18th, 2008, 11:13 AM -
What the Second Amendment is REALLY For
By joe15003 in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 05:40 PM -
RAS, 4th amendment
By DaveM55 in forum GeneralReplies: 54Last Post: July 25th, 2008, 03:00 PM -
Why is the 2nd Amendment 2nd?
By OneLungMcClung in forum GeneralReplies: 20Last Post: March 29th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Bookmarks