View Poll Results: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    77 91.67%
  • No

    7 8.33%
Page 29 of 51 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #281
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    What are you getting at? The main check on rights is that of infringing the rights of others, owning firearms of differing fire rates doesn't harm anyone. The mere presence of poorly stored ordnance can take out a city block easily, blowing up the neighboorhood or the chance of the ordnance doing so is not on the same minor level of threat as small arms such as full autos, shotguns, handguns......etc.

    In other words, my owning a machine gun doesn't endanger you or your family but my owning explosives would.
    So, the question is not so much one of supporting the Second Amendment, as it is where my freedom ends and yours begins.

    Does it end with my possessing bombs and missiles?
    with my possessing automatic fire weapons? Assault rifles? rifles that hold more rounds than someone else thinks is OK? with my having a handgun in the car? with my possession of a hunting rifle? with my carrying it around loaded? Just where?

    My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.

    Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #282
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.

    Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.
    Exactly, just like Freedom of Speech can (and should) have limits so can (and should) the Right to Bear Arms. Consequently, the idea that supporting limits is "anti-second amendment" or "anti-gun" is nonsensical. And as I said earlier, hopefully the lawmakers and judges responsible for determining those limits will consult with experts on the particular topic who have the most evidence based arguments.

  3. #283
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    I would think, if some intruder with a knife/gun, was in your home, you'd be more inclined to have a nice and effective metal bullet as the first shot, instead of a bean bag or a rubber bullet.

    You know, I'm not partial to giving the intruder added chances of succes in robbing/killing me.

    Don't know about you, but I sure don't.
    If the intruder has a gun and suprises you - you die whether you have a gun or not. If you can't hit and knock someone down with a rubber bullet or bean bag, a metal bullet wouldn't do you any good either.

    It is in fact known far more likely that shootings in a home most likely 1.) kill your own child 2.) is a child finding your gun and killing him/herself or a friend 3.) Kills a neighbor or friend and 4.) kills your spouse or yourself.

    Also, depending on the state, you can't just kill an 11 year old burglarizing your house. Rubber bullets are a great defense in face of an minor aged, unarmed intruder. In fact, that unarmed intruder actually might still kill you, but if you're an mature adult man and the intruder an unarmed young teenager, a grand jury might not see it as "self defense" but a punitive killing - especially if you shot the kid multiple times with a para-military assault rifle.

    A first-shot rubber bullet gives you more options and time to gather your senses. If you can't defend yourself in your home that way, the fact is you can't defense yourself otherwise.

    As a true LOL, I know a very young, small and seemingly vulnerable fish and wildlife officer who on occasion will come across highly abusive drunk hunters or fisherman who basically become both intimidating, abusive and with her sensing a growing danger to herself being alone in the middle of nowhere with those men armed. She carried two side arms and is well practiced at drawing both. She found that if she pops one in the chest with a rubber 45 while then sighting the others down - that semi-auto adjusted specifically for the recoil of those bullets, and with the "real bullet" gun in her other hand - they become very extra "cooperative."

    It takes a while for them to even figure out she hadn't killed one of them and absolutely believe her then as she shouts "drop your shotguns and get on facedown on the ground or I WILL kill you!" - them believing she just blew one of them away. Yet a real bullet would not be justified nor necessary. Rubber bullets cover that middle ground and allow extra control options and safeguards of either insufficient or excessive action.

    Getting hit by a rubber bullet is like being hit by a sledge hammer.

    You need to really ask yourself is your goal to defend yourself in the way least likely to also avoid innocent death by accident - or do you just want to kill intruders?
    Last edited by joko104; 01-04-12 at 12:55 PM.

  4. #284
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Some people should have guns, others shouldn't. Here's a story about one who should, and did:

    (ABC News) - A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
    Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
    On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #285
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    The Constitution actually says the purpose of allowing firearms is to have an available militia in the event of a foreign invasion or otherwise needing a military at a time when the country had essentially no standing army nor anticipating maintaining one. As a literal interpretation, the government could outlaw any usage, display or unsecured firearm unless a militia is called up. People who push their rights as strictly constitutional right to have any weapon they want for any reason they want have a losing argument. Constitutional qualifier is ONLY for "militia" usage.

    While I support gun ownership and as a fundamental human right to self defense, I also believe proof of competency and knowledge of relevant laws should go along with it. Too many people die by accidents and too many truly stupid, firearm's incompetent and demented people have firearms that have no potential of being used to defend themselves, but only stupidly and in ways that will wrongly hurt others and themselves.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-04-12 at 01:02 PM.

  6. #286
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    So, the question is not so much one of supporting the Second Amendment, as it is where my freedom ends and yours begins.
    That's your question, not mine. I am a supporter of the second, you are making the argument for things that can actually be limited. Every right has a limit, but there is a process for making sure that the limit is proper. Small arms limits are improper, ordnance limits are not, one does not equal the other.
    Does it end with my possessing bombs and missiles?
    People can posess bombs, you have to have the correct license, don't know about missles but it is irrelevant to the right to possess arms. Bombs are not "arms" in the traditional sense and neither are missles or nukes, they are crew served ordnance, not individual weapons.
    with my possessing automatic fire weapons? Assault rifles? rifles that hold more rounds than someone else thinks is OK? with my having a handgun in the car? with my possession of a hunting rifle? with my carrying it around loaded? Just where?
    The possession of such hurts no one, and it isn't their business how large your ammunition capacity is, cars are not protected rights, I don't give a **** what someone thinks about my exercise of a right(this includes politiicians), the right to bear means the right to carry.
    My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.
    Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.[/QUOTE] No right is absolute, but they have a very large scope of protection, small arms of any capacity and rate of fire are protected, crew served weapons are not. Anti-gunners don't have a good counter.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #287
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Exactly, just like Freedom of Speech can (and should) have limits so can (and should) the Right to Bear Arms. Consequently, the idea that supporting limits is "anti-second amendment" or "anti-gun" is nonsensical. And as I said earlier, hopefully the lawmakers and judges responsible for determining those limits will consult with experts on the particular topic who have the most evidence based arguments.
    Everyone acknowledges it has limits. You are trying to set the line at the same place as the rest of the anti-second movement. This is what you aren't understanding.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #288
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    That's your question, not mine. I am a supporter of the second, you are making the argument for things that can actually be limited. Every right has a limit, but there is a process for making sure that the limit is proper. Small arms limits are improper, ordnance limits are not, one does not equal the other.
    People can posess bombs, you have to have the correct license, don't know about missles but it is irrelevant to the right to possess arms. Bombs are not "arms" in the traditional sense and neither are missles or nukes, they are crew served ordnance, not individual weapons.
    The possession of such hurts no one, and it isn't their business how large your ammunition capacity is, cars are not protected rights, I don't give a **** what someone thinks about my exercise of a right(this includes politiicians), the right to bear means the right to carry.
    Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.No right is absolute, but they have a very large scope of protection, small arms of any capacity and rate of fire are protected, crew served weapons are not. Anti-gunners don't have a good counter.
    Translation: Sure, there have to be limits, but anyone who wants to limit the Second amendment further than I want to is anti second amendment.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #289
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Bad example. The authorities who were supposed to keep him from doing harm, such as the sheriffs office dropped the ball. So basically that's yet another reason to drop "appeal to authority". The guns he had would not have been sold to him if it was reported to the feds that the kid was unstable, he already had a past conducive to barring firearms possession yet he "slipped through the cracks" due to the people that gun grabbers would empower to choose how I may exercise my rights, no thank you.
    I agree with tpd you don't make sense. Because he wasn't identified as a risk we should drop all attempts to regulate gun control, especially to unstable individuals. That's daffy.

    You and TurtleHead want to allow more freedom to attain dangerous weapons and drugs because someone is going to attain them anyway? Why don't we just get rid of all Laws and have no deterrents to criminal behavior? You've either been dropped on your heads or you're anarchists.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #290
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Everyone acknowledges it has limits. You are trying to set the line at the same place as the rest of the anti-second movement. This is what you aren't understanding.
    How does saying that mental health professionals should advise lawmakers and judges "setting the line as an anti-second movement".

    Dittohead got it right. You attribute those who disagree with your line as "anti-second". That's incredibly dishonest.

Page 29 of 51 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •