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 48 of 51 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #471
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    I don't like .380s. I don't see a reason (for me) to go auto on a small frame. I figure if I gotta shoot more than 5, then I probably screwed up bad enough to deserve it. Small frame I'll take a .38 but I'd prefer a .357 (it's a little heavy but same size). Fullsize I'm 1911 man (I don't even need sights). Sigs are ok (.40). I don't like the sight over the rail, the way it moves, the small round, the big size, the sharp angles or clumsy handgrip of the 92. Just buy a Tauras, it's cheaper and comes with all the inconveniences.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 01-09-12 at 01:40 PM.

  2. #472
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I don't like .380s. I don't see a reason (for me) to go auto on a small frame. I figure if I gotta shoot more than 5, then I probably screwed up bad enough to deserve it. Small frame I'll take a .38 but I'd prefer a .357 (it's a little heavy but same size). Fullsize I'm 1911 man (I don't even need sights). Sigs are ok (.40). I don't like the sight over the rail, the way it moves, the small round, the big size, the sharp angles or clumsy handgrip of the 92. Just buy a Tauras, it's cheaper and comes with all the inconveniences.
    The Walther .380 were carried by MI6 for many years and I would think they're not sidearm illiterate? Do you think the .38 special is that big notch down from the .357mag? I mean there's a sacrifice of power for control and convenience but a .38 hollow will pretty much cut you up bad. Yeah, my friend says 150 rounds 45 ACP= sore arm! He likes the 1911 but not for all day range use. He does own the Taurus PT92 and thinks for the money it's a great gun and can definitely fire 200 rounds without wrist snap.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  3. #473
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    I've grown to the belief that firearms and their use can be reasonably regulated while keeping in line with the constitution. Rights aren't unlimited. The various restrictions on the 1st amendment prove this.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #474
    Transcend~
    Empirica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost at Sea
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,662

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I've grown to the belief that firearms and their use can be reasonably regulated while keeping in line with the constitution. Rights aren't unlimited. The various restrictions on the 1st amendment prove this.
    Three questions:

    1. What reasons do you believe the founding fathers included the "Second Amendment"?

    2. Exactly what do you believe to be "reasonably regulated" concerning the people's Second Amendment?

    3. Who do you believe are affected most by those regulations, law abiding citizens or criminals and terrorists?
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  5. #475
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I've grown to the belief that firearms and their use can be reasonably regulated while keeping in line with the constitution. Rights aren't unlimited. The various restrictions on the 1st amendment prove this.
    That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.

    Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #476
    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
    That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.

    Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
    There are almost no firearms that are reasonable to limit. Explosives, bombs, artilery are different(and aren't firearms). The thing is all firearms do one thing, fire a basic projectile and where things change is the delivery mechanism and rate of fire. Muzzle loaders, semi/fully automatic, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all use the ignition of powder to launch either a ball bearing, bullet, or slug.

    This being said you cannot declare one dangerous over another because of this due to ownership, same thing with speech, words themselves aren't banned but certain context/usage is, IOW "yelling fire" is legal when there is a fire, it's actually legal when there isn't a large crowd to panic, it is not legal when it can cause a large panic. You cannot say "let's hang all the (insert hated group here)" with the intention to start a riot or violent act but you may say it in a context such as a bad joke, or a passing thought, the call to action is the limit. Same thing with firearms, if I have an M249 LMG hanging around unloaded(or loaded) in my gun cabinet and secure it won't hurt anyone, the ownership doesn't equal criminal action/intent, if I fire it in my own cities borders though that is a different story it is obviously malicious because the amount of rounds and that large of a powder load guarantees collateral damage.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #477
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    There are almost no firearms that are reasonable to limit. Explosives, bombs, artilery are different(and aren't firearms). The thing is all firearms do one thing, fire a basic projectile and where things change is the delivery mechanism and rate of fire. Muzzle loaders, semi/fully automatic, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all use the ignition of powder to launch either a ball bearing, bullet, or slug.

    This being said you cannot declare one dangerous over another because of this due to ownership, same thing with speech, words themselves aren't banned but certain context/usage is, IOW "yelling fire" is legal when there is a fire, it's actually legal when there isn't a large crowd to panic, it is not legal when it can cause a large panic. You cannot say "let's hang all the (insert hated group here)" with the intention to start a riot or violent act but you may say it in a context such as a bad joke, or a passing thought, the call to action is the limit. Same thing with firearms, if I have an M249 LMG hanging around unloaded(or loaded) in my gun cabinet and secure it won't hurt anyone, the ownership doesn't equal criminal action/intent, if I fire it in my own cities borders though that is a different story it is obviously malicious because the amount of rounds and that large of a powder load guarantees collateral damage.
    That is your opinion about how the Second amendment should be limited. It is just as valid as anyone else's opinion, of course, but that's all it is. There is nothing in the amendment than indicates just how it should be limited. The wording, in fact, is "shall not be infringed." If you take that literally, then there is no limit, which is something that no one today is willing to argue.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #478
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empirica View Post
    Three questions:

    1. What reasons do you believe the founding fathers included the "Second Amendment"?

    2. Exactly what do you believe to be "reasonably regulated" concerning the people's Second Amendment?

    3. Who do you believe are affected most by those regulations, law abiding citizens or criminals and terrorists?
    1. I think they included the 2nd for two reasons; state militias for insurrection, invasion, martial law and disaster control, which are basically the National Guard now. And so that our people did not feel the government had an absolute control through force and the right to defend their self, family and property. It goes towards allowing sovereign citizens of their states the rights and freedoms that go with a lawful nation.

    2. Anything that is a combination of legislated laws and voted referendums towards governing and protecting the rights of individuals, whether to own firearms or be protected against the use of them.

    3. Hopefully "criminals and terrorists" by a long shot though it is often argued and sometimes reasonably that by allowing no access to certain types of weapons (assault rifles) for certified, lawful registrants their rights are being violated. I tend to agree since the ban has affected the law abiding citizen more than the average hardened criminal.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  9. #479
    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 grip View Post
    1. I think they included the 2nd for two reasons; state militias for insurrection, invasion, martial law and disaster control, which are basically the National Guard now. And so that our people did not feel the government had an absolute control through force and the right to defend their self, family and property. It goes towards allowing sovereign citizens of their states the rights and freedoms that go with a lawful nation.
    The national guard is a state militia, it's actually a branch of the army. The militia as the founders intended were all able bodied male citizens in good standing between the ages of 18-41.

    2. Anything that is a combination of legislated laws and voted referendums towards governing and protecting the rights of individuals, whether to own firearms or be protected against the use of them.
    Here's the thing, there are laws against using arms against others, these laws are assault, battery, negligent injury/homicide, and murder/attempted murder. Very few of the tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books are proper, however many of us on the pro side do agree with things like criminal/involuntary comission laws, concealed carry laws, etc.

    3. Hopefully "criminals and terrorists" by a long shot though it is often argued and sometimes reasonably that by allowing no access to certain types of weapons (assault rifles) for certified, lawful registrants their rights are being violated. I tend to agree since the ban has affected the law abiding citizen more than the average hardened criminal.
    Your typical criminal won't use an assault rifle, too bulky and hard to conceal, also too expensive to ditch. Terrorists on the other hand tend to have backers, but they aren't going to buy these guns from a legit source to begin with, too easy to trace.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #480
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,340

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.

    Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
    The problem is that while few argue that argue that the right to keep and bear is absolute, although the 2nd is to me pretty clear, that is not true of the reverse. There are lots of groups and individuals that argue that all guns of any sort should be banned.

    I am personally comfortable with the laws as they exist in Virginia at present as I can possess and carry at my discretion most firearms. The process to obtain CCW and purchase permits are a small inconvenience, and I have no problem demonstrating an ability to handle firearms safely. The one change I would make is to correct the problem of transporting a weapon through other states, even if you have carry permits. You cannot easily carry a sidearm across the country without violating the law somewhere.

    Most anti gun groups will accept only total ban, and look at slight changes as incremental steps toward that goal.

Page 48 of 51 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... 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
  •