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 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #481
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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.
    I know that's why I said the old militias were now the Natl Guard. Same thing is it not?

    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.
    Good point that I think a lot of us "gun control advocates" miss. There are enough laws and probably too many regulations but I still hate what guns do to people. Though I actually find firearms fascinating because of my enjoyment of well made toys. People who target shoot, collect and hunt (not fond of) are the types I can associate with though I understand the need for equal protection against the lunatic fringe. I actually have a folding knife collection but I see them as tools, not weapons though a few in my collection are military and personal protection based.

    Attachment 67121003

    Attachment 67121004

    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.
    Except in the North Hollywood incident, which I think they meant to really commit suicide and the old pump shotgun was a robber fav at one time. Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
    He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.

    Attachment 67121005

    Though I agree with this statement
    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.
    I believe in some limits in the way of access to proper citizens without criminal records or psychiatric problems.
    Last edited by grip; 01-10-12 at 02:38 PM.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  2. #482
    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 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.
    Do you suppose "Shall Not Be Infringed" suggests the founding fathers possibly believed that limitations on personal firearms was not an option???__There were human neccessities other than hunting and self-defense that motivated them.

    The Constitution indicates the founding fathers strongly believed that government was the #1 threat to freedom and foresaw the likelyhood that the people may someday find it neccessary to once again rebel against a goverment that has grown too large and intrusive.

    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 powerful forces at work in the world whose agenda includes the total disarmament of all civilian populations which is supported by many elements of government and by many Americans as well who have been made to believe they will be safer without gun rights.

    The United States is the last holdout__Could it be that those forces have resorted to a new strategy of pecking away at the Second Amendment untill it is no longer a threat to whatever plan they have for us?__Restricting types of guns__Types of ammunition__Magazine capacities, etc, etc, etc.

    There are never-ending attempts by congress to enact new gun regulations and taxes and increases on existing taxes that will price firearms and ammunition out of reach of average americans__You must ask yourself "why is disarming the American population so important to the UN and the Progressive Movement that now controls the Democrat Party???"
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  3. #483
    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
    I know that's why I said the old militias were now the Natl Guard. Same thing is it not?
    No, the NG is actually a state run branch of the military, they train on the same weapons, usually a generation prior actually as the army. They may be called up by the president under certain circumstances as a branch of the military. As well they are subject to call ups during a time of war, the classic definition would be if we were to be conscripted into local defense under martial law if there were to be a military invasion on U.S. soil. In that sense we are the militia and are not as such required to drill or arm(though it is our right within limits). Any male 18-41 is subject to such a call, women, children, the infirm, or disabled are not required under the definition.



    Good point that I think a lot of us "gun control advocates" miss. There are enough laws and probably too many regulations but I still hate what guns do to people. Though I actually find firearms fascinating because of my enjoyment of well made toys. People who target shoot, collect and hunt (not fond of) are the types I can associate with though I understand the need for equal protection against the lunatic fringe. I actually have a folding knife collection but I see them as tools, not weapons though a few in my collection are military and personal protection based.
    You won't find most pro-second or many(I must qualify, there are crazies) firearms fanatics that enjoy the idea of ever having to injure or take a life, however if it's a choice of our own safety or that of our family(or innocent third party) then we are willing to use our best tools to increase our odds of stopping the threat. We are also firmly of the belief that those tools are protected and must be made available should we have the means to attain them.



    Except in the North Hollywood incident, which I think they meant to really commit suicide and the old pump shotgun was a robber fav at one time. Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
    He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.
    This is true, and a very rare exception. To me these guys were probably more tactically smart and realistically stupid, probably saw a few to many movies and thought they were at an advantage. They chose assault rifles and high density armor, but that only works to a certain extent and at some point you have to have an exit strategy(sorry for the cliche) and a means to throw off investigators(my criminal justice behavioral college credit is kicking in).. These guys basically planned to fail. Most of the thugs who get away with activity used a "junk gun" something filed, bought for the cheap street price, and dumped in a river/woods/etc.


    Though I agree with this statement I believe in some limits in the way of access to proper citizens without criminal records or psychiatric problems.
    There are possibly merited arguments, I would just have to see something and discuss it. I'm not saying no to all, but it's got to have a very strict scrutiny.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #484
    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 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.
    You appear to have confused inalienable rights as being granted to people by government.

    Remember, anything granted by government can be taken away by government__Inalienable is non-negotiable.

    No lawful government would ever attempt to deprive or restrict an inalienable right__It would be a criminal offense.

    Unalienable rights - encyclopedia article about Unalienable rights.

    "The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property."

    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.
    Owning a firearm is paramount when defending ones self and/or family against an armed criminal.

    Unless of course you can afford to pay for private security or convince a cop to park outside your home.

    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.
    The government will and has misclassified certain types of guns to include them in a "ban list"__The anti-Second Amendment lobbiest petition the government constantly to chip away at gun rights.

    The banned "assault weapon" you referred to is not actually an assault weapon__Anyone who has been in the military knows a true assault weapon is a high powered magazine fed rifle with a selector switch to fire either semi or fully automatic__The gun control lobby has proved itself to be unqualified at making Second Amendment restrictions.
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  5. #485
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
    He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.

    Are you seriously citing an exaggerated Hollywood movie as an example of the sort of “damage” that this specific weapon is allegedly capable of causing? Do you really believe that because a Steve McQueen character was shown “blow[ing] a cop car down to the frame” and “cut[ting] a wall in half” with a shotgun that a real person can do these things in real life with a similar weapon?
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  6. #486
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You won't find most pro-second or many(I must qualify, there are crazies) firearms fanatics that enjoy the idea of ever having to injure or take a life, however if it's a choice of our own safety or that of our family(or innocent third party) then we are willing to use our best tools to increase our odds of stopping the threat. We are also firmly of the belief that those tools are protected and must be made available should we have the means to attain them.
    Yeah, but if you could've taken an attacker out with less lethal force than with a gun you'll never know since you blew someone away out of fear. I'm not saying that using deadly force in the right scenario couldn't be warranted but I like to err in the direction of peace. It's kind of a spiritual thing with me where I'm not the one to really push into a corner but I'm not as deadly as a fearful person.


    This is true, and a very rare exception. To me these guys were probably more tactically smart and realistically stupid, probably saw a few to many movies and thought they were at an advantage. They chose assault rifles and high density armor, but that only works to a certain extent and at some point you have to have an exit strategy(sorry for the cliche) and a means to throw off investigators(my criminal justice behavioral college credit is kicking in).. These guys basically planned to fail. Most of the thugs who get away with activity used a "junk gun" something filed, bought for the cheap street price, and dumped in a river/woods/etc.
    These guys were gun literate but absolutely out of their minds. They planned to die because realistically there was no other option taking on law enforcement. They'll call on any reinforcements necessary to accomplish their goal.


    There are possibly merited arguments, I would just have to see something and discuss it. I'm not saying no to all, but it's got to have a very strict scrutiny.
    I'll agree with that, though everyone who seems to be for some regulations aren't necessarily against the 2nd, just some interpreting to what extent rights apply.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #487
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Are you seriously citing an exaggerated Hollywood movie as an example of the sort of “damage” that this specific weapon is allegedly capable of causing? Do you really believe that because a Steve McQueen character was shown “blow[ing] a cop car down to the frame” and “cut[ting] a wall in half” with a shotgun that a real person can do these things in real life with a similar weapon?
    No, I'm actually not relating a Hollywood movie to the extent to what damage a particular weapon can accomplish. I'm going by the experience of someone who's used said weapon with the ammunition supplied and attested too me that the scenes were accurate in the amount of damage that shotgun can perform. I questioned the movie because I thought it was extreme but he said a 12 gauge with double #00 buck could literally almost cut a human in half. We're not talking about one shot but repeated blasts at the same area with enough lead (8.38 mm ball size) to equal several handguns shots in a small diameter.

    Here's the shot pattern of 9 pellets with 2 missing of #00 buck at 15 yards, which gets a tighter pattern at shorter distances, especially those in the movie.

    Attachment 67121012
    Last edited by grip; 01-10-12 at 04:39 PM.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  8. #488
    Light△Bender

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

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empirica View Post
    You appear to have confused inalienable rights as being granted to people by government.

    Remember, anything granted by government can be taken away by government__Inalienable is non-negotiable.

    No lawful government would ever attempt to deprive or restrict an inalienable right__It would be a criminal offense.

    Unalienable rights - encyclopedia article about Unalienable rights.

    "The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property."

    Owning a firearm is paramount when defending ones self and/or family against an armed criminal.

    Unless of course you can afford to pay for private security or convince a cop to park outside your home.

    The government will and has misclassified certain types of guns to include them in a "ban list"__The anti-Second Amendment lobbiest petition the government constantly to chip away at gun rights.

    The banned "assault weapon" you referred to is not actually an assault weapon__Anyone who has been in the military knows a true assault weapon is a high powered magazine fed rifle with a selector switch to fire either semi or fully automatic__The gun control lobby has proved itself to be unqualified at making Second Amendment restrictions.
    I haven't confused anything. I'll let your fan club speak for me.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  9. #489
    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
    Yeah, but if you could've taken an attacker out with less lethal force than with a gun you'll never know since you blew someone away out of fear. I'm not saying that using deadly force in the right scenario couldn't be warranted but I like to err in the direction of peace. It's kind of a spiritual thing with me where I'm not the one to really push into a corner but I'm not as deadly as a fearful person.
    It all comes down to situational awareness and what means more to whom in the "showdown". For instance if all I have is a gun and someone's life is in danger I will not hesitate, however if I feel that a Tazer is sufficient and have one my goal is to stop the aggressor so that would be an option. Heck, if all I've got is my hands or my gun I will quickly make a choice.

    I will say it is a noble goal for a peaceful existence and I agree with you on that. The only violence I like is entertainment(movies, contact sports) and I always prefer to laugh. However I think nobility comes with responsibility as well, and that entails being ready to defend if peace is off the table.




    These guys were gun literate but absolutely out of their minds. They planned to die because realistically there was no other option taking on law enforcement. They'll call on any reinforcements necessary to accomplish their goal.
    There is nothing worse than a psychopath with a death wish.



    I'll agree with that, though everyone who seems to be for some regulations aren't necessarily against the 2nd, just some interpreting to what extent rights apply.
    I don't necessarily judge a restriction stance as much as how complete the data and logical process is. I simply don't do emotional arguments.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #490
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    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.
    All of the things you've mentioned are "infringements", yet they are all reasonable. That's why I think that it is a matter of where to draw the line.

    What groups actually want to ban all guns? I wouldn't think there would be a lot of support for that idea.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 49 of 51 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 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
  •