View Poll Results: Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.

    39 41.05%
  • Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.

    45 47.37%
  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.

    22 23.16%
  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.

    11 11.58%
  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.

    1 1.05%
  • gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.

    16 16.84%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 29 of 69 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 681

Thread: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

  1. #281
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I'd like to know what the shotgun shells were loaded with...Sand to spread out quickly??
    Probably #4 bird shot of sorts...
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  2. #282
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Most LEO's (that I know) favor reasonable gun laws & want fewer guns on the street.
    Most of the ones I have discussed the matter with are more in line with my position than yours, and every State that has had a strong push for concealed carry permits has had the full and enthusiastic support of the majority of that State's law enforcement officials. Obviously, most of them think that I take my position too far-- but everyone who agrees with me on nearly every issue think that I take my position too far.l

    Do they want fewer guns in the hands of criminals? Certainly. Will they use every possible gun law they can apply to accomplish this? Absolutely. Do they normally support more limitations on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms? You're the only cop I've ever heard of in favor of stricter gun control. Maybe if I lived in Chicago or DC or New York, I could see more of it-- but I have very specific reasons for not wanting to be near any one of those cities if I can help it at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    We are the ones that have to face these weapons every day & it's not a hypothetical, college debate discussion to us.......It's the difference between going home after work or going to a city morgue!
    And yet, being faced with those weapons every day, most of your colleague recognize and respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves against them.

    Though... I'd be a little more comfortable if I could count on more police to support my right to wear body armor.

  3. #283
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I said EASILY not LEGALLY like you said.

    If machine guns were more prevalent they would be easier to get by crazies.....Legality has nothing to do with it.
    So basically what you are saying is that machine guns should be illegal because someone who is crazy mite go on a killing spree? I mean that is what you have said so far ignoring all the stats posted etc.

    Please post some evidence to support your position. So far according to statistics your opinion has no real bearing at all.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 08-25-09 at 01:14 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #284
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    And yet, being faced with those weapons every day, most of your colleague recognize and respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves against them.
    When did I say that I don't "respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves"?
    I absolutely agree with that but I don't think you need military weapons to do that, & neither do any of the cops I know. I think most of us agree that the best weapon for home defense is the simple & cheap 12 gauge shotgun. Even for normal police work, the utility of fully automatic weapons is less than the simple shotgun. (SWAT units & dealing with terrorists is not what I would consider normal police work....They need such weapons....Most cops don't & no civilians need such weapons, imo)

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Though... I'd be a little more comfortable if I could count on more police to support my right to wear body armor.
    Under what circumstance would you, (an average civilian I presume) need to wear heavy, hot, bullet resistant body armor?

  5. #285
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Declaration of Independence

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

    He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

    He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

    He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

    For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

    For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
    2nd Amendment

    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.
    Weather anyone has the opinion that civilians don't need arms equal to the military or not is moot. It is needed and should be allowed for the above quoted reasons. In this case no ones opinion matters as it has been clearly stated by our Founding Fathers that it should be allowed.

    Being allowed to not have automatic weapons when the Military has the use of them and far more sophisticated weapons takes the power of being able to defend ones self against tyranny away. Which makes it to where the government can become tyrannical far far easier with each advance that is not allowed to the general populace.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So basically what you are saying is that machine guns should be illegal because someone who is crazy mite go on a killing spree? I mean that is what you have said so far ignoring all the stats posted etc.

    Please post some evidence to support your position. So far according to statistics your opinion has no real bearing at all.
    My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

    Example:
    Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

    In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
    Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

    (most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


    I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

    Opinion:
    Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-25-09 at 01:38 PM.

  7. #287
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post

    Under what circumstance would you, (an average civilian I presume) need to wear heavy, hot, bullet resistant body armor?
    The same reason Police wear those things, for protection.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The same reason Police wear those things, for protection.
    How often do you arrest dangerous criminals, make vehicle stops or kick down doors to serve arrest warrants?
    (I personally am not hard core against civilians wearing body armor anyway. I think the discomfort would have most of them thrown in the trash anyway)
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-25-09 at 01:41 PM.

  9. #289
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

    Example:
    Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

    In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
    Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

    (most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


    I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

    Opinion:
    Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.
    The general population being just as armed us the military ensures that the government can not become tyrannical and ensures that if we are ever invaded we have the means to adequately protect ourselves. Therefore the 2nd amendment is very beneficial to society.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #290
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    How often do you arrest dangerous criminals, make vehicle stops or kick down doors to serve arrest warrants?
    Irrelevant.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 29 of 69 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
  •