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 40 of 69 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 681

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

  1. #391
    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 Jerry View Post
    I know how I felt when school's full of children were massacred because an institutional insane man was able to bypass all existing gun laws and get an assault rifle anyway.

    You people who still think "gun free zones" are a good idea have no business commenting on the guy who carries to a discussion because you are doing more harm than he with your policies.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA"]YouTube - Gun Free Zone - Get Yours Today![/ame]
    The only thing these school shootings prove is that unarmed people are easy targets for victimization. If the teachers,students security guards were armed then that wacko would have not been able to kill as many people as he did or he may have even been stopped before he could do anything. If that bus driver and any other adult on the school bus were armed then they wouldn't have to worry about some institutionally insane man killing all of them.
    "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

  2. #392
    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?

    Since 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."

    & since our early citizens had access to the most modern & lethal weapons of the time, why do some of you think that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own small, tactical nukes?(they are getting smaller & cheaper to build every day & there are plenty of law abiding citizens that could afford to buy them) What rationale is there for for the government to infringe on my constitutional right to own a nuke? (so what if I may have a nutty son who likes to torture animals, has no friends & keeps a poster of the Columbine killers on his wall.....I have never broken a law in my life & I want a nuke!!.......I'll lock it up.....I promise!)

    (serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-26-09 at 03:36 PM.

  3. #393
    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?

    Because governments shouldn't be able to own them either.

  4. #394
    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
    Because governments shouldn't be able to own them either.
    But the fact is they do own them....So why can't I?

  5. #395
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    (serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)
    Tactical nukes are not a part of a militia's armaments. They are not a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish. Neither is the ICBM, Las Angalis Class sub, or aircraft carrier.

    When our infantry carries tactical nukes on the shoulder, like you see in Star-ship Troopers, then, and only then, will your argument have grounds.

    Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-26-09 at 04:01 PM.

  6. #396
    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 Devil505 View Post
    Since 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."

    & since our early citizens had access to the most modern & lethal weapons of the time, why do some of you think that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own small, tactical nukes?(they are getting smaller & cheaper to build every day & there are plenty of law abiding citizens that could afford to buy them) What rationale is there for for the government to infringe on my constitutional right to own a nuke? (so what if I may have a nutty son who likes to torture animals, has no friends & keeps a poster of the Columbine killers on his wall.....I have never broken a law in my life & I want a nuke!!.......I'll lock it up.....I promise!)

    (serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)


    An additional question for you:


    Anyone wanna buy the house next to mine? (It has a nice home theater & a heated in ground pool!)

  7. #397
    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 Jerry View Post
    Tactical nukes are not a part of a militia's armaments. They are not a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish. Neither is the ICBM, Las Angalis Class sub, or aircraft carrier.

    When our infantry carries tactical nukes on the shoulder, like you see in Star-ship Troopers, then, and only then, will your argument have grounds.

    Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
    Can you point out exactly where in the 2nd amendment it says that
    my weapon must be "a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish."???

    I can't find that wording anywhere in my copy of the Constitution??..... Is it in yours??

  8. #398
    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 Jerry View Post

    Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
    Hmmm.......Dictionary definition says ;




    Definitions of 'arm'
    (ärm)
    Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary

    [From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons, V., Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armāre, from arma.]
    (noun)

    1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.


    A nuke is a weapon, right?

  9. #399
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Can you point out exactly where in the 2nd amendment it says that
    my weapon must be "a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish."???

    I can't find that wording anywhere in my copy of the Constitution??..... Is it in yours??
    Yeah it's right after the part about abortion.

    U.S. Supreme Court: Heller v. DC

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    Like VX gass and Anthrax, tactical Nukes are not "in common use" by militias, who's expressed point and purpose is to enable the state to leave the union and stand on it's own if/when the Union became tyrannical.

    Even if an individual state owns Fireflies, that doesn't mean the citizen can also.

  10. #400
    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 Jerry View Post
    Yeah it's right after the part about abortion.



    Like VX gass and Anthrax, tactical Nukes are not "in common use" by militias, who's expressed point and purpose is to enable the state to leave the union and stand on it's own if/when the Union became tyrannical.

    Even if an individual state owns Fireflies, that doesn't mean the citizen can also.
    So....Do YOU agree that our government can infringe on my right to own certain weapons, even though it is prohibited from doing so by the 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."

    Notice it says "Arms"....not firearms...so I argue it was meant to include all weapons, otherwise why didn't they limit it to Firearms?
    Last edited by Devil505; 08-26-09 at 04:34 PM.

Page 40 of 69 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •