• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?


  • Total voters
    61
I'm way in favor of an armed populace. One of the main reasons for protecting the rights of people to have weapons is so that, if needed, we can overthrow the government. Putting all the weapons in the hands of military defeats this purpose. In practical terms, there's not much reason to restrict access to weapons. Availability of weapons is hardly the main factor in violent crime, and were we to solve the other issues that cause it, the weapons would not matter.

I do think SOME restrictions are reasonable. Insane people probably shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms. I like the idea of a waiting period, to ensure that a weapon is purchased for longterm use, rather than based on a violent rage. But that simply makes it take a little longer to acquire a weapon. It does not prohibit the purchase of one.

So yeah, generally support gun ownership. It's a good idea.

waiting periods serve no useful purpose other than to make women subject to stalkers more vulnerable. and to backdoor outlaw gun shows. why should someone wait to buy a weapon when those already banned from owning one will not?
 
Who's we? Certainly not Scalia.

Originalism doesn't help gun rights, it hurts the pro-gun cause. Wise up, folks.

NOt this nonsense again. the contrarian BS anti gun mendacity again. You aren't pro gun, you play games that you support the second amendment and then pretend it only guarantees rights to those who are in the militia which you then claim no longer has any use and should be eliminated.
 
I think the document is very clear, you have a right to hang a pair of bear arms on your wall.
 
I think the document is very clear, you have a right to hang a pair of bear arms on your wall.

You trying to get on Ingrid Newkirk's sh it list?
 
1) it is illegal for a convicted felon or someone engaged in such activity to possess any firearm. Fully automatic or single shot.

yes I know and I want that to continue??? lol

2) why should it be illegal for people with no records or other disqualifying features to buy Automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986

it shouldnt thats ONE regulation I do disagree with but not all

3) those who buy drugs or sell drugs illegally easily buy and sell illegal arms on the black market

yes they do, and thats a problem that needs fixed?????


4) every year the federal and local governments lose thousands of automatic weapons. Every year there are millions of AK type rifles, Swedish K (Carl Gustaf) submachine guns and other "obsolete" weapons of war on the world markets. During WWII, sten guns were made for less than 3 Pounds sterling per copy. anyone with a bridgeport lathe and HS metal shop can make a USA "M3" greasegun".

OK?


in other words, machine guns are easy to obtain if you don't mind breaking the federal and state laws. But Honest americans cannot buy the same rifles our tax dollars supply national guard units and big police departments with. That is outrageous

I agree with that ONE regulation that shouldnt be

IM guessing you didnt mean to qoute me because your post made know sense to things I said

but on the subject of regulation I do NOT think that autos should be regulated the way they are, regulated? maybe but not a ban/not available for purchase ban.
 
so what regulations do you want and why would they

1) have a better than even chance of deterring criminals

2) and will not infringe upon the rights of honest people
 
so what regulations do you want and why would they

1) have a better than even chance of deterring criminals

2) and will not infringe upon the rights of honest people

1.) find with background checks and these needs done and has work, those are the facts, is the impact huge, medium or minimal? I dont know but its the better route than NO checks.

2.) everything could infringe, maybe there is a gun store within miles of your house, should we make building them mandatory?

yes I know thats an obnixious example, my only point is my definition of infringement and yours, or john doe, jane doe is different so who gets to pick them? by some people anything could be infringeful

also not being familar with all the laws Ill just throw out ideas, Im fine with regulating extreme weapons, like RPGs, Bazookas etc lol

fine with regulating autos BUT not a no buy regulation

I was NOT fine when they were trying to limit the number of bullets clips could hold
I am not fine with the reglation they HAD or HAVE on laser sights, not sure if those still are around or not?

wht matters to me is that law abiding citzens have easy, reasonable access. When I got my guns I was in and out with in 20mins, two walther P99s (not the fully intergrade S&W versions), S&W chief special and Springfield XD

Now with that said im think next year at tax time id like to get an AR15 type weapon, what problems will I run into? maybe theres more regulations I wont like?
 
1.) find with background checks and these needs done and has work, those are the facts, is the impact huge, medium or minimal? I dont know but its the better route than NO checks.

2.) everything could infringe, maybe there is a gun store within miles of your house, should we make building them mandatory?

yes I know thats an obnixious example, my only point is my definition of infringement and yours, or john doe, jane doe is different so who gets to pick them? by some people anything could be infringeful

also not being familar with all the laws Ill just throw out ideas, Im fine with regulating extreme weapons, like RPGs, Bazookas etc lol

fine with regulating autos BUT not a no buy regulation

I was NOT fine when they were trying to limit the number of bullets clips could hold
I am not fine with the reglation they HAD or HAVE on laser sights, not sure if those still are around or not?

wht matters to me is that law abiding citzens have easy, reasonable access. When I got my guns I was in and out with in 20mins, two walther P99s (not the fully intergrade S&W versions), S&W chief special and Springfield XD

Now with that said im think next year at tax time id like to get an AR15 type weapon, what problems will I run into? maybe theres more regulations I wont like?

I didn't get your point as to 2.

PA doesn't have any magazine or semi auto bans to the best of my knowledge. for the money, the Smith and wesson or Rock River Arms tend to be just a bit nicer than the similarly priced Bushmaster, DPMS or Armalite AR 15s. I am not a fan of the olympic brand. Some of the off brands are OK like DoubleStar or Del-Ton. all are basically "parts guns" meaning the "maker" subcontracts stuff out.
NOveseke or Lewis Machine Tool tend to be upper level and the Colts are generally good even though the colt lower receivers use "large pin" components compared to the others. The telescoping stocks make it easier for different people to use the guns. I like pure flat tops with flip up front and rear sights rather than the permanently attached carrying handle.

The hot debate is over the traditional gas impingement operating system versus the "piston system" I have both and see no clear cut advantages to either. I like 1X9 inch barrels for general purpose and 1X8 for match. the 1X7 (colts) over spin the most common ammo-55 grain ball.
 
I'm way in favor of an armed populace. One of the main reasons for protecting the rights of people to have weapons is so that, if needed, we can overthrow the government. Putting all the weapons in the hands of military defeats this purpose. In practical terms, there's not much reason to restrict access to weapons. Availability of weapons is hardly the main factor in violent crime, and were we to solve the other issues that cause it, the weapons would not matter.

I do think SOME restrictions are reasonable. Insane people probably shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms. I like the idea of a waiting period, to ensure that a weapon is purchased for longterm use, rather than based on a violent rage. But that simply makes it take a little longer to acquire a weapon. It does not prohibit the purchase of one.

So yeah, generally support gun ownership. It's a good idea.

I feel it necessary to say that, as a former member of the military, arming citizens is about the dumbest thing a revolting body could do. Citizens with guns will not pose a threat to the military, and they will not slow the military down. All arming the citizens will do is get those citizens killed.

There's a major difference between insurgents and armed citizens, partisans and militias. You would not be creating a partisan army "a la Resistance" like the French did in the Second World War -- you would be creating a situation where the occupying military decides to shoot any male between 18 and 40.
 
I didn't get your point as to 2.

PA doesn't have any magazine or semi auto bans to the best of my knowledge. for the money, the Smith and wesson or Rock River Arms tend to be just a bit nicer than the similarly priced Bushmaster, DPMS or Armalite AR 15s. I am not a fan of the olympic brand. Some of the off brands are OK like DoubleStar or Del-Ton. all are basically "parts guns" meaning the "maker" subcontracts stuff out.
NOveseke or Lewis Machine Tool tend to be upper level and the Colts are generally good even though the colt lower receivers use "large pin" components compared to the others. The telescoping stocks make it easier for different people to use the guns. I like pure flat tops with flip up front and rear sights rather than the permanently attached carrying handle.

The hot debate is over the traditional gas impingement operating system versus the "piston system" I have both and see no clear cut advantages to either. I like 1X9 inch barrels for general purpose and 1X8 for match. the 1X7 (colts) over spin the most common ammo-55 grain ball.

my only main point was infringment to you me or sally or john is all different.
I havent done alot of research but I was probably going with Colt and was unaware S&W made them, im a gun rookie for the most part.

I mean I belong to the gun club and shoot regularly but all the tech and specs I havent got into yet besides the basics

knowing that S&W makes one ill probably go with them, I LOVE my walthers(made by S&W), like the chief too. The springfield is "quarky" and not as accurate as the P99 and has jammed, could be my maintenance style but the others havent.

I still may get a Springfield compact, they are nice or maybe a S&W bodyguard but that uses .380 I dont want a bunch of different cals. all mine are currently .40
 
I feel it necessary to say that, as a former member of the military, arming citizens is about the dumbest thing a revolting body could do. Citizens with guns will not pose a threat to the military, and they will not slow the military down. All arming the citizens will do is get those citizens killed.

There's a major difference between insurgents and armed citizens, partisans and militias. You would not be creating a partisan army "a la Resistance" like the French did in the Second World War -- you would be creating a situation where the occupying military decides to shoot any male between 18 and 40.

lets see if I understand your "thinking"

a bunch of congresstypes decide to impose a dictatorship and tells the military to start oppressing people. so what do us 100 million armed citizens do-some of us who were on various olympic or world teams or say shot professionally? Do we stand in the street and bounce 30 caliber rounds off of a Tank? do we try to shoot down fighter planes with a shotgun? Nope, we find out the politicians who caused the problems and target them and their families. If you have 80 million people trying to kill you you better leave the country or dig a grave.

If you can get within 800 meters of someone you can kill them.
 
I feel it necessary to say that, as a former member of the military, arming citizens is about the dumbest thing a revolting body could do. Citizens with guns will not pose a threat to the military, and they will not slow the military down. All arming the citizens will do is get those citizens killed.

There's a major difference between insurgents and armed citizens, partisans and militias. You would not be creating a partisan army "a la Resistance" like the French did in the Second World War -- you would be creating a situation where the occupying military decides to shoot any male between 18 and 40.

So the US just shoots Iraqi males on sight?

...or did you have another real-world example?
 
my only main point was infringment to you me or sally or john is all different.
I havent done alot of research but I was probably going with Colt and was unaware S&W made them, im a gun rookie for the most part.

I mean I belong to the gun club and shoot regularly but all the tech and specs I havent got into yet besides the basics

knowing that S&W makes one ill probably go with them, I LOVE my walthers(made by S&W), like the chief too. The springfield is "quarky" and not as accurate as the P99 and has jammed, could be my maintenance style but the others havent.

I still may get a Springfield compact, they are nice or maybe a S&W bodyguard but that uses .380 I dont want a bunch of different cals. all mine are currently .40

NOt a fan of those super small autos. I carry a 38 revolver even though I was a master class action pistol shooter (shot Fred Craig built Para Ords in LImited, EAA Gold Team 9X21 with a C-More sight in Open, and EAA witness 40 in "Production"

reliability is the main argument for the revolver. I load my own practice rounds (not carry rounds) and have dillons set up in 40, 38, 45 and 9 (9X21 on the big 1050)
 
So the US just shoots Iraqi males on sight?

...or did you have another real-world example?

He thinks the US military is going to shoot american citizens on sight?
 
He thinks the US military is going to shoot american citizens on sight?

As I understood his post, he thinks an occupying military in America would shoot males between 18 and 40 on sight were the American population armed.
 
NOt a fan of those super small autos. I carry a 38 revolver even though I was a master class action pistol shooter (shot Fred Craig built Para Ords in LImited, EAA Gold Team 9X21 with a C-More sight in Open, and EAA witness 40 in "Production"

reliability is the main argument for the revolver. I load my own practice rounds (not carry rounds) and have dillons set up in 40, 38, 45 and 9 (9X21 on the big 1050)

im not exactly either but I like the ablity to conceal comfotably, i do carry one of the walthers at times but I havent got comfortable with it yet, more comfortable with the small gun, its weird

maybe because its PA and not texas :)
 
As I understood his post, he thinks an occupying military in America would shoot males between 18 and 40 on sight were the American population armed.

they might-I doubt that such a plan would be workable. the only occuppying army i can see coming is internal
 
So the US just shoots Iraqi males on sight?

...or did you have another real-world example?

Sure. Check out any book on the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Omani Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Algerian War... Pretty much any modern occupation. It's not exclusively the US that does so -- of course not. In fact, the US and the UK are rather good about that -- or atleast they're quiet. France is notoriously bad about it, as is Italy. Most third-world countries are bad about it, too (check out Darfur, Sudan, etc.). But in occupations, it's one of the unfortunately common, albeit hushed, methods of keeping a control on the region.

Now, I'm not saying this happens on a day-by-day basis, but there're often procedures like, "We've located a head honcho of XYZ group, eliminate him and his supporters" which means him, anyone armed, and anyone looking like a combatant (males 18-40) in the vicinity.
 
im not exactly either but I like the ablity to conceal comfotably, i do carry one of the walthers at times but I havent got comfortable with it yet, more comfortable with the small gun, its weird

maybe because its PA and not texas :)

I used to carry a beretta "minx' as a deep backup- 22 short. Jimmy Cirillo (RIP) carried one too-sometimes under a sweat band on his wrist even though later in life he advocated heavy stuff. he sure could shoot a model 10 really well though.

that minx was really reliable even though you pretty much were confined to eye shots at close range.
 
Sure. Check out any book on the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Omani Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Algerian War... Pretty much any modern occupation.

Sure...name the book and give me a page number. Tomorrow I'll get the book and post a pic of that book stating such. Seriously.

Now, I'm not saying this happens on a day-by-day basis, but there're often procedures like, "We've located a head honcho of XYZ group, eliminate him and his supporters" which means him, anyone armed, and anyone looking like a combatant (males 18-40) in the vicinity.

That's not what you said. You're backpedaling. Book name and page number.
 
I used to carry a beretta "minx' as a deep backup- 22 short. Jimmy Cirillo (RIP) carried one too-sometimes under a sweat band on his wrist even though later in life he advocated heavy stuff. he sure could shoot a model 10 really well though.

that minx was really reliable even though you pretty much were confined to eye shots at close range.

where to you carry whats confortable for you? concealed wise
ive even done hip but it tends to freak people out a litte here LOL raises lots of eyebrowls
 
where to you carry whats confortable for you? concealed wise
ive even done hip but it tends to freak people out a litte here LOL raises lots of eyebrowls

depends on the weather. winter-Smith MP compact in a galco FBI carry holster

spring or fall, same gun in a IWB (horsehide galco) with a sweater or light jacket over it

hot, 38 in an ankle holster or a in one of those deep cover galco IWBs

when I cannot carry a gun-a spyderco folder and a James Keating Comtech Stinger.
 
I feel it necessary to say that, as a former member of the military, arming citizens is about the dumbest thing a revolting body could do. Citizens with guns will not pose a threat to the military, and they will not slow the military down. All arming the citizens will do is get those citizens killed.

There's a major difference between insurgents and armed citizens, partisans and militias. You would not be creating a partisan army "a la Resistance" like the French did in the Second World War -- you would be creating a situation where the occupying military decides to shoot any male between 18 and 40.


Something you completely fail to realize, I suppose, is that there's about 80 million former military persons mixed in with the "civilians" you're talking about. It won't be an unorganized armed mob for long.
 
The Second Amendment is an awkward premise because the institution to which it refers no longer exists.
 
Last edited:
Something you completely fail to realize, I suppose, is that there's about 80 million former military persons mixed in with the "civilians" you're talking about. It won't be an unorganized armed mob for long.

an excellent point. I belong to three gun clubs and I am one of the few top shooters who wasn't military. I turned down the Army Marksmanship Unit (shotgun) to go to law school. plus people who are into guns seriously tend to be well trained. My wife and I have over 200 hours between us of high level training and I have another 100+ instructing. and then there is thousand or more hours in competition-from olympic trials, world championships and world cups to weekly leagues.
 
Back
Top Bottom