Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is we are blessed as Americans with the freedom to voice our opinions about anything without the need of a holster, empty or not.
We're not blessed as Americans with the freedom to voice our opinions about anything without the need of a holster, because all of Western Europe and many other places have the same freedom if many other places have the same freedom, it's not a blessing.
Nope we're blessed as Americans with the freedom to voice our opinions with a full holster. That way the guys who may choose to suppress our freedom to voice our opinions may take pause, because they know the potential is that the people protesting may be similarly armed.
That's the heart of the matter, it's not that they will or will not, it's that should they choose to, we can have a balance of power sufficient to cause a pause, and perhaps reconsider.
Looks like nobody wants to talk about this, even though it's the topic of the thread.
Is everybody in agreement with me? That would be a first.
Yes! Everybody agrees with you.
There should be absolutely no restrictions on the 2nd amendment whatsoever by the Federal, state or local government.
Everybody, everywhere should be able to go anyplace whatsoever, with any gun made in the world today, unfettered and unquestioned.
Shall not be infringed means that convicted felons and individuals who are certified bat S#!t crazy should be able to walk into any movie theater and exercise their first and second amendment rights by getting up on stage and telling everyone in the audience how much they despise them, all the while fondling their AR15 and the 100rd Beta mag. As long as they don't shoot anybody, they should be free to do that.
Convicted felons should be able to walk the streets of NYC with a Heckler and Koch G-3 at the ready with no hassle from the public or police.
Anyone should be able to freely enter your kids day care center with a Colt Mod1911A-1 filled with frangible bullets, all neatly displayed in a leather shoulder holster.
Children should be taught by 5th grade how to handle the standard issue assault weapon and all children should be allowed to carry guns to school anytime, anywhere.
If anyone doesn't agree with any of the above, unrestricted actions, then you are for restrictions on the second amendment. Once any one restriction to the second is agreed to be reasonable, then it's all just a matter of degree. The question becomes which restrictions are reasonable and which are not. But the idea of a totally unrestricted second amendment is a right wing conservative pipe dream. There have always been restrictions on the second and there always will be restrictions on the second amendment.
Now call me a troll for not agreeing with your vision of a unrestricted 2nd amendment. It doesn't exist, It never did.
Yes, the National Guard does constitutes our "well regulated militia" and that is how I interrupt the Second Amendment. Clearly, the clowns in Clark Country, NV and their ilk do not constitute a "well regulated militia."
Ok, so we have established that you are of the opinion that since we have a "well-regulated militia" { The National Gaurd } we no longer need the 2A Right. Unfortunately for you, the second amendment does not say the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms".... it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".... It doesn't say that one needs to belong to a militia in order to qualify for the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it say that a militia even needs to exist in order for the people to have this Right. It merely states that a well regulated militia is necessary to maintain a free state, and for that reason, the people have a right to keep and bear arms in order to form a militia if necessary.
Now, you may disagree, and that is ok. I'm less concerned with what your opinion is and more concerned with that of the Supreme Court. On two seperate occasions, in 2008 and 2010, they held that the 2A protects an individual right, not reliant on service to a militia. As I've told you before, you have every right to petition your government to amend or remove the 2A from the Constitution. Until that is done, we have an individual Right as citizens to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
If people don't have unfettered access to guns, how do you explain the fact that so many guns get into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them? Guns being sold over the internet have illegally been sold without background checks. There are many states that allow gun shows to sell firearms without background checks. There are so many loophole that you can drive a Mac truck through them.
See, this is why you have no business taking part in a conversation about gun regulation. No one should take your arguments seriously because it is obvious you have just reguritated a bunch of talking points you probably heard some bobble head on CNN say or maybe you read them in Bloomberg Weekly.
Gun sales over the internet are subject to all the same Federal, State and local laws that all other gun sales are subject to. The same with gun shows. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".... If you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show, you must go through a background check. It's really that simple.
Before I give my opinion on something, and certainly before I support a law regulating it, I try and learn everything I possibly can about it. I beg of you, do a little research and educate yourself. Here are two good places to start.
I may not have the knowledge of firearms but I live in this country.
That's right, you do live here, you are a citizen. As such, you have a civic responsibility to be educated and informed before you support policy changes and/or cast a vote.
Quote:
I have the RIGHT to want to make our society safer and I certainly don't think that making it safer means adding more firearms
Well a recent study says otherwise. The study found that in the last twenty years, the crime rate has dropped considerably. In that same time period, the gun ownership rate has increased considerably. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that more guns are what caused the crime rate to go down, but it certainly obliterates the narrative that more guns actually causes more crime.
Even the study that Obama ordered the CDC to conduct after Sandy Hook contradicted his position on guns and found that self defense guns were an important crime deterrent and that guns on average are used as many if not more times for lawful self defense as they are for crime.
Quote:
. I have expressed my opinion and as far as having an "intelligent conversation," you have done nothing but insult me.
You've expressed your opinion, but you haven't backed it up with fact based logic.... I have. No where in this thread have I insulted you.
Quote:
I don't have to be a nuclear engineer to know that I want nuclear power plants regulated!
True, but you should at least know something about nuclear power plants and how they are already regulated to know what further regulations are necessary...... wouldn't you agree?
Shall not be infringed means that convicted felons and individuals who are certified bat S#!t crazy should be able to walk into any movie theater and exercise their first and second amendment rights by getting up on stage and telling everyone in the audience how much they despise them, all the while fondling their AR15 and the 100rd Beta mag. As long as they don't shoot anybody, they should be free to do that.
Convicted felons should be able to walk the streets of NYC with a Heckler and Koch G-3 at the ready with no hassle from the public or police.
If you don't trust an individual to be walking the streets with you or your family, then why are you proposing they should be release from incarceration? I advocate for someone who has served their time based on a sentence by a jury of their peers should have every right restored to them upon release. If society doesn't feel comfortable in restoring every right, then why are they released in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Anyone should be able to freely enter your kids day care center with a Colt Mod1911A-1 filled with frangible bullets, all neatly displayed in a leather shoulder holster.
I can do that already. It's legal in MS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Children should be taught by 5th grade how to handle the standard issue assault weapon and all children should be allowed to carry guns to school anytime, anywhere.
Taught at an early age, yes. Like voting, entering into contracts, etc. at the age of 18 then they should be allowed. But in MS, handgun regulations are in effect until age 21.
Ok, so we have established that you are of the opinion that since we have a "well-regulated militia" { The National Gaurd } we no longer need the 2A Right. Unfortunately for you, the second amendment does not say the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms".... it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".... It doesn't say that one needs to belong to a militia in order to qualify for the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it say that a militia even needs to exist in order for the people to have this Right. It merely states that a well regulated militia is necessary to maintain a free state, and for that reason, the people have a right to keep and bear arms in order to form a militia if necessary.
Now, you may disagree, and that is ok. I'm less concerned with what your opinion is and more concerned with that of the Supreme Court. On two seperate occasions, in 2008 and 2010, they held that the 2A protects an individual right, not reliant on service to a militia. As I've told you before, you have every right to petition your government to amend or remove the 2A from the Constitution. Until that is done, we have an individual Right as citizens to keep and bear arms.
See, this is why you have no business taking part in a conversation about gun regulation. No one should take your arguments seriously because it is obvious you have just reguritated a bunch of talking points you probably heard some bobble head on CNN say or maybe you read them in Bloomberg Weekly.
Gun sales over the internet are subject to all the same Federal, State and local laws that all other gun sales are subject to. The same with gun shows. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".... If you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show, you must go through a background check. It's really that simple.
Before I give my opinion on something, and certainly before I support a law regulating it, I try and learn everything I possibly can about it. I beg of you, do a little research and educate yourself. Here are two good places to start.
That's right, you do live here, you are a citizen. As such, you have a civic responsibility to be educated and informed before you support policy changes and/or cast a vote.
Well a recent study says otherwise. The study found that in the last twenty years, the crime rate has dropped considerably. In that same time period, the gun ownership rate has increased considerably. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that more guns are what caused the crime rate to go down, but it certainly obliterates the narrative that more guns actually causes more crime.
Even the study that Obama ordered the CDC to conduct after Sandy Hook contradicted his position on guns and found that self defense guns were an important crime deterrent and that guns on average are used as many if not more times for lawful self defense as they are for crime.
You've expressed your opinion, but you haven't backed it up with fact based logic.... I have. No where in this thread have I insulted you.
True, but you should at least know something about nuclear power plants and how they are already regulated to know what further regulations are necessary...... wouldn't you agree?
You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I have EVERY right to participate in a discussion about gun regulation as a citizen of the Untied States under the First Amendment of the Constitution and I RESENT you telling me that I shouldn't. Just because I am not a member of the NRA that doesn't mean that I cannot express my opinion and that does not mean that I don't have a stake in the laws of this country. You seem to believe that because I am NOT a member of the NRA or that I don't own a firearm that I can't express my opinion. I am going to express my opinion all I want and I don't need your approval for that.
As for the "talking points" you seem to think that I keep using, all of YOUR arguments are nothing more than NRA's talking points. And I am tired of the way you are trying to patronize me. And I am totally through with you!
If you don't trust an individual to be walking the streets with you or your family, then why are you proposing they should be release from incarceration?
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with race. Not sure why some people brought race into the discussion.
Well, actually it sort of does.
However, I was just using that as an example of how the second amendment has always been interpreted and applied according to the prevailing social norms. It has never been an unqualified or absolute right.
its gotten pretty bad
if you invoke your 1st amendment right-- you are probably going to need to use your 2nd amendment right-- soon after.
If we review the case of Columbia v. Heller, the court decided that State cannot restrict an individual from carrying a firearm because a government official doesn't think they face enough threats to justify doing so and affirms carrying a gun in public for self defense is in fact a protected right under the Second Amendment.
It is actually a second amendment victory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
