All Forums | Politics

2nd Amendment Discussion

Participants:

Posts: 39

bowlslit

Banned

Joined: Oct, 2008

Posts: 5625

Posted: Dec. 29, 2012 - 9:25 PM ET #26

Rick,

Would you imagine that those who drafted the second Amendment intended for the 'people' to have a fighting chance vs any perspective tyrannical government?

I presume you will answer in the affirmative.

Liberals who think either the constitution didn't allow for the right to bear arms or that a tyrannical situation is so far fetched must decide for sure.

Given the historical context I strongly believe that you're wrong if you take either of those two approaches.

If you believe in the potential defense vs Tyranny then you must concede that the tyrannical offender should not have the best weapons hands down.

bunny651

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2009

Posts: 6705

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 12:16 AM ET #27

Quote Originally Posted by UberDog:

I am glad that the Founding Fathers did not use "rolling with laughter" emoticons or derisive put-downs when writing the Constitution or Federalist Papers. No one one would have taken them or their arguments seriously.

Stiln

Captain

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 6431

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 12:17 AM ET #28

Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

Rick,

Would you imagine that those who drafted the second Amendment intended for the 'people' to have a fighting chance vs any perspective tyrannical government?

I presume you will answer in the affirmative.

Liberals who think either the constitution didn't allow for the right to bear arms or that a tyrannical situation is so far fetched must decide for sure.

Given the historical context I strongly believe that you're wrong if you take either of those two approaches.

If you believe in the potential defense vs Tyranny then you must concede that the tyrannical offender should not have the best weapons hands down.

Everything that you wrote really offers very little insight.

Gun laws will remain up to the states... That's it. There's really no more discussion.

A high majority of Americans believe that automatic assault rifles should be banned.. as does any practical human being.

bunny651

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2009

Posts: 6705

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 12:25 AM ET #29

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

I believe that there should be common sense laws.

IE.
- taking away rights of felons and violent criminals.
-background checks to enforce the above.
-limit the proliferation of mass casualty weapons grenades, rocket launchers, etc.
-ensure gun shows utilize background checks.

When it comes to nitpicking small arms I draw a line.

I agree. I also believe gun owners(ex-gun owner myself) should be legally responsible to save their firarms safely. When it comes to the definition of "assault weapons" and the storage issues, we need both sides to use their common senses and I don't see why it couldn't be done.

bunny651

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2009

Posts: 6705

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 12:31 AM ET #30

Quote Originally Posted by cashin:

There's been such a heated argument about gun rights & legislation as it pertains & in relation to the 2nd amendment, thought I'd start a thread on it. Found this article interesting. Thoughts? How do you interpret the 2nd amendment?

www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-wil-gafney-phd/the-bible-and-the-second-amendment_b_2356432.html

I always want to ask this question:

If the 1stA is not absolute, why do some people think the 2ndA is?

14daroad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2005

Posts: 9261

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:10 AM ET #31

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

As I already said, you are looking for angles that provide evidence for your point of view..of course you see things in the way you want to.

Is that concept so foreign to you?

Actually, my "point of view" is based on facts.

Yours is based on supposition, false statements, and emotion.

14daroad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2005

Posts: 9261

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:11 AM ET #32

Gun laws will remain up to the states... That's it. There's really no more discussion.

Could you please then explain the 10,000+ pages of federal regulation related to firearms?

14daroad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2005

Posts: 9261

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:13 AM ET #33

My contention is that the SC got it wrong & that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with individual rights at all.

Yes, because a document written expressly to limit the powers of the government and define the rights of the people has like nothing to do with individual rights.

14daroad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2005

Posts: 9261

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:23 AM ET #34

Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:

Seems to me that the "line" should not be based on "small arms", but should be drawn such that it's rationally related to legitimate goals:

1. Reducing the chance that weapons will fall into the hands of criminals and incompetent people;
2. Reduce the access to weapons and magazines designed for mass casualty; while
3. Allowing people reasonable means to defend themselves and to hunt.

This issue should be studied empirically with these parameters in mind to craft laws and regulations that best fit the goals.

Problem is folks like you who want to arbitrarily draw lines based on....I don't know - the whim of the NRA?
2.

Um, any definition of "reasonable" is arbitrary.

Also note: the use of semi-automatic rifles (and magazines designed for mass casualty) in American homicides is statistically insignificant.

Note: rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?_r=2&

So why would you want to ban or limit access to such items?

Stiln

Captain

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 6431

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:38 AM ET #35

Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

Gun laws will remain up to the states... That's it. There's really no more discussion.

Could you please then explain the 10,000+ pages of federal regulation related to firearms?

Um I'm sure you are quite aware of the 2nd amendment.

However you lack the understanding of the various supreme court rulings concerning gun laws.

14daroad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2005

Posts: 9261

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 9:43 AM ET #36

Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

Um I'm sure you are quite aware of the 2nd amendment.

However you lack the understanding of the various supreme court rulings concerning gun laws.

HuH?

In America, gun laws are most certainly not just the purview of the states.

Stiln

Captain

Joined: Dec, 2010

Posts: 6431

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 3:16 PM ET #37

Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

HuH?

In America, gun laws are most certainly not just the purview of the states.

Um the states have a much greater influence currently on gun laws then the feds do. So the states might not be the entire scope of gun laws but they sure have to do with most of their regulations.

goinggone

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2006

Posts: 8634

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 3:26 PM ET #38

CYA works

bowlslit

Banned

Joined: Oct, 2008

Posts: 5625

Posted: Dec. 30, 2012 - 10:21 PM ET #39

Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

Everything that you wrote really offers very little insight.

Gun laws will remain up to the states... That's it. There's really no more discussion.

A high majority of Americans believe that automatic assault rifles should be banned.. as does any practical human being.

So are you saying that the ATF never brings anyone up on Federal gun crimes?

Are you also saying that any potential Tyrannical oppresser should have the best weapons based on a high majority that lacks true understanding between assault rifles and murder?

I hardly view that perspective as a lack of insight.

All Forums | Politics

2nd Amendment Discussion

Hot Forum Topics