Do you FULLY support the 2nd amendment?

[infidel]

Ok boys and girls, here it is, let's get a vote on this. There is always debate on here about training, who should or should not get to carry a gun...basically it seems like a day doesn't go buy that I'm not reading how fellow gun owners would like to infringe the 2nd amendment.

So the question for the poll is: Do you support the 2nd amendment 100%? No if ands or buts about it. I'm talking go down to the hardware store and buy a hand grenade with no extra taxes or permits. I'm talking about felons being able to do the same thing. I'm talking about a 100% uninfringed freedom to keep and bear arms.

Do you?

 

[mrjarrell]

Yep. No restrictions at all, just like it used to be in the real good old days.

http://lneilsmith.org/AtlantaDeclaration.swf

 

[PatriotPride]

Yes. Repeal the unConstitutional GCA. Allow any and all to purchase a firearm, DD, AOW, SBR, WHATEVER with no extra tax or registration.

My only point of contention is the age threshold---I'm sure I'll catch some flack, but I believe the age should be 18 to purchase from an FFL, and 17 to purchase from a private party.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Meh... I suppose that if you're going to get down to the nitty-gritty, there would have to be a major reform on the current laws before I can get down with what you're proposing.

First and foremost. Violent felonies should incur a far harsher penalty than they do now. No "5 years with good behavior" crap. They should be looking at much, much longer sentences for anything. If they manage to get out, then fine. I'm all for non-violent felons having all afforded rights to them as is. I'm not even going to get started on the drug war, but the same principle applies. Legalize the drugs, you drop the problems, and you have more room in prison for the people who deserve to be there.

I'm all for the uninhibited purchase of all firearms, although I'm not entirely sure about explosive ordinances. It's not a matter of keeping them from the general public, but a matter of use. Now, I understand that the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government in particular, but we just get the added benefit of self-defense. And I know that many people who buy grenades would be absolutely responsible with them. But why would you need a grenade, just curious.

Also... I don't know what's considered on the NFA list and all the extra taxation, but I'm definitely down to repeal taxation and permit restrictions on a everything I know that is on that list.

I'm just curious what you propose, or would say to my few doubts about a "full" 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yes. Repeal the unConstitutional GCA. Allow any and all to purchase a firearm, DD, AOW, SBR, WHATEVER with no extra tax or registration.

My only point of contention is the age threshold---I'm sure I'll catch some flack, but I believe the age should be 18 to purchase from an FFL, and 17 to purchase from a private party.

FFL? Why have them?

I'm all for the hardware store (or mail order) rifle. While I'm all for businesses specializing in selling arms, why should the feds be allowed to license them? The feds are not granted any power to regulate arms in any way in the Constitution, therefore, the power does not legally exist.

If one is a criminal and not to be trusted with his rights, he shouldn't have been released in the first place. Yep, prisons are overcrowded, but if victimless crimes were eliminated, real crimes would go down and there would be plenty of prison space for true thugs.

Any capable machinist should be allowed to manufacture and sell a machine gun if so inclined. He should also be prepared to be liable for any actual damages in which failures of his product might result.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Ok boys and girls, here it is, let's get a vote on this. There is always debate on here about training, who should or should not get to carry a gun...basically it seems like a day doesn't go buy that I'm not reading how fellow gun owners would like to infringe the 2nd amendment.

So the question for the poll is: Do you support the 2nd amendment 100%? No if ands or buts about it. I'm talking go down to the hardware store and buy a hand grenade with no extra taxes or permits. I'm talking about felons being able to do the same thing. I'm talking about a 100% uninfringed freedom to keep and bear arms.

Do you?

My only problem with the question is nothing else is the same or means the same as it did in "the good old days".

In "the good old days" when the 2nd amendment was the 2nd amenment there was hardly any police force at all and a fraction of the pile of laws we have now. A crook was a crook and he was treated like a crook not like a poor son who lost his way for a while. If it didn't merit the law or the law didn't get the job done the neighbors would beat them across the county line. Likely as not if they didn't straighten up their act in the next county they would get hanged sooner rather than later.

When crooks were convicted they went to jail and stayed there and it wasn't any picnic every day watching soap operas on TV either.

If some traveling peddler walked up on your front porch and started waving a hand grenade around your kids he's be lucky to make it to the next house and not find him self in a hole in the back 40 if you got the drop on him.

A felonie wasn't a mark on a piece of paper that might mean you liked the laudum a little too much or it might mean you beat a woman to death and raped her 12 year old daughter. It meant you just barely escaped being hanged and were probably glad the courts got you instead of the neighbors.

 

[rambone]

LOL. Everyone on this site thinks they support the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have to debate them about the need for permits & licenses, required training, guns in schools, guns in planes, guns for kids, guns for ex-cons, open carry being legal, cops ability to card you for carrying.... ON AND ON AND ON.

I think less than 50 percent TRULY ought to answer YES, given their nanny-state views.

 

[indykid]

I too remember being able to go into a hardware store, Sears, Penny's, Montgomery Ward, ETC and being able to walk out with a firearm.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People ask me how far would I go then with "shall not be infringed". I tell them that if I could afford an A-10 Warthog, then I should be able to own one.

The idea of the second amendment is forgotten these days. Most here know it is not about hunting or even personal protection from local criminal attacks. It is there to protect us from an out of control government. But that is not what we will speak about here.

Lex Concord (above) said it very nicely.

 

[henktermaat]

Yep.

 

[henktermaat]

LOL. Everyone on this site thinks they support the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have to debate them about the need for permits & licenses, required training, guns in schools, guns in planes, guns for kids, guns for ex-cons, open carry being legal, cops ability to card you for carrying.... ON AND ON AND ON.

I think less than 50 percent TRULY ought to answer YES, given their nanny-state views.

I've noticed that as well.

 

[Bendrx]

UNINFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are a free citizen (Not in jail or under arrest atm) then you should be free to carry.

 

[ATM]

Yep. No restrictions at all, just like it used to be in the real good old days.

http://lneilsmith.org/AtlantaDeclaration.swf

Responsible child?

That sounds like infringing on the rights of irresponsible children if you ask me.

 

[bigus_D]

Slam me if you will, but some people simply should be allowed to have guns, IMO.

Violent criminals would be one group I'd prefer not to have unfettered access to guns.

I also think that child molesters shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. Call me crazy.

 

[ATM]

UNINFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are a free citizen (Not in jail or under arrest atm) then you should be free to carry.

Thanks for that clarification, I was confused.

 

[mrjarrell]

Responsible child?

That sounds like infringing on the rights of irresponsible children if you ask me.

That's a parental prerogative and responsibility.

 

[ATM]

That's a parental prerogative and responsibility.

As it should be.

 

[henktermaat]

That's a parental prerogative and responsibility.

But who decides who is a responsible parent/child? Next thing you know, you'd need a law to decide that. Then the slippery hypothetical slope starts up again.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Slam me if you will, but some people simply should be allowed to have guns, IMO.

Violent criminals would be one group I'd prefer not to have unfettered access to guns.

I also think that child molesters shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. Call me crazy.

Yer crazy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Unqualified yes! The fallacy in bigus_D's reservation is that violent criminals are exactly the type who will get "unfettered access" to firearms anyway. Why should any of the rest of us be restricted. Believe me, if everyone who wished to do so were carrying a firearm, violent criminals would start to disappear. Edit: Child molesters wouldn't last very long either.

 

[mrjarrell]

But who decides who is a responsible parent/child? Next thing you know, you'd need a law to decide that. Then the slippery hypothetical slope starts up again.

The parents decide, based on criteria which they set. Don't need any law for that.