How far are you willing to go to defend 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once your restitution is paid, you should be able to get your Rights restored. Right now, you can't. That office isn't being funded. Still exists, but they have no operating budget.
Click to expand...

Non violent offenders should be able to get all their rights back after they demosrate they can be responsable citizen. Most truly violent offenders, should not be able to get their rights back. Most of them should be locked away for good. I am against the death penalty since I don't believe the Government should have the right to execute people. You lost me on the last part. Removing all restrictions on the RKBA will only allow criminals to be able to arm themselves legally.
 
I am a big fan of fair, honest and sensible gun laws, that are made to punish criminals, and that reduce crime by keeping illegal guns off the streets. When I present this, I'm usually attacked for being an anti.
Click to expand...

Gun laws do not punish criminals they punish heretofore law abiding citizens when we can't keep up with the laws being passed. I live in Calif and we get all kinds of new, confusing often contradictory definitions and laws adopted each year. Yet each year people are somehow killed with weapons that have been outlawed by cowardly, inept politicians and the ignorant voters that enable them.

Gun laws do not keep "illegal" guns out of criminal hands. We already have laws prohibiting felons from owning weapons of any kind, can you honestly imagine any self respecting violent criminal saying something like "Gee Zed gimme the High Power, that Glock doesn't have a magazine disconnect safety!!" Or "I really like that AK G. Oh rats! It has a flash hider!"

As to how far I would go to defend my liberty, I hope I never find out.
 
Oops! Double Post
Dumb%20and%20Dumberer-p8.jpg
 
Shall not be infringed...

The Founders felt that it was more important to protect The People from The Government than to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm continually surprised by the willingness of people to indulge in any other interpretation of "...shall not be infringed."

Would I want to live next to a felon with a bazooka? Perhaps not, but he might be more polite if he suspected that I had a bazooka too. This type of thing lands in a category of problem where I think people need to reconsider all of the assumptions. Criminals with guns will hurt people, to be sure. However, some large percentage of criminals attacking an armed populace will get shot. Disarming criminals is based on the assumption that more responsible citizens will get hurt than criminals, and that crime is not going to decrease if every criminal will not be facing a gun.

I submit, without adequate proof, that more guns result in less felons.
 
We either have the Second Amendment and our rights, or we don't. In order for those rights to be "taken" from us, the Second Amendment must be repealed.
Click to expand...

Whether there's a Second Amendment or not does not affect the fact that we have a right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment is still in the Constitution, but explain California, Maryland, New York City, Chicago, etc?
 
Non violent offenders should be able to get all their rights back after they demosrate they can be responsable citizen.
Click to expand...

So should "violent offenders". If they're still a risk, they belong in prison or dead. If not, if we say it's OK to let them out of prison, then that should be part of society again.

This didn't used to be a problem. Commit murder, rape, child molestation, keep robbing banks... we hang you. Done, done, and done.
 
The Second Amendment is still in the Constitution, but explain California, Maryland, New York City, Chicago, etc?
Click to expand...

Cuz each state has there own constitition...There have been numerous debates on here regarding states rights..The states are sovereign, civil war ect...So when your own state's constitution is in conflict with the Federal Constitution you abandon states rights..Make up your mind !!:D (trolling !!)


Florida...

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

History.--Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990.
 
Last edited:
If a total ban came down, would I take up arms to fight the government???
Click to expand...

This is hypothetical but would never happen. Even in the UK this didn't happen, they have reasonable laws that still allow people to own guns for target and sport.

The ban will start with "assault weapons", then handguns, then all semi-auto except rimfire, then rimfire semi-auto, then shotguns, then single shot. And you know what? It won't be so bad, after all, the sheeple can still enjoy a good meal or a great movie. And people will more and more adopt the attitude that only crazy people like guns, and only the police should have them. But it will all be for naught, after all, criminals won't stop being criminals just because there are no guns.

Your question is a good one, not if there were a total ban right now, but at what point in the process would you move to action. It is possible that for most, even the the "radicals" the answer is never.
 
The fact remains, that the second amendment was not put in place just to protect us from criminals, but perhaps more importantly and perhaps also mostly put into place to protect us from a tyrannical government. Look at almost every other country that was once similar to ours, they ban all firearms ownership except for a few of the elite(BRitain is not included here as much as I would love to include them because they banned overall with no exceptions for the elite), next up was genocide and complete takeovers.

Oh but that could NEVER happen in America. Just like Mass murders and school shootings would never happen in America. Many things could never happen in America, yet have happened before and some of them happen all the time.

Michael
 
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
Click to expand...

How would the AK "pistol" and AR "pistol" be classified in this situation. Although they're called pistols, they're really rifles with really short barrels. I guess my question is how does the government decide what is a pistol and what is a rifle?
 
How would the AK "pistol" and AR "pistol" be classified in this situation. Although they're called pistols, they're really rifles with really short barrels. I guess my question is how does the government decide what is a pistol and what is a rifle?
Click to expand...

Ya got me...But hopefully we elect the representatives that represent views that support the 2nd that makes those decisions...I was trying to steer the conversation towards states rights..
 
Removing all restrictions on the RKBA will only allow criminals to be able to arm themselves legally.
Click to expand...

No. As has been demostrated already, those who are already of a criminal mindset will arm themselves regardless. What restoring unrestricted RKBA would do is remove those shackles from the 95% of us who are law abiding and would allow us to better defend ourselves from lawless behavior.

Or did you miss that part? :banghead:
 
Recently when I looked at pictures of what happened in the Holocaust I hoped that I would have the stones to resist to my last breath if they tried to disarm me. There were pictures posted here not to long ago of concentration camps and of what one human is able to do to another. I remember reading what one guy who posts here said about living in Eastern Europe under the Commies. They had the power to take away food, water or any other thing they wanted. Will they start genocide they day after they ban guns? No. Will they do it 10 yrs later? 50 yrs? Who knows. I don't want to die a sheep or end up in a gas chamber because of my religion or views.
 
Removing all restrictions on the RKBA will only allow criminals to be able to arm themselves legally.
Click to expand...

To the extent this is true, it's only because our justice system is so screwed up to the point that the aforementioned criminals have chances to walk once more among free people instead of being put six feet under or locked away for the remainder of their lives. I realize that acceptance of the idea that "if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be walking among free men" would require a huge paradigm shift for the general public, but just because they can't get their heads wrapped around that idea doesn't justify the federales' presumption of guilt for potential gun owners & purchasers.
 
In response to the thread's original question:

No, I would not fight to the death for my weapons. There is no hope of succeeding against the local, state and federal authorities, and dying at their hands would be a grave disservice to my family, who depend on me to provide for them.

I am currently resisting through peaceful means, though:

- I belong to the NRA and GOA.
- I have taught each of my kids to shoot, and have introduced about 6 people to the sport, 3 of whom have purchased their own firearms.
- I do not "hide" gun catalogs from company, or caution my kids against having polite discussions of shooting or hunting with their school friends. Though gun owners are often portrayed in the media as "nuts," don't let their depiction "shame" you into hiding your views.
- I engage in calm, reasoned discussion with those who are anti, and end conversations with civility, regardless of the other party's demeanor.
- I also engage guns-for-hunting-only types within our own ranks in reasoned discussion.
- I carry daily, while observing current laws restricting carry in certain areas.
- I vote and $upport candidates that actually support my 2a rights through actions, and not just words.

In all honesty, that's all I think I can do.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to DIE!

"Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take...

mmmmph... *ruffling sounds of clothes*

NEWSCASTER: "And another gun nut was eliminated from the steadily improving political landscape of the New People's America this morning, after being shunned by his colleagues on a popular internet forum. Now sports..."
 
Last edited:
On gun cinfiscations, how many police officers who belive in what they would do, accually be willing to die over it?
 
Why do we get these threads? We already know the answer. Katrina showed us. People talk big, but when it comes down to it, nobody wants to shoot a 17 or 18 year old National Guardsman, and nobody wants to shoot a police officer. I don't. You don't.

Experience shows that people meekly turn over their weapons and then hope to rely on the courts later to slap the authorities on the wrist.

Any questions?
 
yeah

The last post doesn't make much sense to me...other than to say nobody will do anything, that someone should have shot Nat'l Guard if they were really hard core pro 2nd Amend? What?? We're on the same side.
Of course, I for one would rather live in safety than risk danger to my person. The world is such a dangerous place, I am glad there are officials out there who tirelessly work to protect with immediacy my country and family against all threats. I mean, guns are gonna be banned one day anyway why not just turn them in now? Freedom lasts forever, conflict happens elsewhere, America has an economic foundation to last into our children's lifetimes!

Ugh....I'm not running off and picking up arms against the country I've sworn to protect, but it's nice to know that in theory, in word, in posturing, and perhaps in action, there are some men out there
WITH the BALLS and HUMOR
to take that oath seriously enough to know that defending the country means more than just commenting on her downfall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
What is going on here?
Replies
4
Views
352
solareclipse
S
M
  • Locked
How far should we go to accomodate those with problems?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
macmuffy
M
M
  • Locked
UK: Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
Replies
19
Views
2K
Ignition Override
I
Sebastian the Ibis
  • Locked
THR cited in McDonald Amicus Brief
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
ohgrady
O
K
  • Locked
Conn. Officials tell gun owners to relinquish...
Replies
11
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
Back
Top