Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?

Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed?

  • Total voters
    279
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rocketmedic said:
It needs to be infringed to protect the public from the actions of a small, extremely dangerous minority that exploits their rights to obtain weapons capable of killing a lot of people really fast.
Click to expand...
So we should ban airliners (9/11), Kool-Aid (Jonestown), nitrogen-based fertilizer, diesel, and rental trucks(OK City)? Or ban mass gatherings - no more than three people are allowed to congregate in any structure....

Maybe we should try outlawing murder - that should fix the problem!
 
Red Wind said:
So many weepers and criers and apologists. If only this and only that. If only I won the Lotto. :rolleyes:
So many ambiguities. So many apologies. So much cowardice.

To me, this is a God given right to self defense which the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights confirms.

We'll do a poll. It won't be for ever. But it will be ours. All responsibility rests on me. All positives and negatives. It may not be pretty. :D I will take the blame or the good. :cool:
Click to expand...

Red Wind I nominate your post for this year's most outstanding example of melodramatic prose used by a THR member to disguise demagoguery intended to generate condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you, and to declare willingness to be a martyr in defense of the RKBA. Why not be more direct and just ask for posts condemning anyone who disagrees with any firearm law you consider infringement of the 2A? I voted yes in your poll but of course that does not mean we agree on what constitutes infringement.
 
I don't know how to answer the question. NO-It should not be infringed. Yes-It should not be infringed. All I know is- It should not be infringed!

*Dangit Vern! I thought I had something!
 
Last edited:
And while we have the fun of setting out all our reasons why the RKBA should not be infringed, let's not lose sight of the fact that it will be and that the courts will sustain some infringements of the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

This is a thread about what we think should be. But let's not lose sight of what is and will be.

So no matter how well we can rationalize that the RKBA should not be infringed, we will still need to organize together to use our political power and acumen to, as best we can, limit those infringements.

So no matter how well we can rationalize that the RKBA should not be infringed, we will still need to organize together to support financial well thought out litigation to, as best we can, seek court decisions limiting those infringements.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

And it will always be about our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. Some of them, many of them in some places, don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns.

So each of us needs to remember the importance of, by our manner of relating to the world, building a positive public image for gun owners. We need to be good ambassadors for gun owners, dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners, by being sober, rational, intelligent, responsible, and active participants in the affairs of our communities.
 
I agree we need to remember the importance of our manner.

But fear is a more powerful emotion than affection. Vote wishy-washy politicians out of office and the rest will fear us
 
The question is ambiguous: a Yes or a NO answer mean the same thing.

Phrase it like this: Is there any justification for infringing the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

Dang it, I clicked the wrong button! Can you change a vote???
Whatever.
It should not be infringed.

As many wise and well versed persons have posted, it is not to be infringed, and it is progressivism that decided the interpretation of the Constitution is situational and evolutionary. The way to change the Constitution is established.

Of course the 2nd Amendment is the right to lay claim on the other God given rights. My right to publicly exercise my religion (note, that progressives are currently changing the mindset of the people to believe that the Constitution protects private expression of religion only) and if government takes that right then I have the ability to take arms and say, "No, you have gone to far. I am going to defend this right. Are you going to press me?"

And another thing the 2nd Amendment provides, in a way that I have often considered, is a window into our own soul on how we view are fellow man. If we view our fellow men as Americans, as citizens that have my back, then I am fine with them having a firearm. But, if I view my neighbor as dangerous, unstable, untrustworthy, unethical, immoral, etc., then I want them disarmed (if I am a coward and fearful), and I also want more police to watch these people.

So, how do I view my neighbors? I view them as they should be American. What does that mean? That they will defend with force the U.S. Constitution. That they will mind their own business. That they will be honest. And that they expect me to do the same. If they choose to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, I have the right to defend myself and I will, and they know it and should expect it, there should be no doubt in their mind what they will get. And at the same time, I mind my own business because I expect my neighbor will protect himself and his own with deadly force.

Finally, what should we do with someone that commits a crime with a firearm. Simple. Execute them. Period. Those that use a firearm in a crime not only are saying they will murder to commit the crime but a side effect of the carrying of the firearm is that it undermines people's conviction of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
You won't find a pattern in the data comparing states with training requirements and those that don't that support that opinion (and I'm a huge training advocate). Therefore the opinion that there would be a public safety benefit from mandatory training for carry isn't based on the comparative data between states that do and don't require this.
Click to expand...


While true.... I'll offer a counter, but supporting, point.

If you look at AZ, that had some level of training/demonstration requirement for their CCP, when they went to Constitutional Carry, no meaningful difference in public safety has occurred either way.



I too am a proponent of training.... even if it is only competence training.
 
Im with most of you probably even more extreme.

I think people should be able to drive drunk, until they hurt someone they havent done any harm

i think people should be able to leave guns out for kids, and should be punished if the kids hurt someone.

people should not be required to wear seatbelts.

restaurants should be able to serve food in a dirty fashion and not be punished until someone gets sick

airlines should be able to do whatever level of maintenance they feel comfortable with

etc

The reality is that is not how most people think. Virtually all regulations are to fix something that happened even if that event is statistically rare. People react disproportionately to rare tragic events. Thats how virtually all laws are made.
 
The reality is that is not how most people think. Virtually all regulations are to fix something that happened even if that event is statistically rare. People react disproportionately to rare tragic events. Thats how virtually all laws are made.
Click to expand...
Surely. But equally surely, since you understand that concept well, you wouldn't be advocating FOR that sort of irrational action.

Would you?
 
Somehow, the Second Amendment should be worded completely unambiguously (I think it is now, but libs will twist any meaning they can) and protected in such a way that we do not have to go through all this over and over every time some liberal moron gets in the White House or some radical Supreme Court justice wants to tip the balance.
 
Im with most of you probably even more extreme.

I think people should be able to drive drunk, until they hurt someone they havent done any harm

i think people should be able to leave guns out for kids, and should be punished if the kids hurt someone.

people should not be required to wear seatbelts.

restaurants should be able to serve food in a dirty fashion and not be punished until someone gets sick

airlines should be able to do whatever level of maintenance they feel comfortable with

etc
Click to expand...

You have laid out some of the more extreme examples but yes, I believe the system better served the people when it required some sort of individual claim of injury rather than the endless statutes resulting from the "there ought to be a law" mentality that we embrace today. It's called personal responsibility and accountability, something we are very short of today.
 
Surely. But equally surely, since you understand that concept well, you wouldn't be advocating FOR that sort of irrational action.

Would you?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt advocate for the regulation, but I also understand why the people want it so I wont necessarily oppose it either.

I wont call my friends who are strongly anti gun stupid, irrational etc.

I donate to the NRA so I suppose in some sense I am opposing the regulation.
 
I wouldnt advocate for the regulation, but I also understand why the people want it so I wont necessarily oppose it either.
Click to expand...
I understand why anti-gun folks (and "average" non-gun-owning folks) WANT things, too. But I will oppose their wishes where they impact our RKBA in any way.

Why would you not?
It seems you agree with me that allowing people to carry firearms whether or not they have proof of some training is not now producing a negative impact on society. That there are no trends (and very, very few even identifiable isolated incidents at all) that would suggest that required training would lower "gun violence" or "gun accident" rates. Correct?

So then, why would you accept the will of LESS informed people to put restrictions on you/us that you understand to be pointless at best, and impositions and stumbling blocks in any case?

I wont call my friends who are strongly anti gun stupid, irrational etc.
Click to expand...
If you can't point out that a friend is not thinking about an issue rationally, and help him or her see the facts and logic which he or she needs to see in order to understand the issue better, why not?
 
I am sorry if this is kind of long winded but my reasons for NOT supporting ANY future firearms restrictions of any kid are simple. They go beyond this story but this is a huge part of it.

Several years ago, I had moved. About a year after the move I walked into my LGS and purchased a gun. I showed the owner (I know him pretty well) my CC permit. He called it into BCI and I was cleared for the purchase without a background check. About an hour later, I received a call from the clerk apologetically informing me that HE had just noticed that my CC permit had expired and that I would have to come back in for a background check. It hadn't JUST expired, it had been expired for over a year. In spite of this BCI cleared the purchase. Since the move, I had not informed BCI of my new address and completely forgot to renew my CC permit. Stupid, completely my fault and not excusable. What is even MORE inexcusable is that BCI failed in their due diligence.

I spoke at length with the clerk about this. He is an older gentleman in his 70s and has been selling guns since his mid 20's. He informed me that this is not an uncommon problem. Not only are errors made but there are many times when background checks are simply not returned on time and people make purchases after waiting the allotted 3 or 5 days (I can't remember what it is). Even worse, nearly 100,000 FRAUDULENT applications are submitted to BCI each year and, in any given year, charges are brought against less than a few dozen of these people. During the year in question, less than 1 dozen had been actually prosecuted and even fewer saw any kind of fine or jail time.

I have to ask... Even if folks do believe in additional gun laws and restrictions, what is the point if the existing laws are being so poorly enforced? What is the point in bothering with more background checks when the people involved in doing it now are so incompetent? What is the point when nearly every mass shooter over the last few years has actually passed a background check?
 
I'll say no just to satisfy your poll. Is it infringed, of course it is. The fact that it is there has kept a certain balance in the infringement of the RKBA. If it weren't there we would be like Australia or the UK or possibly worse. I look at it as a tool to get to a common ground. To me it's very ambiguous and open to interpretation. I know many here see it differently but the fact is it was grievously infringed in 1934 and won't be reversed. I don't know any of our constitutional rights that haven't been infringed in some way. So let's just say infringement is a part of our way of life because it is.

So that gets us to what infringements are we willing to accept? Do we have a say in it? Of course we do and the reason we do is because 2A is there and always will be. You say you want more infringement and I say we have enough. Maybe you might have to accept my position as distasteful as that may be or maybe I might have to give up some more of my rights to abide by some new state or federal law.

10A plays an important part here as many states and the SC see 2A as ambiguous and interpret it however they see fit. That isn't going to change anytime soon and we are all going to live with it or spend some time in jail. So whether you think 2A should be infringed or not is pretty much a mute point. The real question is how much infringement you get to enjoy. The best position to take (for me anyway) is it has been infringed enough and draw a hard line against anymore of it.

I wasn't around in 1934 so I couldn't vote. I can vote now and I say no more.
 
Last edited:
The second amendment shall not be infringed. To me this means the following.

Any law that requires permission (an infringement) from the police to buy a firearm (NJ) should be thrown out.

Any law that requires "character references" (an infringement) in order to buy a firearm (NY & NJ) should be thrown out.

Any law that requires waiting periods and/or 'firearm ID cards' (an infringement), in order to buy a firearm (NJ,NY,MD,MA,IL,CA,RI,CT and HI) should be thrown out.

Any law that requires a $200 stamp, fingerprinting and long waiting periods (an infringement) in order to buy a firearm should be thrown out.

Any law that requires a background check (an infringement) in order to buy a firearm should be thrown out.

Any law that requires special permission from the police or state (an infringement) in order to carry a firearm should be thrown out.

The second amendment is a right, a written guarantee, for ALL Americans to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a privilege like a driver's license that is subject to the whims of the state or of the political process.

Shall not be infringed means that.

Shall Not Be Infringed.
.
 
I understand why anti-gun folks (and "average" non-gun-owning folks) WANT things, too. But I will oppose their wishes where they impact our RKBA in any way.

Why would you not?
It seems you agree with me that allowing people to carry firearms whether or not they have proof of some training is not now producing a negative impact on society. That there are no trends (and very, very few even identifiable isolated incidents at all) that would suggest that required training would lower "gun violence" or "gun accident" rates. Correct?

So then, why would you accept the will of LESS informed people to put restrictions on you/us that you understand to be pointless at best, and impositions and stumbling blocks in any case?

Quote:
I wont call my friends who are strongly anti gun stupid, irrational etc.
If you can't point out that a friend is not thinking about an issue rationally, and help him or her see the facts and logic which he or she needs to see in order to understand the issue better, why not?
Click to expand...


Here are the things I advocate:

legalizing drugs, release all the non violent drug abusers

much stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with guns

much stiffer penalties for people that let their kids have access to guns who then shoot themselves or others

jailing of felons who try to buy guns but fail the NICS check

NICS availability for those selling guns privately and vigorous prosecution for gun sales to those not authorized to own guns. No mandatory background checks, but threat of jail to law abiding citizens who sell guns to felons would be enough to drive participation.


the problem is the pro gunners wont suggest *anything* so the anti gunners are suggesting all kinds of useless things.

The #1 problem is black on black murders with or without guns (but mostly with guns).
 
A fine civil discussion. Thank you! Even the Nom de Forum attempted (he tries his best :D) joust:

Red Wind I nominate your post for this year's most outstanding example of melodramatic prose used by a THR member to disguise demagoguery intended to generate condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you, and to declare willingness to be a martyr in defense of the RKBA. Why not be more direct and just ask for posts condemning anyone who disagrees with any firearm law you consider infringement of the 2A? I voted yes in your poll but of course that does not mean we agree on what constitutes infringement.
Click to expand...

I love melodrama! Watched, The Guiding Light (1952-2009) from beginning to end.

And Sir Gilligan! I made the same mistake on my own poll! :what: Fools rush in! Where angels,etc.! :eek:

Dang it, I clicked the wrong button! Can you change a vote???
Whatever.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Schwing said:
I have to ask... Even if folks do believe in additional gun laws and restrictions, what is the point if the existing laws are being so poorly enforced? What is the point in bothering with more background checks when the people involved in doing it now are so incompetent? What is the point when nearly every mass shooter over the last few years has actually passed a background check?
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment debate has been kept intentionally superficial in an effort to sway soccer moms. Contemptible leftists advance their agenda slowly behind a deceptive veil. The endgame to their campaign is domestic disarmament, collecting and destroying guns from their civilian populations under the pretext of enhancing public safety and stopping crime.

Soccer moms do not comprehend that they are being used (and conservatives fear they will frighten them by discussing the real issue). Leftist intellectuals, however, understand the real issue – an armed citizenry stands immediately athwart the door leading to their paradise of democratic socialism.

This, comrade, is how every experiment in Marxism goes.
 
The idea that any right is completely without restriction is about as crazy as they come.

Like I said in another post earlier this week, I want a Minuteman Nuclear missile. I have a bat poop crazy, anti-government, anti-social neighbor of whom I'm terrified, and the only way to be sure he won't hurt my family is for him to know that I'll nuke his house if he does. And the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to be as well armed as our military and to use the most effective means of self defense available. (Those are all paraphrases from recent posts from members here.) So, should I start digging my silo? I'm already working on my "Doomsday Device" (a la Dr. Strangelove.)

You guys are insane.
 
You know, come to think of it....

If they added Bio & Chem warfare agents to the NFA list...

I mean, I can pass a background check and, if I skip a car loan payment I can afford the $200 tax stamp, from there it's a simple matter of growing anthrax in my basement...


that would be easier to store and deploy than a big old missile...cheaper too...

Nobody would mess me with then. And because the US Military has it, I should have it.

This is a GREAT idea! Who wants me to move into their neighborhood!?
 
The Alaskan said:
The idea that any right is completely without restriction is about as crazy as they come.

Like I said in another post earlier this week, I want a Minuteman Nuclear missile. I have a bat poop crazy, anti-government, anti-social neighbor of whom I'm terrified, and the only way to be sure he won't hurt my family is for him to know that I'll nuke his house if he does. And the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to be as well armed as our military and to use the most effective means of self defense available. (Those are all paraphrases from recent posts from members here.) So, should I start digging my silo? I'm already working on my "Doomsday Device" (a la Dr. Strangelove.)

You guys are insane.
Click to expand...
well seeing as the cost for the minuteman missle is on the order of $7Mil. a pop, not counting infrastructure.....i dont see that being an issue any time soon.

and seeing as we dont live in the bond universe, we dont really have to worry about millionaire evil-dooers firing missles out of their secret volcano lair.
 
You know, come to think of it....

If they added Bio & Chem warfare agents to the NFA list...

I mean, I can pass a background check and, if I skip a car loan payment I can afford the $200 tax stamp, from there it's a simple matter of growing anthrax in my basement...


that would be easier to store and deploy than a big old missile...cheaper too...

Nobody would mess me with then. And because the US Military has it, I should have it.

This is a GREAT idea! Who wants me to move into their neighborhood!?
Click to expand...
I used to do some contract work which included working with the National Training Center and other maneuver training centers. In the course of that, I had to act as a terrorist and come up with realistic plans -- for example, to make a chemical attack, I had to have a formula vetted by the Chemical Center AND locate the ingredients locally.

So with that background, I assure you a person can make "nerve gas" with locally available chemicals and can also make the deadliest biological agents in his kitchen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
2nd Amendment vs 1st Amendment Strength, discuss...
Replies
10
Views
633
Graystar
G
U
  • Locked
One battle won, now we need to remove those who voted to infringe upon the 2nd Amd
Replies
2
Views
339
usmarine0352_2005
U
J
  • Locked
USA Today 2nd Amendment
Replies
24
Views
1K
Justin
Justin
Barry the Bear
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Scope
Replies
2
Views
344
Barry the Bear
Barry the Bear
U
  • Locked
Is the tide turning against 2nd Amendment rights?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top