PDA

View Full Version : What is your stance on the 2nd Amendment. Do you think we need some gun control?



Dantheman
10-01-2012, 07:47 PM
I have always had mixed feelings on gun control. I am a gun owner and user, but at the same time its hard in todays world to be public about your stance on guns. How do some of you guys explain your views when asked by others?

MrBounty1986
10-01-2012, 08:20 PM
If I feel the need to protect myself I must feel that way for some reason. Maybe I turned on the tv or read the paper or something else that informed me of yet ANOTHER shooting that could/ may have been prevented if someone had a concealed carry weapon on them. I think all 50 states should be shall issue states based on the fact that all gun control laws are based on the ability of the government(or your local entity) to perform a proper background check/mental health evaluation. Basically if you have shown in the past or currently show signs of any reason why you should not own a gun, then you shouldn't get one. But don't make it hard on every law abiding citizen that just wants to protect themselves and family. Who else will? Law enforcement? Not that I scoff at Leo's but lets be honest. If you're reading this you already know that realistically, Leo's will only be able to conduct an investigation on what happened, not prevent it if they're called. Seconds for me to draw my xdm40 and take care of business vs. a few to several minutes it takes for Leo's to arrive. Not their fault it takes five minutes to get five minutes from where they are to you. They can't be everywhere and they don't have ESP so until they arrive my best chance is my weapon of choice, xdm40, not my iphone4.

GlassWolf
10-01-2012, 08:24 PM
There's a reason this country has never been invaded successfully by a foreign power. We're armed, and we are willing to fight to keep it that way.
I prefer to be able to protect myself, and my family in any way necessary from harm. Part of that is being well educated in the use of firearms.
People who are off their rockers are going to bring hard to others in any way they can. Having a gun doesn't make a difference for them, but it does for their victims.
Take guns from law abiding citizens, and only the criminals will have them.

Jared25
10-01-2012, 09:59 PM
Before we make any decisions on gun laws I think we need more data. Why don't cops get information on how the criminal got the gun and report it to a FBI data base. Of course some will talk and some won't but I think it is in all gun owners interest to find out how criminals are getting their guns in the first place and have actual data pointing to a specific problem.

frugalgunsmith
10-01-2012, 10:31 PM
I think that the 2nd amendment,is all the gun control,law abiding citizens whom are not mentally challenged need.

kodiak99
10-01-2012, 11:37 PM
I have always had mixed feelings on gun control. I am a gun owner and user, but at the same time its hard in todays world to be public about your stance on guns. How do some of you guys explain your views when asked by others?

My stance on the 2nd Amendment is that the founding fathers should never have put a qualifier(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ) in the amendment. The 1st amendment didn't need one. We could have saved ourselves from a lot of worthless gun laws over the years had they not felt the need to justify the right to bear arms.

No I don't think that we need any gun control at all. Last time that I checked, it has always been illegal to commit murder in these various United States, yet murderers still do it. What has any gun law done to change this fact. You are either going to follow the law and not commit murder or you are not. Once you decide to break that law, any further restrictions on your behavior are merely academic. Stricter enforcement and punishment of the guilty is all that is needed here not more worthless gun laws that only punish those that are not inclined to break laws in the first place.

As for your last question, I explain my views when asked as calmly and rationally as I can. At the same time I realize that I am sometimes up against the irrational fear based position, that I will never be able to convince rationally. Life is too short to suffer fools, and so I part ways with them at the first opportunity. But for those on the fence, my best explanation to them is to take them out shooting and fight their ignorance with education. More often than not this approach works best.

...Shall Not Be Infringed
10-01-2012, 11:40 PM
If you are a convicted felon or have been committed to a mental institution, guns should be a no go. Other than that, you should have the right to purchase, own, and carry(Open or concealed, even though the former causes far more problems than it solves, IMHO.) at will.
"Machine guns"(Full-Auto/Burst Fire) should not be restricted. Nor should suppressors, SBR's or SBS's.
No ten round magazine limit, no fixed mags, no bullet buttons, no ban on fitties, no waiting period.

FREEDOM! What a fracking concept!

GlassWolf
10-01-2012, 11:52 PM
If you are a convicted felon or have been committed to a mental institution, guns should be a no go. Other than that, you should have the right to purchase, own, and carry(Open or concealed, even though the former causes far more problems than it solves, IMHO.) at will.
"Machine guns"(Full-Auto/Burst Fire) should not be restricted. Nor should suppressors, SBR's or SBS's.
No ten round magazine limit, no fixed mags, no bullet buttons, no ban on fitties, no waiting period.

FREEDOM! What a fracking concept!

Having grown up around hospitals all of my life (diabetic since age 3) and having family who work in the medical profession, I have to question "any instance of mental institution admission" as a grounds for denial. There are plenty of reasons people are commited short term and long, to the care of a psychiatrist that would in no way make them a danger to themselves or others if they possess a firearm. This is something that should, perhaps, require a release or OK from a physician, but unlike a felony conviction, should not be an instant bar from teh right to own a firearm.

and no, I don't have such history, but just the idea of such laws would prevented a person such as myself from even considering seeking any form of help from things like short term depression when dealing with things like organ failure and long term hospitalizations or various disabilities, whre therapy could be very advantageous. This sort of law could also automatically prohibit any soldier returning from active duty in a hostile environment from seeking any therapy to cope with his experiences, for fear of denial of basic rights as a result of his medical record.

...Shall Not Be Infringed
10-02-2012, 12:07 AM
Having grown up around hospitals all of my life (diabetic since age 3) and having family who work in the medical profession, I have to question "any instance of mental institution admission" as a grounds for denial. There are plenty of reasons people are commited short term and long, to the care of a psychiatrist that would in no way make them a danger to themselves or others if they possess a firearm. This is something that should, perhaps, require a release or OK from a physician, but unlike a felony conviction, should not be an instant bar from teh right to own a firearm.

and no, I don't have such history, but just the idea of such laws would prevented a person such as myself from even considering seeking any form of help from things like short term depression when dealing with things like organ failure and long term hospitalizations or various disabilities, whre therapy could be very advantageous. This sort of law could also automatically prohibit any soldier returning from active duty in a hostile environment from seeking any therapy to cope with his experiences, for fear of denial of basic rights as a result of his medical record.

Of course, the details would have to be worked out. By my saying "committed to a mental institution" I basically meant "crazies". I wasn't implying that it should be an instant barring. A release form system or something should be put in place, but even that is heading down a slippery slope as far as an individual deciding what rights apply to you. Basically if you have an incurable mental illness such as schizophrenia etc. etc.

Iwap_Evile
10-02-2012, 12:45 AM
The obvious problem with gun control laws is that they only affect law abiding citizens not criminals

silverbulletzx3
10-02-2012, 02:47 AM
The obvious problem with gun control laws is that they only affect law abiding citizens not criminals

Exactly, law abiding citizens will do exactly that...abide by the law. Look at Britain and Australia. Look at Chicago and New York City. Take the guns away, violent crime skyrockets. The only ones left with a gun are the bad guys. There is a reason why mass shootings most commonly happen in "gun free zones". Gun free zones is code word for "shooting fish in a barrel" to a bad guy.

When seconds count, I will have my gun to defend myself over the 20 minute avg response time for law enforcement to come...meanwhile hoping for the best. Like one of my favorite shirts.

Choose one:
[ ] Victim
[X] Gun Owner

midnight75
10-03-2012, 01:19 PM
I feel that the only gun control that needs to be out there is being able to hit what you aim at. We as citizens should be able to own any firearm that we want to. There are already rules against using the guns in an inapropriate mannor, so why do we need anything else? I feel that people today are just rule happy and trying to control everyone else to do the same thing that they do. I thought that this country was founded on the principle that you could live the way that you wanted to live as long as you weren't hurting anyone else in the process. I think that is what we need to get back to. Just do your thing and leave me alone.

heavymetalbbq
10-03-2012, 08:20 PM
Before we make any decisions on gun laws I think we need more data. Why don't cops get information on how the criminal got the gun and report it to a FBI data base. Of course some will talk and some won't but I think it is in all gun owners interest to find out how criminals are getting their guns in the first place and have actual data pointing to a specific problem.

I just asked this question to a fellow co-worker today when watching the news. A convicted felon out of prison shot and killed 2 cops with a handgun of his own. People actually buy these guns for them or I suppose they steal them.

1911GunSlinger
10-04-2012, 05:38 PM
I dont think we need gun control. What for?? I mean common. Guns don't kill people, people seeking to do evil things kill people!!!

CTgunguy
10-05-2012, 12:26 PM
Frugal gunsmith said it best, I totally agree

SBD
10-08-2012, 12:10 PM
If you are a convicted felon or have been committed to a mental institution, guns should be a no go. Other than that, you should have the right to purchase, own, and carry(Open or concealed, even though the former causes far more problems than it solves, IMHO.) at will.
"Machine guns"(Full-Auto/Burst Fire) should not be restricted. Nor should suppressors, SBR's or SBS's.
No ten round magazine limit, no fixed mags, no bullet buttons, no ban on fitties, no waiting period.

FREEDOM! What a fracking concept!

Explain please?

GlassWolf
10-08-2012, 01:09 PM
Explain please?

Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm in the United States.

SBD
10-08-2012, 05:06 PM
Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm in the United States.

Understood - but he said "guns should be a no go", I was looking for more of an explanation why he thinks that.

GlassWolf
10-09-2012, 07:00 AM
Understood - but he said "guns should be a no go", I was looking for more of an explanation why he thinks that.

Granted I'm not him, but I personally feel that firearms should be banned from felons convicted of crimes of violence specifically. I don't think something like tax evasion should prevent you from the right to own a gun. The propensity for violence however, should. The problem here, yet again, is that legislating this sort of law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All this type of law does, is add another charge to the list when a criminal is caught with a firearm, and subsequently charged, thereby giving the legal system more leverage to barter for a plea agreement by offering to drop "lesser charges" in turn for a settlement.

SBD
10-09-2012, 07:28 AM
Granted I'm not him, but I personally feel that firearms should be banned from felons convicted of crimes of violence specifically. I don't think something like tax evasion should prevent you from the right to own a gun. The propensity for violence however, should. The problem here, yet again, is that legislating this sort of law does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All this type of law does, is add another charge to the list when a criminal is caught with a firearm, and subsequently charged, thereby giving the legal system more leverage to barter for a plea agreement by offering to drop "lesser charges" in turn for a settlement.

So why do you feel that firearms should be banned from convicted felons? You said thats what you feel, but the rest of your statement seemed to contradict that (and is pretty much how I feel)

Gun Control from the beginning is typically supported based on the idea the the gun is bad. You can give an otherwise good citizen a gun, and now they have the propensity to commit a criminal act. Keeping guns out of most people's hands is what supporters of gun control believe will make us safer.

Most of us here don't believe the gun is the problem. Its more the programming - a criminal will be a criminal regardless of what objects he has.
So....with convicted felons - I don't understand how some people think that gun control in that sense is ok. So they are ok to be out of prison - just not ok to own a gun?
If there is suspicion that they are still violent/deranged/dangerous to society, why are they out of prison?

I agree that there are some convicts out on the streets that shouldn't have a gun - however I also don't believe those convicts should be out on the streets. So....its kinda coming full circle, because there are a few convicts that might be the problem, lets blanket the entire situation be not allowing them to own guns. The same can be said for society. I'm sure there are a number of violent/mentally incapable individuals that are not labeled such in the NCIS - does that mean we don't let ANYONE have a gun because those people might get them?

Bottom line I suppose, is if a convict can't be trusted with a gun, I sure as hell don't trust them either way.

GlassWolf
10-09-2012, 12:54 PM
In short, like many laws on the books today, a ban on violent felons possessing a handgun gives the legal system leverage when they are arrested, for whatever reason.. be it being picked up dealing drugs, or in the process of an assault, or after the fact.. If they are caught with a gun, it's one more charge in the court system that can be used to leverage a plea deal and put them away without a lengthy and costly court trial procedure.

You could argue that doing this leads to the imprisonment of the not guilty individuals who can't afford decent representation, but I also blame that on the overall structure of our legal system today, among other things.

blindshooter
10-09-2012, 06:29 PM
I'm a strong believer in the 2nd amendment but only when it comes to guns. Some ppl think that ''the right to bare arms'' means whatever weaponary they want e.g napalm. Napalm is a weapon but it should only be used by the U.S Military however we know there's nut jobs out there who think they're intitled to it. I do however think everyone once they turn eighteen should own a gun! guns are for our protection in case something happens just like a fire extinguisher we all should own one incase something happens do we want something to happen such as a fire or home invasion no but we should have the proper equipment incase it does. I'd rather have a gun and never use it than need it and not have it!

SBD
10-09-2012, 10:21 PM
In short, like many laws on the books today, a ban on violent felons possessing a handgun gives the legal system leverage when they are arrested, for whatever reason.. be it being picked up dealing drugs, or in the process of an assault, or after the fact.. If they are caught with a gun, it's one more charge in the court system that can be used to leverage a plea deal and put them away without a lengthy and costly court trial procedure.

You could argue that doing this leads to the imprisonment of the not guilty individuals who can't afford decent representation, but I also blame that on the overall structure of our legal system today, among other things.

That same argument can be made (actually stronger) for non convicts. I've heard it from plenty of liberals.
Its a lot easier to get charges through on someone who has a criminal history, opposed to someone who doesn't.

GlassWolf
10-09-2012, 10:23 PM
The problem is, if someone has already shown a propensity toward violence, letting them legally possess a firearm isn't a good omen.

SBD
10-09-2012, 10:34 PM
Well now we are back to square one.

The argument against gun control is that if we implement gun control, only the criminals will have guns. So...we argue (and I agree) that it doesn't work.
How is this any different?

If we could prove that ex con's are more likely to engage in violence than the general population, would that be a reasonable argument to enfore gun control?

On the same note, what if we could prove that people that live in an urban or city setting are more likely to engage in violence than those in rural areas...do we enact gun control there?

The argument is the same - there are bad people in the world, thankfully they are vastly outnumbered by good people.

GlassWolf
10-10-2012, 08:15 AM
It's called liability in a litigious society.

Iwap_Evile
10-12-2012, 08:32 PM
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars

Gunnr
10-25-2012, 11:49 AM
Hey guys, I been thinking and there are a lot of criminals that are "white collar" types and were never violent or physically hurtful to others. Yet if they are convicted of a feloney they cant posess a fire arm. BUT in such cases even though its costly and time consuming they still have a right to go before a judge and plead their case to have their record expunged for the purpose of protection in which case after the judge agrees that this person is not a violent human and has paid their dept to society they may then be given the right to own a gun. If a person takes the proper steps time and money to plead his or her case do you think they deserve the chance to prove they are now a law abiding citizen? Just a thought....

GlassWolf
10-25-2012, 05:07 PM
Yes, because I have a friend to whom this has happened. When he was 16 or 17, he used another person's credit card to run up a bill buying some stuff and got caught. (My own sister was caught doing this with her roommate's card in college.. her "rebellious streak" before she went on to get her PhD in Phys Therapy) Now here's the kicker. The owner of the card turned my friend into the Secret Service for "mail fraud) (items were sent to his house) as well as illegal use of the card, which made it a Federal case, and he was tried as an adult, and convicted. He's now in his 40s, and has a wife and kids, and it seems like a lifetime ago. He did at one point, have his record expunged as you'd mentioned. He's now a productive, middle class employee for a big company, and lives his life as a normal citizen. In his case, the record was wipred so he could get a job without "felon" being on the resume and application. I do believe this action is a reasonable one.

MP Gunther
10-25-2012, 07:30 PM
I agree Glasswolf! I don't believe the violent "criminally minded" have less propensity to commit crimes when released, probably more so

Gunnr
10-27-2012, 11:38 AM
Yes, because I have a friend to whom this has happened. When he was 16 or 17, he used another person's credit card to run up a bill buying some stuff and got caught. (My own sister was caught doing this with her roommate's card in college.. her "rebellious streak" before she went on to get her PhD in Phys Therapy) Now here's the kicker. The owner of the card turned my friend into the Secret Service for "mail fraud) (items were sent to his house) as well as illegal use of the card, which made it a Federal case, and he was tried as an adult, and convicted. He's now in his 40s, and has a wife and kids, and it seems like a lifetime ago. He did at one point, have his record expunged as you'd mentioned. He's now a productive, middle class employee for a big company, and lives his life as a normal citizen. In his case, the record was wipred so he could get a job without "felon" being on the resume and application. I do believe this action is a reasonable one.

I totally agree bro. Im trying to get others opinions about it like yours. We cant blanket all felonies as the same type crime. Self protection is all too important to let someone lose over a bad choice as a young goof ball. As people grow up and learn (it takes some of us longer) they should be given the chance to prove themselves.

jerry48
11-04-2012, 07:23 PM
just about 100 years ago,we in america pretty much took off our guns and hung them on the wall.not foregoing people out west where there was still maybe a need,but with leo being pretty much established we quit carrying. back to the future.we have gone back to carrying guns.except now we not only have the perverts out there,why??because the government decided killing the killers was inhumane.but we now have to be armed against an out of control police force who have openly declared war on law abiding citizens.we are now considered the terrorists.white or conservative(any color) like ron paul,followers of Jesus Christ,have more than a weeks supply of food or more than 2 boxes of ammo and worst of all believe in our Constitution and bill of rights.we are heading for a shooting war.in fact it could start this tues the 6th of nov 2012 they also have managed to isolate most of our troops deployed all over the world,so they won't be able to help us.carter, reagan,bush sr, clinton(both), bush jr ,and now either obama or romney.both of which are black widow spiders.no pun intended.they have been building up to this at least since the end of ww2.they also think it might be a walk in the park.with nato and possibly chinese it could be.but with a lot of viet nam vets still able to operate tanks planes and all military weapons it just might not go as easy as these lunatics think.they will false flag,kill internet,tv phones etc as much as possible to keep us in the dark.but we are not afgans or iraq's we are americans.we used to be the most courageous bunch of patriots i have had the privilege to live out my life with.but no more.there are others who love freedom like the Israelies australians canadians etc.but britain and the other two mentioned, already let their guns be stolen.in these same hundred years we watched germany twice cause the death of literally millions,pol pot in cambodia,stalin in russia idi amin in uganda.they all first disarmed the people and then wholesale murdered somewhere around 150 million humans.i think its probably more like 300 million but whos counting.an old saying goes like this.---first they came for the Jews and i said nothing,then they came for the old,the maimed the mentally ill ,homosexuals and i said nothing.then they came for all the dissidents who objected.again i said nothing----THEN THEY CAME FOR ME and there was no one left to say anything too.lock & load patiots its going to be a wild ride

norahc
11-04-2012, 07:36 PM
My stance is pretty simple to explain..."What part of 'shall not be infringed' is difficult to understand?"

As far as the laws and gun control go, how about we stop trying to legislate an inanimate object and start legislating the people using them? Or better yet, hold them responsible for their actions.

blindshooter
11-07-2012, 10:37 AM
I love the 2nd amendment! The only thing that needs to change is people complaining about it. If they don't like the fact that we americans are allowed to own guns then they need to get out of our country. Last I checked we don't stop people from leaveing this country just comeing in.

Choirboy
01-27-2013, 03:12 PM
1-I have respect for Cops, but they can't be there fast enough. For the most part they are the clean up crew.
2-gun laws only affect law abiding people, by definition criminals do not care about laws.
3-when the SHTF let's see if the gun grabbers want me to protect them. I will, that's the reason I have guns. To protect those I love and those that are either to weak or stupid to protect themselves.

Grasshopper
02-12-2013, 11:48 PM
The obvious problem with gun control laws is that they only affect law abiding citizens not criminals
This is the smartest comment in the whole thread. You are 100% right sir!

Pedro3101
02-19-2013, 07:16 AM
My stance is look at enforcing the current laws before introducing new ones. As far as the 2A is concerned no compromise no surrender.

James
03-25-2013, 08:12 PM
I will say most of the gun laws they want to pass are already in to law and the only thing they are doing is wasting our tax money. I feel the gun laws should not be bothered with and leave us law abiding citizens alone so we can protect our selves. That is the I feel about it.

BigBadAl
04-09-2013, 10:52 PM
Florida had a problem. There were too many criminals who took whatever they wanted whereever they wanted. It was the same problem that many other states were having. Some states decided that guns were the problem so they passed laws to ban guns for everybody. The law abiding citizens no longer had guns but the criminals being criminals never relinguished their guns. So all the ban did was make honest citizens easier victims and criminals felt much safer in their endeavors. Florida took a different approach. They let their law abiding citizens have the opportunity to protect themselves. After a background check to prove their worthiness they were allowed to carry a concealed weapon. What was the criminal response? They began sueing the people who they attacked for defending themselves. So Florida passed a Stand Your Ground Law. What has been the outcome? The crime rate in Florida has plunged. No not everyone in Florida "packs heat" but enough do that the criminals no longer feel that they can go about their criminal endeavors with impunity. Are there some drawbacks to the Stand Your Ground Laws? No, not really but there are some defense lawyers who incorrectly try to use it to cover their clients criminal actions. Actions that have nothing to do with Stand Your Ground legislation.These are the examples that antigun proponents like to cite. What they do not like to cite is that these lawyers are seldom successful in applying this law for their client.
We are now in the midst of a huge gun debate in this country. Each side is positive that they are right. Each side has certain points which are valid. The problem is that this is considered a political problem when in fact it is a social problem. It will never be solved unless the politics are removed. I am a democrat and most people would label me as a liberal. To my republican friends I would like to assure them that there are many democrats like me who staunchly believe in the second amendment. We do not want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. On the other hand there are many republicans who realize that some changes could be made for the good when it comes to ownership of guns. The extremists on each side get all the publicity. If you do not acknowledge extremism in your party then you are definitely part of the problem. The lobbying groups from both sides spread lies and misinformation in order to promote their agenda. It is time to take politics out of this equation and let us move forward to a better America.

Robomick
04-10-2013, 10:52 AM
We are now in the midst of a huge gun debate in this country. Each side is positive that they are right. Each side has certain points which are valid. The problem is that this is considered a political problem when in fact it is a social problem. It will never be solved unless the politics are removed. I am a democrat and most people would label me as a liberal. To my republican friends I would like to assure them that there are many democrats like me who staunchly believe in the second amendment. We do not want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. On the other hand there are many republicans who realize that some changes could be made for the good when it comes to ownership of guns. The extremists on each side get all the publicity. If you do not acknowledge extremism in your party then you are definitely part of the problem. The lobbying groups from both sides spread lies and misinformation in order to promote their agenda. It is time to take politics out of this equation and let us move forward to a better America.

Nice post.

The problem with the idea of "common sense approach" is while it sounds good, is it constitutional?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where does it say the Government has a right to pick and choose what I can or cannot own or the number of rounds in such weapon (shall not be infringed). We hear the politicians say they're not taking away your right to hunt yet the isn't what the 2nd Amendment is saying, the word "hunt" doesn't exist.

I can't carry a gun in Chicago yet is clearly states that I should be allowed (the right to bear is infringed). They don't want me to buy an AR (hate that term) rifle yet it states I can (right to keep is infringed).

There are parts of the constitution that many people don't like. Just because something "seems" right doesn't make it constitutional. We live by this document, the good of the document and also that bad of the document.

When I read the document it reads to me that I should be allowed to purchase any gun that our Government can purchase. ANY GUN. I'm glad the NRA has a no exception rules on gun control. Where am I wrong?

BigBadAl
04-11-2013, 06:02 PM
Thank you for acknowledging my post. It is usually impossible for me to post on most sites because my "posts" do not pass the censorship czars who run the sights. This happens on both the left and the right. The right to bear arms is indeed protected by the second amendment but that does not mean everybody has that right. In a society some people relinquish their rights to certain freedoms. If I interpret your post correctly you feel that it is improper to have convicted felons own and carry firearms, not because you feel it is a good idea, but because the way the constitution is worded. I answer you in this way. By this logic a person who is in prison should have the right to bear arms while in prison. When a person breaks the law he relinguishes certain rights. In many cases his personal freedom is one of them hence incarceration. This is the same with gun ownership. Should all felons be banned from gun ownership? No of course not. Nonviolent felons pose no threat to society in a violent way. However the solution is simple. At time of sentencing it should be decreed if future ownership of firearms is allowed. It would not necessarily be only acts commited with firearms either. If you beat your neighbor or domestic partner to near death with a baseball bat for instance your penalty could very well include firearm restrictions. The important thing to remember here is that a court of law must impose this restriction. each case decided on its own merits. As to the rest of your post--magazine size, type of firearm, where you can carry (Chicago, DC, no carry zones etc.) are all protected by the second amendment but are abused by local laws that should be deemed unenforceable. I have a lot more opinions on the gun issue but sadly no one wants to hear them from either side.

Robomick
04-12-2013, 06:32 AM
Thank you for acknowledging my post.

No, thank you for making the post. I wish more people would participate on this site because we can learn a lot from each other and see things in a different light that we may not have thought of before.


By this logic a person who is in prison should have the right to bear arms while in prison.

Hmm.. Interesting thought. I would say no for this reason. You have the right to bear arms yes. But you do not have the right to bear arms in my house if I ask you not to. The state/Fed prison does not allow you to bear arms would depend on if you consider a prison public or private property? I consider it private thus no guns.


This is the same with gun ownership. Should all felons be banned from gun ownership? No of course not. Nonviolent felons pose no threat to society in a violent way. However the solution is simple. At time of sentencing it should be decreed if future ownership of firearms is allowed. It would not necessarily be only acts commited with firearms either. If you beat your neighbor or domestic partner to near death with a baseball bat for instance your penalty could very well include firearm restrictions. The important thing to remember here is that a court of law must impose this restriction. each case decided on its own merits.

I agree. A non Violent felon should not have their rights taken away. I like your idea of the courts deciding.


I have a lot more opinions on the gun issue but sadly no one wants to hear them from either side.

I do. Isn't this the reason why a place like this exists? If we cannot talk openly about gun issues (right or wrong) then what's the point of "weapons education" IMO. I also hope this is not one of those sites you would consider a censorship czar.

flintlock62
05-13-2014, 03:26 PM
The obvious problem with gun control laws is that they only affect law abiding citizens not criminals

That's a fact. Criminals don't care about laws, or they wouldn't break them in the first place.

SpringOWeiler
05-13-2014, 10:47 PM
Not worth talking about or bringing it up. People who question it don't want rational or reason. They want to argue and look all self righteous in front of their friends. Taking them out target shooting and focusing on having a good time is in my experience the best way to install doubt in their preconceived notions.

OldSalt50
05-17-2014, 04:28 PM
Gun control is only when I have both hands on my weapon!!!

kco1013
07-08-2014, 02:56 PM
I think the only reason some politicions want to get rid of our right to have guns is so that when they decide to go after the rest of our rights we won't be able to fight back. The only people that laws prohibit are the law abiding good guys. Criminals don't care that something is illegal. Normal citizens want and need guns for the same reason our government has nukes, because the bad guy has them too.

Marickstephen1
08-31-2017, 04:21 AM
In point of historical and constitutional fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the only amendment necessary for gun legislation, on the local or national level, is the Second Amendment itself, properly understood, as it was for two hundred years in its plain original sense but this is not a Family law (https://www.alicelaw.com/family-law/). This sense can be summed up in a sentence according to Criminal Defense Law (https://www.alicelaw.com/criminal-defence/): if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase “well regulated” in the amendment. (A quick thought experiment: What if those words were not in the preamble to the amendment and a gun-sanity group wanted to insert them? Would the National Rifle Association be for or against this change? It’s obvious, isn’t it?)