What are your 2A beliefs (150 words or less)

This is a discussion on What are your 2A beliefs (150 words or less) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm very much in line with suntzu's post as well, but (there's always a "but" isn't there...) I ---- I'm trying to mix "feelings" with ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 63
Like Tree47Likes

Thread: What are your 2A beliefs (150 words or less)

  1. #46
    Member Array MASSIVE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Crook County, IL
    Posts
    110
    I'm very much in line with suntzu's post as well, but (there's always a "but" isn't there...) I ---- I'm trying to mix "feelings" with logic here...

    Owning, using on private land, blah, blah -- It's all good.

    I don't see an issue with some sort of simple proficiency demonstration (FL's CCP for example -- Load it, fire it downrange, make it "safe" again) if you want to have it on your person in public. I have no problem with criminal background checks - Although I probably wouldn't care if they'd revisit the difference between violent/predatory and "white collar" felons.

    I *do* see it as a right *and* a responsibility. That said, if everyone went out tomorrow, with no training, without ever firing a shot - and started carrying loaded weapons around... Geez, that'd just be a bunch of irresponsible people walking around carrying loaded weapons. All the stuff the anti-gun types keep "warning" everyone about would probably happen.

    I'm not talking about registration and tracking - I just don't see "proof of proficiency" as an infringement on my rights.

    Without getting into rights vs. privileges (and I'll even add "the Founding Fathers had no idea about the automobile"), I can go on to private property with the permission of the owner and drive a car really, really fast without a license if he allows it. But to drive on public roadways, I need to demonstrate basic proficiency in the safe operation of an automobile and obtain a license. Keep in mind that I have a perfect understanding of the fact that most people who have just obtained that license *barely* have the skills necessary to avoid complete disaster.
    NRA Life / Endowment UT, FL, IL

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,157
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    The government can not take away that or any other right, they do not grant them to have that ability.
    Preexisting rights may not be taken away, but they are surely capable of being taken. It only requires the will and power to do so, and to take the heat for doing so.

    Witness the whole 2A, which shall not be infringed, yet we've got a whole truckload of restrictions, taxes, requirements and prohibitions of all shapes and sizes.
    aus71383 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Someone tried a poll a few weeks ago sort of like this. But this more of a question and asking for an essay answer LOL..j/k bullet statements are great also.
    Seriously. What are your 2A views. Permits, training, no gun signs force of law, employer/employee rights, limits on purchaes/types of firearms one might own...etc

    I have always said I am a very simple person. Here is my answer short and sweet:

    I do not think there should be any permits, CCP's etc. If you can legally buy a wepeaon you should be able to carry it in the manner you choose.

    I do not beleive in mandatory training. I HIGHLY encourage training of all kinds.

    I do beleive that property owners have the right to ban employee's and patrons of their establishments. I do not care for any arguements that it takes away their right to self defense. That is not a 2A issue and only the government can take away a right. Go find another job.

    I think that most firearms including accesories like high cap mags and supporesors be legal and easily purchased. A bombs should stay out of the hands of the homeowner

    I think that people with a mental illness or disease or what ever term you want to use should be evaluated to determine if they are of "sound mind" I know, a can of worms which I do not have an answer for.

    I don't care if a blind person or a person with Parkinsons disease owns a gun. But I think if they take it outside their home and try to use it to stop the Bearded robber in Auto Zone and someone gets killed from their bullets then they are responsible...as well as the BG

    I do not think that a legaly justified shooter should be immune from a civil suit.....hear me out on this before you go nuts. Just because it is legal and not criminal does not mean the shooter made the right decisions leading up to the shooting and therefore partly responsible. I would contribute to the shooters defense if I think it is a bogus law suit. BTW: this is not a 2A issue which for some reason it gets mixed into the fray

    What are your guys views?
    Pretty much what you said except the civil liability. I think Texas has pretty much struck as perfect a balance as we are going to get in this imperfect world. The only way I would agree with dropping the current laws if we went to a "loser pays" scenario so the BG's families can't abuse the system for revenge.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,959
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Someone tried a poll a few weeks ago sort of like this. But this more of a question and asking for an essay answer LOL..j/k bullet statements are great also.
    Seriously. What are your 2A views. Permits, training, no gun signs force of law, employer/employee rights, limits on purchaes/types of firearms one might own...etc

    I have always said I am a very simple person. Here is my answer short and sweet:

    I do not think there should be any permits, CCP's etc. If you can legally buy a wepeaon you should be able to carry it in the manner you choose.

    I do not beleive in mandatory training. I HIGHLY encourage training of all kinds.

    I do beleive that property owners have the right to ban employee's and patrons of their establishments. I do not care for any arguements that it takes away their right to self defense. That is not a 2A issue and only the government can take away a right. Go find another job.

    I think that most firearms including accesories like high cap mags and supporesors be legal and easily purchased. A bombs should stay out of the hands of the homeowner

    I think that people with a mental illness or disease or what ever term you want to use should be evaluated to determine if they are of "sound mind" I know, a can of worms which I do not have an answer for.

    I don't care if a blind person or a person with Parkinsons disease owns a gun. But I think if they take it outside their home and try to use it to stop the Bearded robber in Auto Zone and someone gets killed from their bullets then they are responsible...as well as the BG

    I do not think that a legaly justified shooter should be immune from a civil suit.....hear me out on this before you go nuts. Just because it is legal and not criminal does not mean the shooter made the right decisions leading up to the shooting and therefore partly responsible. I would contribute to the shooters defense if I think it is a bogus law suit. BTW: this is not a 2A issue which for some reason it gets mixed into the fray

    What are your guys views?
    The 2nd Amendment is worded perfectly and is a Right that we ALL have.

    Everything you are asking us to share our views on are infringements on our Rights.

    Our Rights are "unalienable".
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  6. #50
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    So, about the "bazooka", explosives, tanks... The 2A does not apply to those things. "Arms" had a very specific meaning at the time it was written. It was essentially any hand-held weapon that an individual soldier or citizen could carry on their person(this included knives and swords). Larger weaponry were refered to as ordinance. So there are bounds on what we are allowed to posses, just not quite in line with the "reasonable" restrictions the gun grabbers always try to propose.

    If it was standard for soldiers to carry it, they wanted the militia to have it also. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
    Walk softly ...

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    The second amendment is often misinterpreted. It states that a well regulated militia being necessary for the well being of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its in the old language, what it really means is a well trained and equipped body of the people being necessary for the well being of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."

  8. #52
    Member Array MonRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    25
    "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."
    Here are the bullet points that stand out to me. There is no interpretation, there is no "out-dated-ness." There are only facts!

    • RIGHT--this means permits, license, and other government regulations are bogus. I have the RIGHT, I do not need their permission.
    • PEOPLE--the citizens, not just LEO, government authorities, or military.
    • KEEP AND BEAR ARMS-- this includes all types of arms, not just the one's the government thinks are ok.
    • SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED--the government does not have the authority to tell me when, where, or what type of arms I can KEEP AND BEAR.


    I do follow all of the laws set forth restricting this amendment by the states. I just don't understand how they can restrict a constitutional right.

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,254
    I have a right to keep and bear a weapon in my home on the street and any where I so chose. Until the day I commit a serious crime that would cause me to forfeit that right.
    I have a wide range of what a weapon is but THE Congress has the right to some reasonable limits that do not place undo burden on me. I do not believe a State has the right o over ride this. I also feel it was a right we lost Nov6th 2012 .

  10. #54
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,601
    Quote Originally Posted by MonRiver View Post
    Here are the bullet points that stand out to me. There is no interpretation, there is no "out-dated-ness." There are only facts!

    • RIGHT--this means permits, license, and other government regulations are bogus. I have the RIGHT, I do not need their permission.
    • PEOPLE--the citizens, not just LEO, government authorities, or military.
    • KEEP AND BEAR ARMS-- this includes all types of arms, not just the one's the government thinks are ok.
    • SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED--the government does not have the authority to tell me when, where, or what type of arms I can KEEP AND BEAR.


    I do follow all of the laws set forth restricting this amendment by the states. I just don't understand how they can restrict a constitutional right.
    Because all of the enumerated rights in each of the BOR is restricted in one way or another as a practical \
    matter. The classic about yelling fire in a theater sets the tone. Rights are not about total freedom.

    We live in a practical world and not much would work if we didn't have libel laws which restrict freedom of
    speech, regulation on firearms ownership, and even the occasional search without a warrant; TSA,
    National Security subpoenas.

    It falls to our legislators and our courts to fill in the details of what that BOR means. The details are what
    they are, and we are free to work to get the details changed, just as others are free to get them changed in a
    different direction.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #55
    Member Array foxytwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I like it just the way it is written:
    "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."
    Had state and local governments never been allowed to infringe in the first place, the nation would much more closely resemble that which the framers had in mind.
    That is the way it was written and it can not be improved on.

  12. #56
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by MJK View Post
    Any citizen in good standing has the right to own just about anything classified as an arm - including class III weapons and destructive devices - without infringement by the state or federal government. But I agree with Suntzu...nuclear devices are prohibited!
    You do realize that the government defines "good standing", right?
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  13. #57
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by INccwchris View Post
    The second amendment is often misinterpreted. It states that a well regulated militia being necessary for the well being of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its in the old language, what it really means is a well trained and equipped body of the people being necessary for the well being of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    So in this interpretation the purpose is to protect the government, not individuals? If so, do you keep all your guns at the local LE office? I'd posit that it is only the individual's natural right to self defense that justifies any state power in the first place, and the state's power should never be so much that the people cannot change it, by threat or action of force, if necessary.
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array sixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    indiana usa
    Posts
    2,563
    The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. No less no more.

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    The 2A is written in plain English, and the notion that it's up to the courts and legislature to decide what they actually mean is offensive. As a practical matter, you have the right to do ANYTHING that doesn't harm another person. That means no restrictions whatsoever on what types of weapons you are allowed to own, where you may own them, carry them, shoot them, what you may feed them (AP, expanding ammo, etc). There is NO legitimate reason whatsoever for the government to intervene until you turn that weapon on another person or their property in an act of aggression. Anyone arguing otherwise is wrong and without a moral rudder as far as I'm concerned, and I have no sympathy for what they have to say. "Shall not be infringed" is as plain as it gets, and it is pathetic that anyone would try to follow that with a "but..." for any reason.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.

  16. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,601
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    The 2A is written in plain English, and the notion that it's up to the courts and legislature to decide what they actually mean is offensive..
    Oh my. Please read Article III of our constitution. A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

150 beliefs
,

150 pix url avatar

,
2a sentences from the word belief
,
man shoots himself in scrotum tosh
,
the constitution in 150 words or less
,
what is the equivalent of 150 words looks like
Click on a term to search for related topics.