Defensive Carry banner

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

3K views 62 replies 42 participants last post by  Eagleks 
#1 ·
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?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Im with you on all but let me add:
Automatic weapons should not be so difficult to own for gun owners, same goes for short barreled and "other" weapons.
Modifying a gun you own should never be illegal, but said modifications should be performed by a competent individual to avoid accidents.
You should never have to register a weapon, that's your business.
Ammo style should be your choice, not the governments.
And lastly the federal government needs to do these things because while state to state works great if you live in Florida it leaves the residents of Massachusetts subjugated by the state legislature.
Im probably forgetting something but thats a start.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
It's never been a 2A issue for me. In my DNA is the stuff that demands that I defend myself and my loved ones. It was hardwired into me by my Creator. I have no options but to pay heed to it. I can't deny it. The government and it's Constitution ultimately bow to it, not the other way around. Government either recognizes that which is self evident, or they argue against it. Doesn't change what we all know.....Sandpiper
 
#8 ·
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: suntzu
#9 ·
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.

Well trained militias are necessary to ensure freedom - because of this, each individual has the right to keep and bear arms (including any kind/type that a militia would deem necessary). This is a right and should not be infringed.

Muskets only.

Austin
 
#10 ·
While the preamble is non-binding, I think it speaks to the intent of the founders in its entirety. Yes, "a well regulated militia"(I won't go into the details of what that means right now) but it "being necessary to the security of a free state" is key. It is not about hunting, or even about "owning" guns, I believe it is about the security of our society. They recognized that gun ownership was a symptom of freedom. Yes, the guns are important, but they are the outward manifestation of personal responsibility and self-reliance. They give the ability for action and the defense of free thinking and indepedant actions.

Yes, we use it now to protect our firearms and the ability to carry/use them, but I believe that is too narrow a view of it's intent.

As to restrictions, "shall not be infringed" seems pretty staightforward. No permits, no restrictions on type or features. AK-47s belong on the battle field, and in the homes of those willing and able to act in defense of the freedom of our society. "arms" refered to individually carried weapons, which included knives, swords, and would cover the automatic weapons of today. The same people who insist that the right only applies to the militia, also insist that it only applies to bolt action or single shot weapons. That would be a pretty handicapped militia on todays battlefields(although I'm sure some of our men would be able to get by with this and be effective).
 
#14 ·
I think you can say what YOU think, BETTER, thanTed or anyone else.

In fact, the only REAL problem I have with Bob Costas' now infamous monologue, was that he didn't articulate how HE felt. Because he could later say, through his "spokes-model," that he didn't mean to disparage the 2nd amendment... AND, Because he lacked the courage to say what HE thought in the first place, and in his own defense in the second place.
 
#12 ·
My sig line sums it up for me.
 
#21 ·
Being a college student I have to listen to a lot of liberal teachers/students preach against gun ownership and how the right to bear arms was only about hunting ( guess they skipped that whole well armed militia part) and it gets pretty old. I believe that if I can legally own a firearm I should be able to modify it however I want! Silencers,cut down barrels, high capacity magazines and whatever else I could dream up. It's not like if I was going to break the law I couldn't do most of those things anyway. I think the class III ban Is insane! 5,000 for a full auto gun from the 70's when It would be possible to buy an AR or AK in full auto for 2,000. I mean think about it how expensive is it to make an AR full out if you have the kit? Not that much more then a semi auto one.

I'm just sick of everyone acting like if I want a full auto AR it's because I'm a crazy person who wants to kill as many people as possible. You can make a fertilizer bomb with directions from the Internet for about 1/8 the cost. I want to own full auto or select fire weapons because our founding fathers believed that as a citizen you should be able to stand against a government that turned into a tyranny. It keeps the government in check. It means that if the people are being put down by there government and that the 1% is deciding that they can tell you how to live then the 99% can stand up and fight against it.

Maybe I'm just a raving lunatic, maybe we really don't need all those freedoms that our bill of rights give us, maybe tje government really does know what's best. I would rather make my own choices and suffer the consequences then have an omnipotent power tell me how to live my life and how to my happy
 
#22 ·
Self defence is not only a right, it's a human instinct.
 
#27 ·
This is a very thought provoking point. Other countries, such as my home country of England, take that right/instinct away from you. They have made it illegal to defend yourself and illegal to invoke your instinct to protect your life and the life of your family. I find that highly troubling.

In countries such as the UK, the criminals are protected more than the law abiding citizens. You can find yourself getting sued or facing criminal charges from the CRIMINAL that entered your property illegally and posed a threat to your family. This is insane.
 
#23 ·
My brother (whom I love very much so be nice.) is a very liberal college grad who brought up the "tech 9's aren't for hunting deer" argument to me and I just said " The 2nd isnt the right to hunt or even the right to self defense, the founders never thought we'd need something so obvious spelled out for us. No, the 2nd is the right to fight the government, any government or government lackey trying to unlawfully harm us or endanger our rights as human beings." How can we do that if the laws allow them the best weapons out there and Im restricted to weapons that aren't equivalent of the military's, 30 yrs ago.
(It goes without saying that lethal force is ALWAYS a last option.)
 
#24 ·
The Second Amendment isn't as much about owning guns...as it is about allowing a man to retain his dignity.

Its about having the ability,given the proper tools....to stand against any man or government that does not respect life or property.

Its about not having to bend a knee to another man just because his net worth is more than yours.

Its about not having to give up what you worked hard for,to someone that just wants to take it.

Its about not having to live in fear...because someone else is stronger than you,meaner than you, richer than you or wants to take advantage of you.

Its about knowing that you have a limit to the BS that some politician trys to put on you, and knowing that if push came to shove, that you could prevail, and if not, at least you died trying.

Its about standing strong and doing it with courage...against all odds.




It's really about quality of life.
 
#26 ·
My beliefs:

I have the right, as a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, to defend myself and my family. A firearm is simply the best method of achieving this goal. If there existing a stun gun that had a reliable method of disabling an attacker without death I would gladly utilize that tool.

I find that that the second amendment (note *amendment*) seems to fit with my personal beliefs and I'm glad for that.

Where I find myself conflicted is the particular weapon that should be legal for me to fulfill this goal. Some say "no limits!" but what about a bazooka? What about a fully automatic 50 caliber gun as found on a tank? What about a tank itself? The 2nd amendment says the right "shall not be infringed", but are there reasonable limits to that?

Overall, I find that the debate is generally not so much about the right itself, but the particular weapon that is reasonable within that right. Sure, there are some that want to get rid of guns entirely, but most citizens are more concerned about the type of weapon itself. I myself find that this is a big grey area. The assault weapons ban is as example of this debate.
 
#31 ·
No grey area at all, all GUNS should be ok. Maybe not explosives (bazookas) or vehicles (tanks.) but definitely guns (.50 cal machine guns.) should be free to all citizen. And not just citizens without criminal records, what other basic freedoms should we lose after serving our dept to society? No more first amendment? No more 5th?
If they did their time and paid their dept to society then they should have all the rights any citizen should have.
 
#28 ·
It should not take anyone more than 14 words to answer this......

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


Or the short version...
2nd Amendment
 
#32 · (Edited)
Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: 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.

IMO ...

A capable and effective citizenry is required in order to remain free, and the hallmark need of the people is the ability to effectively defend themselves in the face of threats to their lives and property. As such, the right of all citizens to remain armed is absolute and shall not be infringed, impeded or disallowed for any reason or by any means, ever, by anyone at any time.

No permits, minimum training, limits on manufacturing, purchasing, transportation, carrying, storage or any other aspect of the ownership or bearing of weapons shall exist, upon pain of criminal, treasonous crimes against the Constitution and the People if attempted.

Anyone who endeavors to harm another with the credible threat of death or serious injury shall, if found guilty of such harms, be put to death. Anyone who commits any crime of any sort in which the credible threat of death or serious injury of another occurs shall, if found guilty of such harms, be put to death. Anyone who commits any crime of any sort while employing a deadly weapon shall, if found guilty of the crime, be put to death.

The right to be armed is coequal with property rights of owners/residents. Requesting a person leave the premises if determined to be armed is the sole means available to a person in assuring both the other retains the right to remain armed and the property rights of the owner/resident are upheld.
 
#33 ·
Well I agree and support the basic premise of the 2A and I am glad it is there.

Do I think machine guns, explosives and other regulated items should be available to anyone? Lord no. I have said this a hundred times on here "Some people should not be allowed to carry a spork, much less a firearm". There are to many people who if given the chance would take advantage of the situation so to speak and go overboard.

We all as gun owners are no different from any other citizen. They to have rights, they have the right to carry a firearm or not. We are not a protected class nor should our right to keep and bear arms violate someone else's choice not to have a gun or carry one.

If you want to buy a machine gun go for it. Yep they are expensive but you can still own one. Want an SBR not a problem. Personally I feel there has to be some supervision/regulation somewhere. If it could be assured everyone was a responsible adult with common sense and a moral and ethical code then great get rid of all the regulations but that will never happen. I do not have a problem with permits and training to show competence in some cases I feel more could be done. I don't care if they have to call in a NICS check on me when I buy. I have a CCW so they don't have to but when they did it was merely 5 minutes out of my day.

Before anyone jumps up and claims that I am anti anything, support more government control, have no backbone, are rights are eroding or that my opinion is wrong, first I do not really care what anyone thinks of my opinion. It is mine and I can think anything I want. I am typing this response after watching a video that was linked from site. In the video a man who is apparently arguing with or trying to prove his point about 9mm's and how bad he is makes the statement that "He will shoot himself in "scrotum" not what he called it but anyway, with a 9mm.

Lo and behold on cam he withdraws his scrotum from his pants and with a .380 auto places said scrotum on a desk, chambers a round and pulls the trigger. The damage both to his scrotum and desk are obvious but this is how we are all judged by the liberals, anti's and non gun folks and people think he should be able to own a machine gun and explosives with no restrictions? Not hardly. I cannot link the video here as it goes to a site that has several adult only things plus adult language on it and would not be appropriate at all.

Mods if I can post the link only with a warning about content and language please let me know.
 
#34 ·
My thoughts:

If you've committed a felony, you have willingly given up your Second Amendment rights.
If you've committed no felony, you have the right and responsibility to bear arms.
If you're trying to commit a felony against me, you have just lost your right to life.

Outside of that: I have no problem with instant background checks for criminal records. I have a problem with instant background checks that require a list to be kept, even by the seller (though I understand it's more for their ability to prove they did their job). If however it comes back clean, anything short of a flame-thrower should be available.

IMO, the largest problem today is that most people fail to realize that "right" equals "responsibility." If I have the right to bear arms, then I also have the responsibility to both do it, and learn how to do it in a manner that best defends both my rights, and the "rights given by our creator" to those around me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheConcealer
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top