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

[suntzu]

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?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Geezer]

"Shall not be infringed" is good enough for me.

[Edward7]

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.

[Mike1956]

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.

[F350]

"Shall not be infringed" is good enough for me.

+1,000

[suntzu]

+1,000

OK...150 and words or less and more than 1 LOL

[Sandpiper]

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

[MJK]

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!

[aus71383]

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

[BigStick]

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).

[NMB]

Nugent says it better than I can. (most of the time at least )

Ted Nugent - 2nd Amendment Rights - YouTube

[whoppo]

My sig line sums it up for me.

[Bullet1234]

Should be able to purchase WHATEVER YOU CAN AFFORD,,, REGARDLESS.

[oakchas]

Nugent says it better than I can. (most of the time at least )

Ted Nugent - 2nd Amendment Rights - YouTube

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.

[Edward7]

Nugent says it better than I can. (most of the time at least )

Ted Nugent - 2nd Amendment Rights - YouTube

Trust me, you can out talk ( Talk/think/sing/dress/the list go's on....) for yourself better than that guy can.