Your feeling on 2A

Your feeling on 2A

This is a discussion on Your feeling on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It was mentioned in another thread about seeing how the various members on CC feel about the current restrictions on 2A and if more or ...

View Poll Results: The govt should

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Require registering guns

    1 1.23%
  • No registrations

    67 82.72%
  • Limit single purchase quantities

    3 3.70%
  • No purchase limits

    64 79.01%
  • Require background checks

    50 61.73%
  • No background checks

    19 23.46%
  • Restrict style of guns, semi, full auto, etc

    4 4.94%
  • No restrictions of style / form

    58 71.60%
  • Require more training / qualification for CCW

    21 25.93%
  • Only require classroom education for CCW

    9 11.11%
  • Enact national CCW

    48 59.26%
  • Keep CCW at state level

    23 28.40%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Your feeling on 2A

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637

    Your feeling on 2A

    It was mentioned in another thread about seeing how the various members on CC feel about the current restrictions on 2A and if more or less should be imposed.

    Here is a poll, to see what people think. Please comment if you like.

    I personally am against anything new, there are enough laws on the books now, I agree with criminal checks, but would like to see registrations go bye bye.

    In my personal opinion(you know what they say about those) is a real solution needs to be found to disarm criminals, not us. That's much, much easier said than done. Maybe a source for another thread.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    Seems I read the words 'shall not be infringed' somewhere in relation to the 2nd amendment.

    How can registration, purchase limits, restriction on style, action type, caliber, full auto, barrel length, bullet construction, importation, or whatever they decide to try and restrict us on next year, be considered anything but infringement?

    Background checks? If a citizen of this nation is convicted of a crime through due process, lock them up! Otherwise, they are a citizen, and their rights should not be questioned, regardless of their background.

    Required training? This makes no more sense than required training to exercise any other constitutionally protected right. Did you have to take a class on libel laws before posting this poll? How about a required class on honoring diversity before attending church? All are equally offensive under our constitution.

    If a right can be denied by a government agency without due process, is it really a right? Purchasing or carrying a firearm should be regulated by the government no more than the purchase of a newspaper, or the carrying of a Bible.
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Ideally, everything cmidkiff said would be true.

    However, in the current world, with its lack of personal responsibility and accountability, some social controls are needed, at least at the state level. In the same way that yelling "fire!" in a theater isn't free speech, putting other people in true reasonable danger by the possession/display of a weapon is not freedom to bear arms. More on this later.

    Gun Registration - This serves no purpose other than to tell the government where to look to confiscate them. Criminals will not register their guns. They will just steal them.

    Purchase Limits - This has no purpose other than preventing people from arming themselves. If we're not worried about someone buying one gun, why should we be worried about someone buying five?

    Background Checks - This one is trickier, and it depends on what you apply the checks to. For firearm ownership authorization? Absolutely not. It's just another hoop to prevent people from arming themselves. Anyone, no matter their background should be able to purchase and keep a gun on their property for self-defense. A CCW permit? That's more tempting to say yes to... the logic being that a person with a history of mental instability or violent felonies presents a true and reasonable danger to those around him if he is armed in public.

    Style/Type/Caliber Restrictions - A gun is a gun. The bullet doesn't care if you have a pistol grip or an open-eye sight. Likewise, you should be able to select a caliber and type of action that suits you. You will still be held responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, but if you really want a full-auto carbine, there's no reason to deny it to you. Same logic as in the purchase limit case.

    Qualification for CCW - This is another tricky one, but it falls back on the same principle as background checks. Again, qualification to own a gun is worthless. But, carrying a gun in public entails responsibility to not put those around you in real danger. Thus, a reasonable qualification standard to ensure that those who carry a gun in public can safely operate their weapons is a form of reasonable regulation. Still, this is the only one that I'm iffy on. Non-permit open carry throws a wrinkle into this as well.

    National CCW - Concealed Carry qualification/licensing should be done on a state level, if for no other reason than to avoid a federal database of gun owners (same as registration). National reciprocity, akin to driver's licenses is another question entirely.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,816
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The exercise of some religious practice is prohibited, there are certain things that cannot be done under religious freedoms, the freedom of speech and press is regulated, there are certain things you cannot say or print, and even peaceable assembly is regulated. There are statutes that have been enacted either federally or at state and local levels that cover all these, and they have been upheld by the three branches of our government, all for the common good of the country.


    Amendment II

    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.

    Like it or not this too has been regulated by federal, state and local statutes, and these statutes have been upheld by the three branches of government.

    There are different interpretations that people have relating to the reading of what exactly the 2nd amendment means, but none of them that have standing in any of the branches of government are so broad that no infringement at all is deemed valid. ie whatever type of weapon you want, regardless of criminal record, mental state, etc. This too has been done for the common good of the country.

    This is simply the way it is, you may not agree, but that is the facts that we are dealing with.

    One other note, how does one reconcile the 2nd amendment with the part of the 4th amendment that says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger" What militia are they refering to, and who then will be in charge of this militia.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    One other note, how does one reconcile the 2nd amendment with the part of the 4th amendment that says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger" What militia are they refering to, and who then will be in charge of this militia.
    If the "militia" is called into actual service, as required by that amendment, it will be clear who is called up and to whom they are accountable. If this is not clear, then they are not in actual service.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Left out the no restrictions on CCW option, but other than that I voted for all of the actual free choices.

  7. #7
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292
    If you ask Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the leading proponents of a strong central U.S. government of the time (the Federalists), the militia is the whole of the population - anyone willing and able to fight for freedom. Read Federalist #46.

    The power of the government should be used to punish actual convicted criminals through prison time, restitution, or capital punishment, not limiting the rights of or keeping tabs on the rest of us. Even an ex-con - you can't release him or her from custody, thereby removing police protection and disallow them from protecting themselves or carrying the tools to do so.
    Last edited by sailormnop; October 28th, 2006 at 01:11 AM.
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  8. #8
    Member Array SGeringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pierce Co. WA
    Posts
    330
    The 2nd Amendment is all well and good, and only those with serious cognitive limitations see it as anything but a Constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms, but I rarely cite it when discussing firearm ownership. I think the basic human right to self-defense is far more critical, though I realize it is argued that self-defense can be practiced in the absence of firearms no matter how I stupid I think that argument is. I'm in favor of instant background checks and denial of rights to certain criminal backgrounds, the mentally ill, and children but that's about it. I think CCW should be national and patterned after the most liberal states, with restrictions only in courthouses, etc. Signs in businesses should hold no legal weight as it is here in WA.
    http://www.myspace.com/sgeringer
    SIG SP2009<>XD45 4"<>S&W 638-3<>GLOCK20<>Mossberg Mav88

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,816
    From Federalist 46

    "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

    This appears to say that the militia will be lead by men chosen from withing but at the direction of the goverment, (state or local). At least that is the way I read it.

    "The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people."

    I think Madison was wrong in his supposition here when it comes to the 2nd amendment. The federal government has formed obnoxious schemes, ie regulating arms ownership, and the state governments have not usurped the federal government with the peoples help.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I think Madison was wrong in his supposition here when it comes to the 2nd amendment. The federal government has formed obnoxious schemes, ie regulating arms ownership, and the state governments have not usurped the federal government with the peoples help.
    State government officials are no longer suspicious of a national government, as they were in Madison's time. They tend, instead, to grovel for more money and conive their way into more personal power

  11. #11
    Member Array cpmiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    364
    I feel that the 2A is a right that is for law abiding citizens. So the only persons who shouldn't have access to weapons are those who either by breaking the law or by mental disorder have shown or are likely to act against the common good. This is the only reason for the background check. The biggest problem with the check is how it needs to be from the govt but all results but a negative be hidden from the govt. Everything else weapon wise is fair game for citizens or those on the path to citizenship.
    There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11? (Yuri Orlov [Nicolas Cage] Lord of War)

  12. #12
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292
    Indeed, at that time the state governments were jealously guarding their autonomy and it appeared obvious that the people would more likely support the states than the federal government. Unfortunately, today, all of the checks and balances put in place to limit government usurpation of individual freedoms, rights and responsibilties have aligned themselves together to conspire in the usurpation. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are all legislating and ingoring the Costitution. The states are more interested in getting their share of the US Income Tax than protecting their citizens from the offenses of the US govt.

    While there may be a step forward here and a step back there, I'm pretty sure it's all downhill from here.
    1. The power is too concentrated in Washington.
    2. There are too many people dependent on entitlement programs (add together all local, state and federal govt employees, all welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and farm subsidy recipients, all police and military, and anyone who has a job on the basis of Affirmative Action, seniority, or tenure), and
    3. The military power of the govt. is too overwhelming for a revolution to succeed.

    If anyone has reason to be more optimistic about this country, please fill me in.
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by sailormnop View Post
    If anyone has reason to be more optimistic about this country, please fill me in.
    well, we still make some pretty dang good apple pie.

    But other than that, everything you said is completely true.

  14. #14
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    Gun Registration - Evil.

    Purchase Limits - Evil.

    Background Checks - Evil.

    Style/Type/Caliber Restrictions - Evil.

    Qualification for CCW - Nope. Just handle your guns safely and responsibly. I don't care if you had to take a class or learned it from daddy or your girlfriend, as long as you know what you are doing.

    National CCW - There already is a national CCW law.
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

  15. #15
    Member Array Linda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    central Ohio
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by ibex View Post
    National CCW - There already is a national CCW law.
    Not in United States there isn't!
    Member of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors
    www.BuckeyeFirearms.org Buckeye Firearms Association Central OH Chair
    NRA Instructor/CCW Instructor/Realtor
    2009 NRA Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award Recipient

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Got that new gun feeling
    By jeephipwr in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 09:19 PM
  2. Feeling around...
    By briansmech in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2007, 04:32 PM