Infringement or righteous regulation?

This is a discussion on Infringement or righteous regulation? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In light of a recent G&A article that will most likely end said writers career, I was curious how many here think that regulations either ...

View Poll Results: Shall not be infringed, or are some regulations a necessary evil?

Voters
134. You may not vote on this poll
  • SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

    112 83.58%
  • Well...we need some regulations.

    22 16.42%
Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 440
Like Tree702Likes

Thread: Infringement or righteous regulation?

  1. #1
    Member Array glocknjeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The World
    Posts
    311

    Infringement or righteous regulation?

    In light of a recent G&A article that will most likely end said writers career, I was curious how many here think that regulations either current or future are a necessary evil, vs how many believe "shall not be infringed," means what it says? I am a staunch believer in shall not be infringed but what say you?

    Edit: If you are in the regulations camp I would LOVE to hear what regulations you think are required.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,542
    Shall not be infringed....Nuff said..
    glocknjeep, tdave, Badey and 9 others like this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,277
    ^^^ That's right!
    glocknjeep and gatorbait51 like this.

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array Manderinobyebye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,029
    No one and certainly no politician has the right,to tell me what i can or can't have,especially when they have no clue who i am.

    One of my elected officials made this statement in an email he sent me back in March and it says it all:

    "As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and the federal government should not interfere with this right".

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,584
    I'm in the literal interpretation camp


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    Warrior1256 and gatorbait51 like this.
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array elmacgyver0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    504
    I don't believe anyone should be allowed to spend more than 2 terms in any public office. This would fix a lot of problems.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    Shall not be infringed....Nuff said..
    Does that include for violent felons?
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,631
    I answered some regulations. I did so because I am one that believes the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Thus there is currently no infringement allowed that would stand in the way of a well regulated militia bearing arms. (the well regulated words are every bit as important as the shall not be infringed words) If we look only at the words "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that leaves us with a situation where we're saying you cannot regulate things like main battle tanks, fighter-bomber attack aircraft, and nuclear warheads. Sorry, but I don't think my neighbor needs a nuke in his basement.

    In the end, I don't believe a "well regulated militia" means that we should be able to own weapons of mass destruction, despite their classification as being a type of "arms". I'm not OK with any infringement upon small arms. In the end, if an infantry platoon has the weapon I pretty much think everyone else should be able to own them as well. You want an M249, have fun with it. You want an old M2, go for it! You want mustard gas? Not so sure about that.

    (And someone has already asked about felons. As written, the second amendment does not offer any justification to infringe upon the rights of anyone. Once the felon is released from prison I believe it is a violation of the Constitution to deny them the ability to own firearms. Ask if I'd be OK with an amendment saying they cannot own them, and I'll go along with it. Though we all know- and often say- that making it illegal for a criminal to own or carry a gun is pointless. They're criminals, they're going to do what they want to do.)
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  10. #9
    Member Array glocknjeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The World
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Does that include for violent felons?
    I actually asked myself before I created this thread and voted. I rationalize it with the following thought:
    If someones serves their time and yet can not be trusted to have the ability to defend their life after they are released, they never should have been released. Further, if we take a more shall not be infringed outlook, more people will be owning and carrying offsetting the criminal element that may have them.

  11. #10
    Member Array glocknjeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The World
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    I answered some regulations. I did so because I am one that believes the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Thus there is currently no infringement allowed that would stand in the way of a well regulated militia bearing arms. (the well regulated words are every bit as important as the shall not be infringed words) If we look only at the words "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that leaves us with a situation where we're saying you cannot regulate things like main battle tanks, fighter-bomber attack aircraft, and nuclear warheads. Sorry, but I don't think my neighbor needs a nuke in his basement.

    In the end, I don't believe a "well regulated militia" means that we should be able to own weapons of mass destruction, despite their classification as being a type of "arms". I'm not OK with any infringement upon small arms. In the end, if an infantry platoon has the weapon I pretty much think everyone else should be able to own them as well. You want an M249, have fun with it. You want an old M2, go for it! You want mustard gas? Not so sure about that.
    I intended the question to concern small arms. WMD are weapons that are vital to national security and I think are literally beyond the scope.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,277
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Does that include for violent felons?
    I would refer back to a prior post in regards to violent felons... If we trust them why restrict them? If we don't trust them why release them? If we are not going to release them why maintain them?

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array NONAME762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    About 235M out of The Palouse WA
    Posts
    5,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Mandpgrl View Post
    No one and certainly no politician has the right,to tell me what i can or can't have,especially when they have no clue who i am.

    One of my elected officials made this statement in an email he sent me back in March and it says it all:

    "As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and the federal government should not interfere with this right".
    WOW M&PGirl We don't got nobody like that for Washington at the State level. Or the sewer (Dist of Corruption) level either.
    I sure wish we could import some Right Thinking folks from your neck of the woods...
    Firing a suppressed is on my Bucket List.

    John 3:16 Gettin' Old ain't for Sissies.

    America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    9,177
    I'm pretty sure no one believes four-year-olds should be allowed to carry at their day care centers.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,631
    Quote Originally Posted by glocknjeep View Post
    I intended the question to concern small arms. WMD are weapons that are vital to national security and I think are literally beyond the scope.
    I guessed that's what you were getting at. However, nuclear weapons are "arms". Chemical weapons are "arms" and if you ignore the "well regulated" language we have an amendment that says they cannot be restricted. In the end, that means that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Is the line drawn at a chemical weapon? Is it drawn at explosives? TOW missiles? Or is it drawn at heavy machine guns? Select fire rifles? Or on firearms that hold more than 10 rounds? It isn't a black and white issue. Almost everyone will agree that "arms" should be regulated in some manner. It is where we draw the line that things get interesting.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  16. #15
    Member Array glocknjeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The World
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I'm pretty sure no one believes four-year-olds should be allowed to carry at their day care centers.
    No but that should be left for the parents to regulate...we went years and years without said regulation. AAANNNDD teachers would be much more viable as protection if they where allowed to carry unhindered.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... 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

what will happen if you cant have gun and someone calls you probation officer and tell them that you have a gun

Click on a term to search for related topics.