User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:11:11 PM EDT
[#1]
what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:13:21 PM EDT
[#2]
None. No restrictions what-so-ever. Absolutely zero. The term "gun laws" should be non-existant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:13:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Oohh, you bad person, you go now!
Just kidding. I do agree with some restrictions, but most important of all I do think joe citizen should be able to purchase and carry what ever he wants with a minimum of hassles. ETA: The guy that shouldn't be carrying a firearm most likely has already 'infringed' someone else's rights. Do you think he should have the same rights as a responsible citizen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:16:19 PM EDT
[#4]
The truly insane should NOT have access to firearms. When you are seeing things that are not there, or hearing voices in your head telling you to kill people, or you think you are a space alien on a mission to destoy mankind, or you are paranoid, and think the old lady on the bus behind you is about to jump on you and stab you to death - THEN you probably should not have firearms. Serious cases on shizophrenia (particularly the parnoid variety), some bipolar and MPD cases, etc - I would definitely exclude. Not as sure about violent felons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:18:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Crazy folks and violent felons would have a hard time purchasing firearms from an incarceration facility. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:18:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Well, seeing how convicted felons lose a few rights, I'd say that's about the only restriction on the 2nd I'd keep - and even then, I believe there should be some sort of a mechanism in place for some of them to get their rights re-instated - but not automatically...
- georgestrings |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:22:26 PM EDT
[#7]
I agree with the Dutch guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:24:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Aside from felons and the mentally insane..........none........As soon as you start restricting - its a downward spiral of stupidity........we've been going into the shitter since 1934.......think about it.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:25:29 PM EDT
[#9]
If you're such a danger to society that you cannot be trusted with a firearm, then you should not be walking free period. Let's not infringe on the Second Amendment simply because our judicial system is lacking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:27:34 PM EDT
[#10]
none. I'd like to see Bren guns for sale at Walmart, cash and carry, the Second Amendment, just like it was intended.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:31:19 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:32:24 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:33:11 PM EDT
[#13]
NO restrictions on ANY person having ANY kind of firearm, including MGs.
Exceptions: No person should be permitted firearms if they have been diagnosed or judged by a competent, experienced, and well regarded authority to be insane and a danger to him or herself, or to others. No person who has been convicted of any violent crime or crime of robbery (any level) or grand theft, or has been charged with the crime of trafficking in illegal drugs, shall be permitted firearms. This restriction shall also apply if the person has been charged with any such crime and the case has not yet been settled or disposed of in court. No child may own or possess a firearm without the knowledge and permission the child's parent(s) or legal guardian. If such permission is given, the parents share equal responsibiity for the safe and lawful handling of the firearm(s) owned by the child, and shall share that responsibility and accountability equally with the child until the childs' 18th birthday. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:35:19 PM EDT
[#14]
rayra, I know we've butted heads in the past and I don't want those issues reintroduced, but I must profess that convicted felons should be able to possess firearms if they have paid their debt to society. If they are too dangerous to own weaponry then they shouldn't be roaming free. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:35:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Haha I learned about this from the last thread, i'm staying out of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:39:08 PM EDT
[#16]
 good move
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:39:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Some restrictions - people who have shown they cant handle the responsibility of using a gun appropriately (say, used them in crimes) should not be allowed to own guns. Mentally insane should not be allowed to own guns (or knives or rocks for that matter).
Registration is bad because one day when the Chinese army takes Washington, they find your name, and then come and take your guns and shoot (and eat) your dog. I hesitate on auto weapons - the 1986 ban has gotta go, but registration? Eh - I guess that sucks too - a weapon is only as dangerous as the person behind it. Look at the North Hollywood shootout - those guys didn't know shit - if they did, they would have actually killed someone and then would have gotten away too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:44:38 PM EDT
[#18]
I know the NFA was put in place to provide an easy-to-prove crime for prosecuting gangsters, but I don't think there's a rational factual basis for the distinction. Although there are a few people who shoot FA at our DCC matches, I don't recall that a match has ever been won with an automatic weapon. I don't see them as significantly more lethal than non-NFA weapons.
The restrictions I'd endorse? Barred from possession or ownership: Minors Mental Incompetents Persons convicted of more than 1 felony involving violence or the threat of violence, or persons convicted of one such crime if they stipulate, or a jury finds, that they should be barred from RKBA. I do not support background checks, because I don't agree with the idea of requiring FFLs. NFA-style restrictions would apply only to weapons requiring a crew numbering more than 3 to operate. I do not oppose storage limits on explosives, if they are actually based on the dangers posed by the materials (i.e., you can't keep a case of dynamite in an apartment in Manhattan). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:46:51 PM EDT
[#19]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:47:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Dang, and I like the thought of having a 155 in my backyard. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:47:24 PM EDT
[#21]
I believe it was Reagan's administration that made it MUCH harder to committ insane people against their will (but I am not sure). It's a difficult thing to force the insane to be incarcerated even though they have no committed no crime (yet). Are you sure you want to live in a society where you can be incarcerated as long as some politician or judge LABELS you "insane"?? That's a dangerous precedent. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:47:46 PM EDT
[#22]
NONE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:47:48 PM EDT
[#23]
There should be no such thing as a "gun law". Inalienable rights should mean something to you people.
I spoke those same words in a BBC interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:47:52 PM EDT
[#24]
aww fuck... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:49:05 PM EDT
[#25]
I don't support any restrictions on firearm ownership. Do you really think that any of the laws do anything other than hassle law abiding citizens? Even if convicted criminals couldn't get guns illegally there are stills dozens of other perfectly lethal weapons for them to use. Are you any less dead if you've been stabbed or bludgeoned to death? Gimme a break joe. Those of you that are buying into the restrictive laws being a good thing are paving the way to hell with those good intentions the anti-gunners have sold you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:52:12 PM EDT
[#26]
How about sale of untaxed beer, wine, or distilled spirits? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:53:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Rude and crude. Touche' 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:56:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Politicians and Postal Workers should not be allowed to possess firearms.
Seriously, no to felons convicted of violent crimes. However, if convicted of a non-violent crime, and done his time, I have no problem with a that. I also support not allowing people with domestic abuse convictions and/or restraining orders against them from purchasing a firearm. They have already demonstrated they have violent and hostile tendencies and are more than willing to take offensive/aggressive action against another human being. I can support this ONLY if the person in question has acted violently. It is SOP by many divorce lawyers (and granted without questions by the courts) to ask for protection orders in all cases, even if the other party has shown no tendency to be violent to the spouse. I can support restrictions of weapons possession by illegal aliens, mentally ill, known drug users, and anyone dishonorably discharged from the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:59:34 PM EDT
[#29]
No felons. If I could add folks, I'd include anyone involved in the sale of narcotics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 6:59:59 PM EDT
[#30]
I agree. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't judges and lawmakers understand? Everyone has an inherent right to defend themselves...felons have enemies also, so there should be some type of reinstatement procedure for them. The Lautenberg agreement needs to be repealed also. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:00:16 PM EDT
[#31]
I agree that there should be restrictions on chemical and biological weapons. Nukes should be restricted but all else goes. If a person can afford an M1 then they should be allowd to buy one, I would love my own Abrams.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:00:24 PM EDT
[#32]
those of you who take the 'absolutely no restrictions' stance, do you feel the same way in regards to the 1st as you do the 2nd?
should be able to scream 'fire' in a public place? what about using 'free speech' to slander another? what about making threats to another person? should all those be allowed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:02:03 PM EDT
[#33]
once again, why stop there? why shouldnt people be allowed to own chem and bio weapons? the same argument is made in regards to the minimum wage. some people say $8 an hour is what it should be, but not $20 an hour, because that would be 'too much' |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:02:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Being from a state that does not allow CCW, I know first hand how frustrating some of the restrictions can be. In my opinion, if a person is able to demonstrate, both through background checks and voluntary training with LE, that they are capable of safely carrying and possessing a weapon and have the capacity to ascertain when the weapon comes out and when it stays put, they should have every legal right to possess and carry. The problems seems to arise when the one person, who for all practical purposes shouldn't possess a car, much less a weapon, makes the news, all gunowners and enthusiasts are made to look bad. That's why I have no problem with some restrictions as to who can own, but more so carry concealed weapons. There are many of us who should be allowed to carry but can't because of those who shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:02:53 PM EDT
[#35]
I disagree, sir. Domestic violence has many avenues of interpretation. For one minor example, what if the husband has been attacked by his spouse in the past (i.e. with iron skillets, etc.) and decides to defend himself by punching the offender? The courts will view that as domestic violence and that otherwise peaceful gentleman loses his rights. Give everyone an inalienable right to bear arms. If everyone is armed, everyone knows what their chances are of assaulting another. As the old saying goes, an armed society is a polite society. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:05:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Sure, if something is on fire.
Your definition of slander? I was yelled at by neighbor who called me an asshole? (could be because I am one...)
Empty threats or ones made by psychos (emotionally handicapped)? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:06:44 PM EDT
[#37]
poink, quit trolling. Have you even read the 2nd Amendment? It does not offer the liberty to possess WMDs. It stands to promote militia related weapons being available to everyone. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:06:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Yes, I feel the same way about the 1st amendment also....just as long as it does not interfere with another citizens right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which would mean a person can not randomly yell 'fire', slander, and make threats. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:07:48 PM EDT
[#39]
How many domestic abuse convictions and restraining orders are simply because some irate woman simply tells a judge that she's afraid? I know of at least 2 guys that have had a judge order a guy to sell his guns and give is future ex 1/2 the money simply because of that reason. Almost EVERY woman's advocacy group tells ANY woman that's getting separated or divorce to get some sort of restraining order. It's bullshit. (Yes, there ARE cases, but I'd say well over half of the orders issued by judges are total bullshit either by liberal judges or judges playing CYA! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:12:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Also, would your medical history now be included in your background check to determine whether or not you are taking medication for a mental disorder? Wouldn't that go against doctor-patient confidentiality? I vote no restrictions. The BG's will get the guns regardless, remember, they don't care about the laws. These laws only apply to and restrict already law abiding citizens. With that said, the question is why would the government want to restrict law abiding citizens from being armed? Hmmmm 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:13:51 PM EDT
[#41]
While I personally do not agree with ANY gun control laws whatsoever, I recognize most gun owners favor at least some restrictions on the sale, use and possession of firearms. Providing of course, these restrictions do not apply to them, their personal life activities, or to their firearms. Myself, I am still waiting for proof that fully automatic firearms actually causes an otherwise normally well-adjusted person to commit heinous crime with one. To me, if a non-violent felon serves his time and pays his debt to "society" he/she should not be debarred the use of arms as a means of personal and family protection. And of course, I can't see a guy, who might have had a fistfight with his brother on the front lawn of his house 20 years ago, being forever prohibited from possessing guns because of a "domestic violence" conviction, which is a simple misdemeanor. Guns are already banned. They are just taking their time picking them up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:22:08 PM EDT
[#42]
You are far too forgiving of the system. You are painting an unrealistically rosy picture. I shit you not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:22:09 PM EDT
[#43]
no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:23:27 PM EDT
[#44]
... No restrictions whatsoever on sane, law-abiding American citizens
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:25:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Sane, law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to own whatever arm they want by the second Amendmant.
The only limitations which should exist should only apply to felons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:29:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Here we go again. The second amendment was not written for personal defense from crime. It was not written for gathering of food (hunting). It was written for the people to be able to defend themselves against an oppressive government. For this reason, it says "Shall not be infringed". What this means is that any weapon, shall be able to be owned (Keep) and carried (Bear) by any citizen. Saying that certain firearms should be restricted because only the military needs them, has no clue of what the 2nd is all about. If you can afford it, you should be able to buy it. That means having an F14 parked in the driveway right behind the M1 tank. Wither of which you could fly/drive to your battleship parked at the local harbor next to the neighbors aircraft carrier and the cousins nuclear sub. If you can afford to buy it, you should be able to own it in order to best be able to defend yourself from your own military forces given the possibility that the government becomes oppressive. If any one thinks this can't happen, all they need to do is take a look at what is happening in commie fornia, new dork, shirtcago (One letter r added for the kids) and compare that to 1938 Germany. Watch out for the blue berets as you would the brown shirts.
Now, do I feel a personal need for fully automatic firearms. Hell no. It is a waste of ammunition. One shot, one kill is my preference. Also, food gathering and personal protection are rights that included in those inalienable with life and liberty. Perhaps you should study American history and learn a little about the founders of this nation before asking such a rhetorical question. Oh, BTW read the tag line..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:30:57 PM EDT
[#47]
I think some people are being disingenuous here.
The notion that a fully automatic weapon is no more or less lethal than a semiautomatic one is silly. If that was the case, why the hell do we use FA for military applications? Save a lot of money in ammo alone if we just used SA only. MGs definitely have a major advantage over semiautomatics in quite a few situations, and it really doesn't help the argument to ostrich yourself with your head in the sand saying it ain't so. My vote is for instant background checks w/ no registration, with a more thorough check for automatic weapons. Make the burden of proof on the gov't, in that if they can't DQ you instantly, you're good to go regardless. Felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent fail such checks, and thats about the only reason to fail. Citizens and resident aliens only, as well, with a higher standard for resident aliens. 18+ to buy, period. If you're under you can have em, but you can't purchase 'em, that's up to your folks. National concealed carry. If this requires a license, I'm okay with that, after all, I need a license to drive. National open carry w/o license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:35:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Yes. I feel as strongly about the first. You can say anything that you want. However, just as in your right to posess and carry a firearm, there are consequences in abuse of that right. RKBA does not give you the right to arbitrarily shoot some one for no reason. In the same way, screaming fire in a crowded theater causing injury to others will have consequences.the same thing applies to slander/lible. Telling or writing an untruth about some one is just a lie. But, if that untruth causes harm to an individual, then it is slander/libel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:37:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Well I support a background check, and no guns for violent felons or murderers or Illegal aliens....but that's IT.
Ben |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2005 7:40:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Sorry dude, but you are wrong. in 1787, there were no WMD's. There were no tanks, aircraft carriers, machine guns or anything like that. It was all muzzle loaders. The same thing that people already had in their homes for obtaining sustenance. They realized that there would be advancements as there had already been from the stick to the spear to the bow and arrow to the firearm. That is why it says "arms", not rifles, not muskets, not knives, but "arms". So, the citizenry would be able to stand against the military if the government becomes oppressive. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
