Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, if you supported regulations on bloggers dictating what they could post, how they could post, and how often they could post, it would be reasonable to conclude that you are against the 1st Amendment. When I see you advocating for outright bans on weapons and laws that will only inconvenience the law-abiding citizen, I can only conclude that you are against the 2nd Amendment.

I already posted my suggestions for gun laws but I can do so again.
  1. Prohibition on the possession of firearms by convicted violent felons, those found not guilty of a violent felony by mental defect, and non-citizens.
  2. Mandatory sentence enhancer of 5 years for anyone committing a violent crime while in possession of a firearm. Routinely, the Democrat DA in my county throws out the gun charge for the young violent criminals he prosecutes all while favoring restrictions on the honest citizen. How is that just?
  3. While transporting a firearm in between states, a citizen is only subject to the rules for transportation of a firearm as per the laws of the state where he has his primary residence.
  4. Repeal of the bans of fully automatic weaponry and silencers.
  5. Universal concealed carry.
  6. All other firearms laws are counter the 2nd Amendment.
 
well 1 and 2 make great sense but the rest look like anti-regulation and actually make things worse.
 
They are designed to protect the honest citizen who is innocent until proven guilty. That should be the standard that every law is judged by.
 
Last edited:
jcrichton said:
…remember that dead horse–we keep going around in circles; it’s best to let this go; I cannot convince you to seek reason; you cannot convince me to strap from head to toe (yeah, exaggeration is a must to drill the point home).
Click to expand...
I think it is far more reasonable for the citizenry to be able to access individual rights than not. And again, hyperbole doesn’t improve a weak argument.
jcrichton said:
Because it is the same “enlighten” thought as the kneeling–it is devoid of reality and based on what is perceived as the “right to…”
Click to expand...
Well, laying aside the completely different topics for a moment, the kneeling is a right, as long as it doesn’t violate the contractual arrangements with the owners. Free speech is a right. Religious free exercise is a right. Due process and the presumption of innocence are rights. Protection from illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self incrimination are rights.
I think the perception of all of these, and more, are moral and inalienable.

I will defend the right of the players to knee with the only qualification I stated. The gesture is built on a falsehood, and the optics only hurt their cause, but I don’t think the right devoid of reality.
 
Eminent Domain and civil asset forfeiture are two totally different things. Absolutely.

Eminent Domain usually has some form of legal format. Often a court or a judge is involved.

Civil asset forfeiture has often no appeal.
 
I already pointed out that plenty of gun owners have multiple firearms. A waiting period would not affect them. It will not affect the actual criminals either. They do not buy their guns from licensed dealers.
 
starshiptrooper said:
How does this affect the bad guys? They do not purchase their guns from licensed dealers and therefore will not be subject to the waiting period. It will affect good people who find themselves threatened and are faced with the cruel dilemma of violating the law or being defenseless.
Click to expand...
gun control advocates can’t seem to grasp this concept.

they want private sales background checks. what criminal will follow this law knowing he will be denied. he will buy it from a front who won’t follow the rule either.

we have no gun zones, have they stopped anyone from bringing in a gun? of course they have but they are law abiding folks. it hasn’t stopped the killers.
 
You know it is funny. If you suggest that people ought to be required to present a photo ID at the polls before voting, you are accused of making it inconvenient for people to vote and trying to take their voting rights away, oftentimes by the anti-gunners.

By their own logic, they are trying to deprive people of their right to defend themselves.

We both know the reason they want background checks for all sales. They want the government to have records of everyone who has a gun. It is a backdoor registry which makes taxation and confiscation that much easier. Let us hope for their sake it never gets to that point.
 
starshiptrooper said:
You know it is funny. If you suggest that people ought to be required to present a photo ID at the polls before voting, you are accused of making it inconvenient for people to vote and trying to take their voting rights away, oftentimes by the anti-gunners.

By their own logic, they are trying to deprive people of their right to defend themselves.

We both know the reason they want background checks for all sales. They want the government to have records of everyone who has a gun. It is a backdoor registry which makes taxation and confiscation that much easier. Let us hope for their sake it never gets to that point.
Click to expand...
agreed, it is all about a registry.
 
JonNC said:
That has always been one of my stated prerequisites for surrendering my firearms. I will surrender my firearms when the United States government certifies that:

no foreign government or entity has weapons
no foreign criminals have firearms
no domestic criminals have firearms
no US government agency at any level of government has firearms
no US criminal has firearms

Now, I’m happy with that list, but a female relative of mine, who is rather petite, adds to the list; “when males give up testosterone”. 🤔
Click to expand...
Though I’m not petite, I’m with your relative.
I don’t even want to face a gunless criminal in unarmed combat, worrying about a knife or some other weapon.
 
Last edited:
Criminals will still have guns, but law abiding citizens would not.

So, what is the point?
 
MonteRCMS said:
Criminals will still have guns, but law abiding citizens would not.

So, what is the point?
Click to expand...
If you think about it, both the Heller and Macdonald decisions had to do with law abiding citizens being restricted from guns, while armed gangs ran the streets
 
Last edited:
starshiptrooper said:
I already pointed out that plenty of gun owners have multiple firearms.
Click to expand...
upant said:
gun control advocates can’t seem to grasp this concept.
Click to expand...
I ask for evidence and get more rhetoric. So again, is there any evidence to refute the study above?

As to this “logic,” it assumes all crime is committed with guns purchased illegally, based on the obvious crime that some crime is committed with guns purchased illegally. As I had mentioned several times already, I reject, and encourage all to reject, in every area, the argument that we should never act to improve a situation, if we cannot guarantee complete success. Imagine how limp the anti-abortion movement would be if no one ever did anything because abortions could not be totally eliminated.
 
I would like to note that neither registration nor a waiting period prevents any one from owning a fire arm and in no way infringes on the Second Amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top