The 2nd amendment is becoming more of a hot topic each year as politicians and the public posture on the topic. I think it would be cool if we had a thread here that was sort of a resource for people to get info and opinion about American's right to bear arms. I hope that is ok. Maybe it will get some conversation going. It could also give you something to share. If you have something you'd like to add feel free to do so.
When the person you are arguing with essentially shouts you down, over and over, and even brings a friend to help outnumber the voices....you know something is fishy.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-28-2020).]
The 2nd gave America, and the entire planet, a shining example of freedom and how to defend it if required. Unfortunately, you guys have spent over 100 years watering it down, adding conditions and exceptions, piling on the regulations until it no longer serves its original purpose. Arms are no longer a right, they are a privilege handed out by the government only to those who meet a few thousand conditions.
The 2nd gave America, and the entire planet, a shining example of freedom and how to defend it if required. Unfortunately, you guys have spent over 100 years watering it down, adding conditions and exceptions, piling on the regulations until it no longer serves its original purpose. Arms are no longer a right, they are a privilege handed out by the government only to those who meet a few thousand conditions.
Agreed the current state is a farce.
But you aint seen nothin yet...check out what is up next on the agenda!
Politicians have been watering down the 2nd almost from the very beginning. The first gun control laws were in the late 1700s right after independence. I believe mostly racist in origin.
I'm all for stringent background checks (which should be pre-performed if you get a CCW in your state....I'll expound on this in a minute). Personally, I don't see that anybody (other than LE or military) "needs" a fully automatic weapon although I don't think there should be a law against owning one as long as you can pass a background check. I don't own one and don't plan on getting one. I own at least (1) gun (possibly more than 1). While I may sell a gun here and there, I don't plan on giving up any of mine involuntarily. Buyback? Sure. As long as it's voluntary and I get whatever I think it's worth. Saves me from having to advertise. You want to melt it down after you buy it from me? What do I care? It's no longer mine. Same if you want to "buyback" my car.
Background checks. They should be strict as hell, IMHO. These days, other than felons and those convicted of domestic violence, just about anybody can get a CCW permit. If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime whether you used a weapon or not, felony or misdemeanor, you don't get a gun (handgun, rifle, BB gun, anything)....EVER. If you've ever been convicted of domestic violence, same thing. If you suffer from any number of mental defects/illnesses that need to be controlled with medication and would/could result in violence (I'm thinking things like schizophrenia, etc), no gun. You've gotten into multiple bar fights? No gun. You have a tendency towards violence.
Every state should require a CCW/weapons permit. The rules should be the same among all 50 states + DC. If I can carry in NC (and I can), I should be allowed to carry in WI or CA or TX. In order to get a weapons permit, a gun safety course should be mandatory. (It happens to be in NC although pretty much anybody can open carry. It WASN'T required when I lived in IN and I've seen some people unknowingly doing some stupid things.) Speaking of which, open or concealed carry shouldn't matter. Either you're allowed to carry or you're not. (IMO, none of this should matter on your own private property unless you've been convicted of a violent crime. If I'm on my property and want to carry, I shouldn't need someone elses permission. Also, a CCW/weapons permit should cover every weapon out there (excluding NBC or things like rockets/grenades/etc...nobody other than LE/military needs a grenade). If I can carry/possess a handgun, I should be allowed to carry/possess a fully automatic weapon or a can.
Consequences for public carrying withOUT a permit? Harsh and standard across the board. I don't give a flying you-know-what if you're rich, poor, black, white, tall, short, prior military or consciencious objector. You're in a gang and you carry cuz that's the "rules", you go to prison. I don't care. We'll buind another prison for your sorry butt. (Don't get me started on the pansies who currently run most of the prisons across America. They were "inmates" or "convicts" 20 years ago. That's not PC enough. Now, they're "guests" or "internees". You think I'm kidding? I'm not. Disgusting.)
With all that said, I'm very PRO 2A. Always have been, always will be. I've been subjected to gun violence which is one of the reasons why I carry. Like an American Express card, I never leave home without it. I was a Correctional Sergeant in a maximum security adult male prison (15 years, 3 weeks and 1 day). I've listened to the scum of the earth talking about what they did with a gun, who they did it to and how they got around the "laws". It makes me sick. I think (and again, this is just my opinion), if there were standard rules and harsh consequences, things would be better.
I'm all for stringent background checks (which should be pre-performed if you get a CCW in your state....I'll expound on this in a minute). Personally, I don't see that anybody (other than LE or military) "needs" a fully automatic weapon although I don't think there should be a law against owning one as long as you can pass a background check. I don't own one and don't plan on getting one. I own at least (1) gun (possibly more than 1). While I may sell a gun here and there, I don't plan on giving up any of mine involuntarily. Buyback? Sure. As long as it's voluntary and I get whatever I think it's worth. Saves me from having to advertise. You want to melt it down after you buy it from me? What do I care? It's no longer mine. Same if you want to "buyback" my car.
Background checks. They should be strict as hell, IMHO. These days, other than felons and those convicted of domestic violence, just about anybody can get a CCW permit. If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime whether you used a weapon or not, felony or misdemeanor, you don't get a gun (handgun, rifle, BB gun, anything)....EVER. If you've ever been convicted of domestic violence, same thing. If you suffer from any number of mental defects/illnesses that need to be controlled with medication and would/could result in violence (I'm thinking things like schizophrenia, etc), no gun. You've gotten into multiple bar fights? No gun. You have a tendency towards violence.
Every state should require a CCW/weapons permit. The rules should be the same among all 50 states + DC. If I can carry in NC (and I can), I should be allowed to carry in WI or CA or TX. In order to get a weapons permit, a gun safety course should be mandatory. (It happens to be in NC although pretty much anybody can open carry. It WASN'T required when I lived in IN and I've seen some people unknowingly doing some stupid things.) Speaking of which, open or concealed carry shouldn't matter. Either you're allowed to carry or you're not. (IMO, none of this should matter on your own private property unless you've been convicted of a violent crime. If I'm on my property and want to carry, I shouldn't need someone elses permission. Also, a CCW/weapons permit should cover every weapon out there (excluding NBC or things like rockets/grenades/etc...nobody other than LE/military needs a grenade). If I can carry/possess a handgun, I should be allowed to carry/possess a fully automatic weapon or a can.
Consequences for public carrying withOUT a permit? Harsh and standard across the board. I don't give a flying you-know-what if you're rich, poor, black, white, tall, short, prior military or consciencious objector. You're in a gang and you carry cuz that's the "rules", you go to prison. I don't care. We'll buind another prison for your sorry butt. (Don't get me started on the pansies who currently run most of the prisons across America. They were "inmates" or "convicts" 20 years ago. That's not PC enough. Now, they're "guests" or "internees". You think I'm kidding? I'm not. Disgusting.)
With all that said, I'm very PRO 2A. Always have been, always will be. I've been subjected to gun violence which is one of the reasons why I carry. Like an American Express card, I never leave home without it. I was a Correctional Sergeant in a maximum security adult male prison (15 years, 3 weeks and 1 day). I've listened to the scum of the earth talking about what they did with a gun, who they did it to and how they got around the "laws". It makes me sick. I think (and again, this is just my opinion), if there were standard rules and harsh consequences, things would be better.
Sounds sensible to me. All things being equal, that is. And there's the rub.
We just gotta' keep trying to hold this sh!t together. Our fellow American is not our enemy. We need each other...(ugh).
Why divide? Historically, we've always been stronger together.
I just scrolled through this very quickly. I have had it in an open browser window like "forever" because it looked like something I would eventually want to post in a 2A thread like this one. Like chucking another charcoal briquet into the "pit."
I'm kind of a "squish" when it comes to the Second Amendment. It's not something I think about very much, until it becomes front page news or there's yet another Pennock's thread about it in play.
If anyone here wants to look at it, I would be interested in their reading of it. Was there anything in it that is news or newsworthy for "you" (anyone)? What would "you" (anyone) say about the way that the article is set up--the title or banner--as a "model" background check system? Do you remember already having read this news report or a very similar one about Pennsylvania and this "model" background system?
Done! Now I'm finally going to close that browser window.
Background checks. They should be strict as hell, IMHO. These days, other than felons and those convicted of domestic violence, just about anybody can get a CCW permit. If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime whether you used a weapon or not, felony or misdemeanor, you don't get a gun (handgun, rifle, BB gun, anything)....EVER. If you've ever been convicted of domestic violence, same thing. If you suffer from any number of mental defects/illnesses that need to be controlled with medication and would/could result in violence (I'm thinking things like schizophrenia, etc), no gun. You've gotten into multiple bar fights? No gun. You have a tendency towards violence.
To me, that's assinine. As humans, we ALL have a tendency towards violence. We are still basically animals animals at the end of the day. BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort. They will try fists first so there is no need to restrict them. Plus, depending on the jurisdiction, something as simple as screaming at someone is considered a "violent crime", so is "uttering threats (a REAL popular one here) :IE, touch my car and I'll break your damn arm....ooopppsss, violent crime ! (say the thought/speech police).
To me, that's assinine. As humans, we ALL have a tendency towards violence. We are still basically animals animals at the end of the day. BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort. They will try fists first so there is no need to restrict them. Plus, depending on the jurisdiction, something as simple as screaming at someone is considered a "violent crime", so is "uttering threats (a REAL popular one here) :IE, touch my car and I'll break your damn arm....ooopppsss, violent crime ! (say the thought/speech police).
You're entitled to your opinions, MEM. I might have a tendency towards violence since I'm human (barely) but I've NEVER gone postal. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow but until I snap (and I'm unlikely to), I get to carry. If/when I snap, there goes my chance of ever carrying again. I've seen more people than I can count who started out using fists and ended up with a knife/gun in their hands. I don't know the laws in Canada but down here, screaming at someone or uttering threats isn't considered (by law) a "violent crime". Threats can be a crime (depending on what's said and to whom) but that doesn't make it "violent" at least according to the law.
The issue is much of the laws they want to enact now affect everyone, people with no reocord, people with no history of any issues. Its baby steps in some folks eyes. To me its overstepping farther when we already arent as free as the the founders intended.
THEY MADE THE VIDEO "PRIVATE" DAYS AFTER I SHARED IT. I HOPE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO SEE IT. IF YOU CAN FIND VIDEOS DEPICTING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT BANNED GUNS AND WENT SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST, PLEASE POST.
Why you never restrict firearms from citizens. You must see this.
BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort.
It's amazing how that is "proof" enough for you ... yet nothing will convince you that COVID-19 is a threat.
Survival is just that... surviving the initial or acute phase of the disease.
There are people who continue to suffer from the effects of Covid-19, even months later, after the virus is no longer detectable in their bodies. There is organ and tissue damage that shows up in diagnostic tests and imaging scans that looks to be irreversible. Even among people who were not conscious of having any symptoms. Even among younger people who have been infected.
This, by various media reports that I've seen.
I am not going to wax euphoric or wane in caution because of that reported 99 percent survival rate. I'm not sure what it actually means for any one individual.
I was about to post a brief YouTube video about this, but since this started as a 2A discussion, I will stand down (on that.)
So (2.5) did you see my first message in this thread, about 2A in Pennsylvania?
The reason I singled out that NBC News report is that it was published under the title or banner of "model" system for background checks.
Seeing as you are (undeniably!) one of the Pennock's forum's leading commentators on 2A, it makes me curious to think about what you might think about it.
So (2.5) did you see my first message in this thread, about 2A in Pennsylvania? .
Once again current laws already on the books were failed by government bureaucracy. Per the article "the man's involuntary mental health commitment — which should have barred him from buying weapons — had been lost in transit between the county and state."
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-30-2020).]
You've laid down a marker that (perhaps) some of the other 2A-minded forum members will come here to examine.
Maybe if they see "rinselberg" in that Last Reply column on the main page. They might see that and say "rinselberg... what's he got to say about 2A? He's not a 2A guy. I better go in there and sort this mess out."
That's my hope. So don't reply, at least for awhile yet.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-30-2020).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Once again current laws already on the books were failed by government bureaucracy.
People always seem to forget how inept the government bureaus are. Also, people seem to think that passing a law magically makes it happen.
While I agree that stringent background checks would be a good idea, I also have to wonder about the practicality. To effectively implement such a thing, the government would actually need to be effective... which is asking a lot. The typical answer would be "add more government bureaucracy." But ironically, the bigger the bureaucracy gets, the more inept it becomes.
Just a thought: maybe more government isn't the answer.
I suspect that very few of the participants in this thread actually understand the current background check system, and how it works.
I also suspect that even fewer of you know the penalties for illegal use of a firearm, or just how deep the pile of doodoo is if a felon is ignorant enough to break firearm regulations.
The problem isn't the current background check system, or the laws dictating the penalties.
The problem is that many states do not supply the required info to the NICS database, and the courts proclivity in plea bargaining offenders to a lower offense.
All crimes involving firearms should immediately be dropped into the Federal courts, no plea deals, and no leniency on sentencing.
Laws that are not enforced are not worth the ink on the paper.
Laws that are not enforced are not worth the ink on the paper.
"Shall not be infringed". "Inalienable" ..... (cant be taken away)
the laws themselves are illegal, null and void. What's so hard to understand ? It's not open to debate, discussion, interpretation, or 3rd-party approval.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 09-30-2020).]
"Shall not be infringed". "Inalienable" ..... (cant be taken away)
the laws themselves are illegal, null and void. What's so hard to understand ? It's not open to debate, discussion, interpretation, or 3rd-party approval.
False. The 2nd amendment (and any other) can be nullified by the same process in which it was created...thru congressional activity. In all liklihood, it would take another amendment and ratification by 2/3 of the states but it has happened before.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]
False. The 2nd amendment (and any other) can be nullified by the same process in which it was created...thru congressional activity. In all liklihood, it would take another amendment and ratification by 2/3 of the states but it has happened before.
Ya mean back when the Danes, Ojibway, Spaniards, Mexicans, Catholics, Irish Protestants, Navajo...and a few others didnt really give a frack what words were written on paper...
A mans freedom has never been been restricted by another mans rules.....not since 100,000 BC....or thereabouts.
I mean since 1789 and presented for ratification in 1791, which was when the words you quoted ("shall not be infringed upon") were written into the US Constitution.
I find it more than a bit ironic that anyone would say "not open to debate, discussion, or interpretation" while doing exactly that in a thread that was created solely for debating, discussing, and interpreting the 2nd amendment.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]
I mean since 1789 and presented for ratification in 1791, which was when the words you quoted ("shall not be infringed upon") were written into the US Constitution.
I find it more than a bit ironic that anyone would say "not open to debate, discussion, or interpretation" while doing exactly that in a thread that was created solely for debating, discussing, and interpreting the 2nd amendment.
Because I believe, deeply, for the right of all to be armed to defend themselves...sometimes that ideal ends-up as a srew-up,,,,there are only 2 reasons to carry guns, Don...defend yourself from nature, or defend yourself from humans.
All crimes involving firearms should immediately be dropped into the Federal courts, no plea deals, and no leniency on sentencing.
That cannot happen unless different gun laws across all 50 states and U.S. territories are standardized as FEDERAL LAW.
That will require a huge comprehensive set of federal gun laws and regulations that do not presently exist.
The attempt create those laws would obviously result in absolute political chaos and turmoil and likely in civil unrest the likes of which nobody can yet imagine.
That cannot happen unless different gun laws across all 50 states and U.S. territories are standardized as FEDERAL LAW.
That will require a huge comprehensive set of federal gun laws and regulations that do not presently exist.
The attempt create those laws would obviously result in absolute political chaos and turmoil and likely in civil unrest the likes of which nobody can yet imagine.
Originally posted by olejoedad: I suspect that very few of the participants in this thread actually understand the current background check system, and how it works.
I suspect some participants in this thread are unaware of how terrible government agencies are at communicating with each other.
There are firearms related laws in every level of government, from local up to federal. In order for those laws to be effectively enforced, law enforcement agencies on every level of government would need to communicate effectively. Long story short, that's a pipe dream. And for many reasons.
So like mentioned above, firearms laws would all need to be consolidated to the federal level. Of course, that would strip some power away from state and local governments, and make the federal government even more powerful. Do you really want that?
Read-o-Meter: More than 4 minutes but less than 5.
I think Pennsylvania did itself proud. And they didn't have to pass any restrictive new gun laws like banning the sale of "assault" weapons or higher capacity magazines. Not that I see in this report.
The federal government should create a "booth" to promote Pennsylvania's state level background check system as a model and bring it to firearms industry conventions and gun shows in all of the other 49 states.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2020).]
I suspect some participants in this thread are unaware of how terrible government agencies are at communicating with each other.
There are firearms related laws in every level of government, from local up to federal. In order for those laws to be effectively enforced, law enforcement agencies on every level of government would need to communicate effectively. Long story short, that's a pipe dream. And for many reasons.
So like mentioned above, firearms laws would all need to be consolidated to the federal level. Of course, that would strip some power away from state and local governments, and make the federal government even more powerful. Do you really want that?
They can't even keep track of their own firearms. gunwalkers
Read-o-Meter: More than 4 minutes but less than 5.
I think Pennsylvania did itself proud. And they didn't have to pass any restrictive new gun laws like banning the sale of "assault" weapons or higher capacity magazines. Not that I see in this report.
The federal government should create a "booth" to promote Pennsylvania's state level background check system as a model and bring it to firearms industry conventions and gun shows in all of the other 49 states.
When the NICS was set up, Congress failed to provide the States with funding to set up reporting systems required by the new statute. As a result, record reporting was very spotty, as the 'unfunded mandate' was beyond the budget or desire of some of the State legislatures. I haven't yet read the text of the rules in PA, but funding the data collection system is a good start to making the NICS work as it was designed.
Thanks rinse, good find.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 10-01-2020).]
The 2A is an issue in our bellwether senate race, but it is not being discussed. Kelly's position should be obvious, he is married to Gabby Giffords. But Arizona is a very pro-2A state, so he is keeping it under his hat.
... yet nothing will convince you that COVID-19 is a threat.
There are plenty of other, less noble reasons.
