2nd Amendment


  1. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    OK, as a guide I am foolishly venturing into a hotly contested subject...or is it?

    The House just passed H.R. 822 which is the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill which will provide for State Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Permit holders (of which I am one) all across the U.S. by a resounding margin, 272-154. Figures like this belie a bipartisan sentiment in Congress, despite what the media and gun control groups would like us to believe.

    Add to this the latest Gallup Poll a record low of 26% of Americans favor a ban on handguns, 53% vs. 43% are IN favor of semi-automatic weapons, and 44% of Americans are in support of gun laws remaining where they are.

    I have heard all the arguments in support of gun control and not one of them makes a damn bit of sense. I unfortunately have even known people who believe you do not have a right to self-defense if it means injury or death to another human being.

    I do not for one second believe that banning guns will in any way reduce crime, in fact it will have the opposite effect, how many criminals do you think will say "Wait, I can't use this gun to commit this crime, it would be illegal...". And don't even try to kid yourself that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals; how successful has any government been in stemming black markets.

    I am not opposed to sensible restrictions, but I stop short of anything that resembles a Federal licensing or registry program, that is the first step in later taking your guns away and we are already on that path with the BATF transfer records.

    What it boils down to for me is gun control is another attempt to remove our liberties from us, once we start down that dark road it will be very difficult to come back.

    Give your views and opinions openly, but be please be respectful and keep the tone civil.

    Advertisement
    :
    BabyBlues, tommy_ed and Adauth like this.
  2. Adauth

    Adauth Well-Known Member

    You pretty much summed up my feelings on "gun control" As an avid hunter and a proud NRA member these "gun control groups" and the media can have my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands.
  3. jerofld

    jerofld Fixing stuff is not easy VIP Member

    The only gun bans I support are ones on weapons that are obviously not meant for sport (target shooting), hunting game or self-defense. Like M-60 machine guns, RPGs, and fully automatic assault rifles. Which, I believe, is what the current law states.

    I don't currently own a gun (although I am thinking about getting one), but I would also support needing to take a safety course (if one is not already required) as long as the owner has not received any safety training in the military, police, or other such organizations where firearms are trained with and relied upon.

    I don't have any hard facts on it, but hasn't the crime either remained the same or gone up since banning of hand guns? Because the criminals get black market guns and the citizens have nothing and the criminals know this?
  4. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Please explain the reasoning behind your stance on this.
  5. jerofld

    jerofld Fixing stuff is not easy VIP Member

    Machine guns purpose is to provide suppressing fire and/or take down large amount targets quickly. Hence why ammo comes in 100 round cases. I don't think I've ever seen a house attacked by a large group of deer before. Automatic weapons are similar, but they just don't have the magazine capability.

    I also doubt anyone would try to protect their home with an RPG.

    Are those guns fun to shoot? Yes. I was qualified to shoot M60s and .50 cals. I just don't see how they fit under 'personal protection'.
  6. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Sure they wouldn't fit under 'personal protection' from deer and such but who protects themselves from deer? The idea of 'personal protection' is from ALL evil entities. What people don't realize is the 2nd amendment was put in place so we could protect ourselves from individuals sure but more importantly, from the government. That was the intent behind the amendment over everything. If you look at it from this standpoint the government has some pretty powerful weapons and neutering the availability of weapons to the commoners creates a gap of firepower that is slowly widening. IMO there should be no regulation on 'assault weapons' suppressors or short barreled firearms. I think that whole section is simply a farce of perceived safety created by bureaucrats and a cash grab. Nobody is any safer due to these laws and the NFA does NOTHING to protect Americans. In fact, I would argue that the ATF has done more to endanger Americans since it's inception than to protect it with statistics to back up said claims (see 'Operation Fast and Furious' for a start).

    I also find it comical about how evil people who aren't in the know think full auto weapons are thanks to the media. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that semi-auto can be just as effective as FA and in every case it's more accurate. Those who think an AR15 is somehow less capable of killing massive amounts of people because it's not FA are ignorant to how they work.
    tommy_ed and SamuraiBigEd like this.
  7. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator


    I don't support an all out ban on fully automatic weapons, the current system works well on that front, you purchase the weapon which is held pending your federal paperwork. If you are approved you can show your paperwork and pick up your weapon, if not the transaction is cancelled generally. Fully auto weapons for a lack of better words are fun, going out and shooting responsibly is a joy and a tremendous stress reliever. If somebody can afford and wants to as long as they are abiding by the laws I see no reason to prevent them.

    I agree on the RPG subject, there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to own one or any other rocket propelled ordinance.

    What I do disagree with wholeheartedly that you did not mention but Ostrich did is the "short barrel" restrictions. You have to file with the BATF for these as well which makes no sense, 16" is legal but below that is not. You are reducing the rifles effectiveness when you do this, not making it more lethal, but what you do gain is maneuverability which can be a big plus in brush country (or your home in defense of a home invasion) and is also the argument against them.

    As far as hand gun bans, crime has increased in the areas they have been banned such as D.C. while it has decreased steadily everywhere else as gun ownership has risen.

    Added to address posts I missed:

    The "personal protection" standard was not part of the 2nd amendment, it is a BATF standard and one used for as Ostrich put it "...neutering the availability of weapons to the commoners...", this needs to be stopped plain and simple.
  8. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I use to buy .22 ammo in 100 round boxes. Not sure how the number of rounds could possibly mean anything. Certainly, lots of people here purchase ammo in 100 round containers.

    An RPG is illegal. A machine gun is perfectly legal. ALSO, did you know it is legal to purchase and use a silencer?

    I think machine guns are not a big issue because they take effort to obtain legally and they are bloody costly for casual use. Lots of fun, but still not my cup of tea.
  9. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    The whole issue of Concealed Carry gets muddled by the inclusion of discussion and debate about fully automatic assault weapons, and even certain calibers and magazine capacities and "silencing" apparatus and "police killer" jacketing designs, etc.

    I don't know the answer. I just feel that a strongly enforced permit system is in order, where the weapons, ammo and owner of them both should be tracked by state/local law envorcement. <--- And that is unconstitutional by many interpretations of that great document and those pesky amendments. ;)
  10. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    Bob, I always enjoy your point of view! You hit the nail on the head, most people don't want to go to the expense and trouble to get an automatic, short barreled or silenced weapon. And yes automatics add the expense of rapid fire money loss, I know this all to well. I just want my short barreled PS90, at approximately $22.00 a box of 50 I don't want the ability to burn that up in a few seconds.

    Frisco, the thread is about the 2nd amendment in general, not specifically Concealed Carry, that was just a jumping off point to help illustrate the current public opinion about guns.

    The type of permit system you suggest is way to invasive and does impede on civil liberties and rights. A license to carry concealed where you have to demonstrate proficiency, ffl transfer paperwork for initial purchases, these are good and acceptable policies but any kind of system requiring a federal permit to own a fire arm or ammunition is going way too far. Maybe at a state level, but it should not be used as a "gun control" tool.
  11. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    No no.. did my post come across as criticizing the thread? Sorry.. it was not meant like that at all. I was lamenting how complicated the weapons issue is. :) Re-reading it now I see that it can be taken the way you just responded, but no, I was thinking out loud on how muddled the issues are, and how as soon as any aspect of it comes up all the other aspects end up being hashed (I bought some "Black Talon" ammo for my Glock 30SF a while back and there was a disclaimer in the case in the store about using that ammo in self-defense could set you up for legal hassles :rolleyes:).

    I don't think federal permits are needed. I'm in agreement about state rights on it, and am fine with voluntarily impeding civil rights and liberties at the local level to combat weapons related crime.

    It's complicated, and it depends on how far we want to extend our argument about it. Libertarians, for example, don't even want automobile licensing or any other government based permit system beyond qualification criteria for things such as doctors and nurses, etc.
  12. Bob Cat

    Bob Cat Careful, They're sharp!! Moderator

    Anything below 18" is illegal. First hand experience.;)
  13. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    No problem, I didn't take it as criticism, just mistook it for you thinking the original idea was concealed carry.

    Must have been a shotgun unless it is a State regulation, ATF rules say 16" for rifles.

    From The Gun Control Act of 1968

    (6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or
    more barrels less than eighteen inches
    in length and any weapon made from a
    shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as
    modified has an overall length of less
    than twenty-six inches.

    (8) The term "short-barreled rifle"
    means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length
    and any weapon made from a rifle
    (whether by alteration, modification, or
    otherwise) if such weapon, as modified,
    has an overall length of less than
    twenty-six inches.
  14. Bob Cat

    Bob Cat Careful, They're sharp!! Moderator

    It was a shotgun Big E. I measured from the butt to the barrel the twenty six inches which i didn't know the barrel had to be no less than 18" until law enforcement was so nice to point that out to me. Ahhh the things we do as teenagers.
  15. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    For shotguns (SBS) you're right. For rifles (SBR) the magic number is 16" & I know first hand as I own several of both.
  16. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    The problem is impeding civil rights really doesn't do much to combat weapon related crime. It may prevent "moment of rage" crimes but the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or black market weapons.

    So you are correct, it is a very complicated issue. I could easily see how a misguided idealist would think preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns would prevent gun related crime but the truth is the total opposite, crime actually increases when you remove the ability to defend yourself.

    And we get to the crux of the matter, it is not so much the guns as it is the right to self-defense that is in jeopardy. As I said before, there are a lot of people who believe we don't have the right to self-defense.
  17. 2003vstrom

    2003vstrom Well-Known Member

    I support the the bill, I`m a CPL holder in michigan, and if I want to travel to any state in the union, would like to be able to have my XDM 40 s&w
  18. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    It's a little curious that the same people that always scream 'states rights' on most federal legislation are now support legislation that restricts a states right.
  19. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    Some.

    But I haven't heard any of them "screaming."

    Of course my ears aren't what they used to be. :D
  20. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    The States couldn't or wouldn't agree on reciprocity so this is an instance were federal intervention was warranted.
  21. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    So anytime the states can't agree on something it's ok that the federal government can intervin?

    That would include... just about everything.
  22. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    No but try not to forget that it's the individual's rights that are paramount to that of the state or of the fed. In this case states unfairly chose for far too long to ignore basic inalienable rights of the individual for far too long so a bill was introduced to return rights to the individual. This and nation protection were the primary reasons we created a federal government to begin with. It seems the federal government has been over stepping it's boundaries for so long that the point of using it for what it was actually created for seems novel.
    SamuraiBigEd likes this.
  23. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    The reciprocity that exists now, wherein most CC states have agreements with many other states, seems to be working. I've got Nebraska and Utah and Florida. That covers (at last count, could have changed) all states but Wisconsin and New Mexico (again, I'll have to look it up, going by recollection, maybe Illinois is left out too).

    It seems to be gradually increasing to all states "naturally," as more of them see that wordage in the licenses/permits, requirements of class hours and background checks become the norm from state to state.

    Heck, the FBI fingerprint requirement alone is "federal" enough for me. Let the states do it as it's being done.. takes time for full state to state reciprocity to come about, but it does seem to be happening with no true fed laws about it needed.
    Bob Maxey likes this.
  24. SamuraiBigEd

    SamuraiBigEd Under paid Sasquatch! Moderator

    Problem is there are states that refuse to recognize other states permits, California being one that jumps to mind but there are more, enough that you can't travel across the U.S. unimpeded.

    Andy, this was not a concoction of the Fed's, it started as a grassroots movement that was then brought to the Congressmen that sponsored it. It was an issue that enough citizens felt needed addressing.
  25. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    That's the strong end of that argument for the fed law. I am not expressing disagreement with it in spirit, but yes I am in function: I don't want that federal law/permit.

    My reasoning is a lean in the direction of time taking care of this. The states that didn't recognize so-and-so other state's permit now do, one by one they get together and largely due to pressure from good folks just like you who see the need for nationwide recognition of our rights to carry as (proven) law abiding citizens.

    It's very very close to the same thing, only the way I advocate negates the fed law/permit need as long as we're willing to wait it out.

    Now, I will say this: the first time I see a state in my reciprocity bunch turn and disallow where they once allowed, I'll be pretty mad. ;)
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. pb2665
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    263
  2. hbundles88
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,409
  3. wifflenipples
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
  4. esms06
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    228
  5. dvz
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    546

Share This Page