What limitations to the Second Amendment are acceptable to you?

[MohawkSlim]

I love all the "shall not be infringed" folks who fill out 4473s and carry LTCHs.

Our brothers in CT lined up for registration. I bet most of us would too. We have too much to lose today. Our big houses. Our nice SUVs. Our cushy lives. "But I have kids."

Everyone wants to be a III%er until it's time to do threeper $#!t.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I love all the "shall not be infringed" folks who fill out 4473s and carry LTCHs.

Our brothers in CT lined up for registration. I bet most of us would too. We have too much to lose today. Our big houses. Our nice SUVs. Our cushy lives. "But I have kids."

Everyone wants to be a III%er until it's time to do threeper $#!t.

While I may put up with as much as I deal with today, I would draw the line at registration. I am descended from an original threeper (born in 1756 and participated in a certain altercation with the British relatively early in adulthood) and my family can be so represented again.

 

[Dosproduction]

Im fine with no weapons of mass destruction. And it would need to be defined as something that can kill a mile area of people with one trigger pull. Or something similar for definition. Would have to be defined very well so there is none of this shall not infringe debates. But with that being said I think that the state militia should be allowed to have nukes on some level in case the idiots in DC get out of hand and the states need to defend them selves from nuclear attack in the future. (don't tell me how that sounds crazy because you NEVER know what the future holds)

 

[IndyDave1776]

Im fine with no weapons of mass destruction. And it would need to be defined as something that can kill a mile area of people with one trigger pull. Or something similar for definition. Would have to be defined very well so there is none of this shall not infringe debates. But with that being said I think that the state militia should be allowed to have nukes on some level in case the idiots in DC get out of hand and the states need to defend them selves from nuclear attack in the future. (don't tell me how that sounds crazy because you NEVER know what the future holds)

It may have seemed really plausible had there been WMDs in 1861.

 

[jamil]

I'm ok with prisoners not being allowed guns while in jail.
I'm ok with the prohibition of guns being used for illegal acts like murder, robbery, assault, etc.
I'm ok with private property owners exercising their rights and regulating guns on their property.

I'm good with all of that.


Everyone has a right to have everything that they have the resources to own responsibly. I don't expect to codify that in words though since it implies that the government should inspect resources before you're allowed anything. It's just what I say when the gun control zealots (GCZ) try the slippery slope argument "well, why can you have 'assault rifles' but not nukes? Where do you raw the line?"

Yes, unless your position is that everyone can truly have anything, there is a line to draw. And that's why the GCZ use that argument, to get you to admit to an extreme position so that they can call you bat **** crazy.

So if there is a line to draw, then there are categories of weapons where some things may be prohibited. For example, some say weapons that the military can't use domestically. That's a category of prohibited weapons. I think it's fair game to say some weapons can't really be owned responsibly. And that's a very narrow category. Probably no nukes for citizens. Or bioweapons. No depleted uranium ordinance.

Battleships? Now that's a different story. If you're rich enough to own a Battleship, you probably can afford to dock it somewhere. You can probably afford the stuff to shoot stuff with. You can probably pay a crew competent to run it. And, oceans are big. Maybe you can afford your own island for target practice. I think that'd be very cool.

But regardless of what weapons you own, from a Ruger MK III to a battleship, if you use it to infringe on other's rights, that's the main category for prohibition.

 

[ATM]

...No depleted uranium ordinance.

Statist.

 

[MTC]

My answer to this question will always be "none". Unless and until I can ascertain that the inquirer completely understands the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment, and has sworn absolute loyalty to support and defend the Constitution of The United States, that person is either misinformed, has been indoctrinated by, or is in fact the enemy.

 

[2A_Tom]

...No depleted uranium ordinance.

Statist.

Actually DU is a great alternative to lead which so many "environmentalists" believe is a pollutant. It is 68% denser than lead. A much better choice than steel shot. Imagine the knock down power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

 

[Light]

I'm with BE. I always was torn on the "nuke" debate, but I think domestic weapons would be a good line.
As for battleships and the like, I believe the 2nd Amendment also allowed for privateers to still operate personal ships with cannons, it should be no different today.

If you do something stupid with a weapon, we have consequences for that.

As for people in prison, I do believe they should be stripped of their rights, but only while in prison. ALL of their rights should be restored when they leave.
If they are too violent to walk the streets, they shouldn't be out of prison. I don't believe in the "felony" system we use today.
This would require a rework of a lot of charges on determining where to draw the line, but I believe it would be possible.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm with BE. I always was torn on the "nuke" debate, but I think domestic weapons would be a good line.
As for battleships and the like, I believe the 2nd Amendment also allowed for privateers to still operate personal ships with cannons, it should be no different today.

If you do something stupid with a weapon, we have consequences for that.

As for people in prison, I do believe they should be stripped of their rights, but only while in prison. ALL of their rights should be restored when they leave.
If they are too violent to walk the streets, they shouldn't be out of prison. I don't believe in the "felony" system we use today.
This would require a rework of a lot of charges on determining where to draw the line, but I believe it would be possible.

 

[cosermann]

I prefer to consider this question in the context of our current reality. "None," is a nice little theoretical answer, and I'm not saying I disagree with it, BUT that's not where we are at in today's reality.

So, I'll answer the question in the context of the current situation (of over 20,000 gun laws): I am NOT willing to accept a SINGLE additional limitation to the RKBA (none, zero, zip, zilch, nada), than what we currently have today, WITHOUT a "deal" of some kind.

Mr. Democrat wants to add a class of prohibited persons to the list? Fine, let's talk about what you're going to give back. Maybe I'll trade you national reciprocity for that. Maybe we remove suppressors, SBRs, and SBSGs from the NFA for that. Etc.

If we don't stop compromising, and getting NOTHING in return. We're never going to move the needle back toward the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and we need to start moving that needle.

We also need to start constantly pushing for stuff we want, repeals, etc. Every session. I don't care if all you reps and sens voted on it last year. We're not shutting up or going away until we get what we want.

That's what they do. And if they're willing to do it, and we aren't, they win. The RKBA will be gradually eroded until there's nothing meaningful left.

That's not acceptable.

 

[reno]

Some of the responses are crap! What are you willing to concede on with your freedom of speech? What are you willing to give up in your freedom of religion? Government approved churches? Housing of foreign soldiers in your home? What there? What about unwarranted searches? Just let Police storm into your home without any procedures HUH? What about just keeping your sorry butt in the clink for years without a trial after they storm your house and find something They dont like? Oh yea, and your trial, Your accusers do not have to be identified or even listed. It is just big brothers word against yours. What about the levy of a fine against you that there is no way you can pay, could pay ,, or what about cruel and unusual punishment? I suppose that should be compromised also so we can all get along?
And the big one, Reinforcing the principle of federalism stating that the federal government possesses only those powers given to it by the states?

Some of you better take a hard look at where you are, where we are as a nation.

I am not a radical, but I am an AMERICAN. Dam it, These rights have been fought over, bled over and died for.

 

[ATM]

Some of the responses are crap!
...
Some of you better take a hard look at where you are, where we are as a nation.

I am not a radical, but I am an AMERICAN. Dam it, These rights have been fought over, bled over and died for.

Well said - all of it - but, when did being a 'radical' in holding firmly to and defending such noble principles of our origin, our American heritage, assume a negative connotation?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some of the responses are crap! What are you willing to concede on with your freedom of speech? What are you willing to give up in your freedom of religion? Government approved churches? Housing of foreign soldiers in your home? What there? What about unwarranted searches? Just let Police storm into your home without any procedures HUH? What about just keeping your sorry butt in the clink for years without a trial after they storm your house and find something They dont like? Oh yea, and your trial, Your accusers do not have to be identified or even listed. It is just big brothers word against yours. What about the levy of a fine against you that there is no way you can pay, could pay ,, or what about cruel and unusual punishment? I suppose that should be compromised also so we can all get along?
And the big one, Reinforcing the principle of federalism stating that the federal government possesses only those powers given to it by the states?

Some of you better take a hard look at where you are, where we are as a nation.

I am not a radical, but I am an AMERICAN. Dam it, These rights have been fought over, bled over and died for.

Well said - all of it - but, when did being a 'radical' in holding firmly to and defending such noble principles of our origin, our American heritage, assume a negative connotation?

I took it as in implication that holding to the principle of reading the Constitution, doing what it says, and more important, NOT doing what it doesn't say does NOT make a person a radical, but rather a responsible citizen.

 

[ATM]

I took it as in implication that holding to the principle of reading the Constitution, doing what it says, and more important, NOT doing what it doesn't say does NOT make a person a radical, but rather a responsible citizen.

Responsible citizens, in a world of subjects, are quite radical - revolutionary even.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Responsible citizens, in a world of subjects, are quite radical - revolutionary even.

I see your point.

 

[reno]

The context of radical in my post is to the current view of some in our society of what "we" used to be considered to be standard American citizens. Nothing special not better than anyone else, just Americans. BUt now the brush paints so differently.

Thank you,,

 

[searpinski]

that's probably my only limit.

I approve of this image.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What limitations did the Founders accept?
Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

I approve of this image.

(Looks at avatar)... I can see why