What limitations to the Second Amendment are acceptable to you?

[KLB]

This is operating under the assumtion that there's a coherent, working system, not the mess we have today

Working how? One where the bad guys suddenly decide to start following the law? One where all guns are registered so that the .gov can track who has or is supposed to have a gun?

 

[VN Vet]

Absolutely None, since "Shall Not be Infringed" means exactly that. It does not say "Can not be Infringed". It does not say "May not be Infringed". It says "Shall not.....". Shall is the highest degree of Permission or the lack there-of. I think we do have Morons running Our Country and that needs to change ASAP!

 

[Bill of Rights]

What limitations to the 2A will I accept?

NUN!

 

[GIJEW]

"...shall not be infringed." 'Nuff said.

The only reason this is being discussed is because there are tyrant wanna-be's who've stampeded frightened sheeple into agreeing to prior restraints on our rights for the purpose of gu...people control.

 

[rugertoter]

Well, I would say it does not apply to hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, but short of that, anything should go. JMHO.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, I would say it does not apply to hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, but short of that, anything should go. JMHO.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Tench Coxe

 

[Mosineer]

 

[GIJEW]

If it is deemed that people have a right to feel secure in their surroundings is Constitutional and the sight of a firearm jeopardizes that then the 2nd Amendment as we know it is in jeopardy if the majority of Justices are anti-gun.

It's this kind substitution of selfish, sissified, emoting for reason that has adult brats in universities proclaiming that their "safe spaces" and "right not to be triggered" trump other's freedom of speech. This is the same sense of entitlement that criminals bring to "work". It's at the core of our gradual self destruction as a society.

 

[TheSpark]

I do not support any gun control laws for law abiding citizens (those not convicted of serious crimes). I also do not support non-violent felons being denied gun rights.

Further, I do not support any legalized gun free zone, including but not limited to prisons, courts, schools, etc. If they don't want guns in their buildings, they can have security screen for them. Private property owners should, and do, have a right to ask you to leave if they find you have a gun on their property against their wishes. Just the same as anyone found to be in possession of Justin Beiber paraphernalia on my property will be immediately asked to leave.

 

[Vendetta]

Well, I would say it does not apply to hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, but short of that, anything should go. JMHO.

Should not these be the most important weapons to have access to, merely for the purpose of standing up to a tyrannical government should the need ever arise? Restrictions on type of weapon is shenanigans plain and simple.

 

[2A_Tom]

What do you not understand about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",in order to defend themselves from the regular militia?

Criminal laws do not infringe on our natural/God given/Constitutionally protected rights. Laws provide a means of specifying criminal activity and providing uniform punishment for abusing your's and other's rights.

 

[rugertoter]

Should not these be the most important weapons to have access to, merely for the purpose of standing up to a tyrannical government should the need ever arise? Restrictions on type of weapon is shenanigans plain and simple.

Lol, you don't know some of my neighbors. I would not want any of them to have such devices at their disposal.

 

[2A_Tom]

Lol, you don't know some of my neighbors. I would not want any of them to have such devices at their disposal.

I infer you have thugs for neighbors. I may be wrong, but you obviously don't trust them. What keeps them from getting that and more? What is the difference with them having a gun or an explosive?

Why are you running in circles waving your hands like a madman?

Are any of your neighbors men? Allow me remind you of something I read somewhere.

The unarmed man is not only defenseless - he is also contemptible.