Survivalist Forum banner

What should the US 2nd amendment allow?

  • No individual firearm ownership--only militias

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • obtaining single shot firearms

    Votes: 4 2.3%
  • obtaining semi-auto firearms

    Votes: 40 22.6%
  • new import, production and sale of full auto guns

    Votes: 76 42.9%
  • RPGs, bazookas, LAW rockets, etc.

    Votes: 36 20.3%
  • other (please explain)

    Votes: 23 13.0%
1 - 20 of 95 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
So lots of discussions about what level of firepower the US Constituton 2nd amendment should citizens to posess. Share your opinion!

I left out AAA, bunker busters and nukes, but if you think citizens should have access to these, please say so.

HippieSurvivalist
 

·
"Survivalist since Birth"
Joined
·
551 Posts
I am for the import, production, and sale of full auto weapons, HOWEVER, I do not think that your average citizen needs an RPG, Bazooka, LAW, or other anti armor device. Perhaps Ill post my reasoning later...but right now its 2 am
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
No restriction. Once you restrict and put limits on what we can own, you begin the downward spiral into tyranny, because like a 4 year old, they always want more.. Little by little, the anti gun politicians have been whittling away at what we can own.. I'm not saying accidents and events won't occur.. But that is collateral damage compared to where this government is headed down the road of tyranny. And yes, if a family or friend of mine happens to end up as that "collateral damage", I will still support what I have said.

THERE IS NO DAMNED REASON THAT I SHOULD NOT BE "LEGALLY" ALLOWED TO OWN AN AK-47 IN MY STATE!! None what so ever.. Yet, I'm allowed to own a Chinese SKS with high capacity magazine and a bayonet, simply because it doesn't look as stereotypically scary to the anti gun crowd.

Once you start making rules and regulations that go against the constitution, you have tyranny. And it's like a salesman telling you that his car is better for you than the car down at the other dealer, just so he gets the commission.. The very reason we SHOULD be allowed to own large weapons is BECAUSE we are SUPPOSED to be able to keep the government in check simply by the threat of having them.. THAT was the intended purpose.. Now the anti gun crowd has taken that right away from us and basically tied the hands of the people that are supposed to stand up to the tyrannical government, which we now have..

Regardless of who wins this election, they are both supporters of the tyrannical government and will infringe on our rights even more. The only people to blame for our not being able to control this situation, are those who support them.

if someone doesn't support the constituion or believe that it should be followed, you should get the **** out of here. THAT is the only case where I'd recommend someone leave our country.. And those in Washington who trample the constitution and whittle away at our rights, in the guise of "protecting" us, should be hanged like the dogs they are.. When they take the oath, they vow to support the constitution. When they break that oath, they break that contract with us.

Both Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, and the list goes on, have broken that contract with us.. When the contract is broken, they should be removed. Simply as planned and authorized by the founding fathers.. Restrictions do nothing but tie our hands.. So sure, banning RPG's may save a few lives, but the damage the restriction does to our constitutional government and republic is a far greater loss..
 

·
"Fast Mover"
Joined
·
236 Posts
I don't think these anti-gun people understand that these laws they are ramming down our throats will only affect people that obey the law. These drug dealers on the street will still have full auto tec-9s ect.... I heard on the radio this morning that 85% of police belive more gun laws will only effect normal citizens, and benifit the criminals.

Full auto all the way! I believe the background check is fine, along with the purchas age of 18/rifle and 21/handgun.

Good post Hippie

Pointblank
 
  • Like
Reactions: test

·
I hear the bagpipes
Joined
·
279 Posts
The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow anything. It restricts government from disallowing the people from being armed. The concept of the Constitution allowing government to restrict the people is off base to begin with. I've got to say, "trick question"! The framers understood that they needed arms equal to that of the government in order to stay free. They framed the Constitution to reflect that, which is indicated in the Federalist papers. Government has over time, seperated itself from the people, thus creating a potential challenge to governments authority if the people were to be so armed today. I believe that the people should be so armed today, and that all of our Constitutional principles should guide government. If this were the case though, then the peoples power over government would not be the threat of violence, but instead would be economic. If the original principles were in effect, we would control spending and direction of government programs with our consent to taxation, or not. Citzenship is a responsibility, and it is right to explain our demands as guarenteed under the constitution, as it was right that our founders explained to the world the reasoning for seperation from England. Note that they referenced grievences suffered as a result of breaches of English law. In their minds, if the British had simply followed the existing English laws, all would have been ok. They seperated anyway, whether or not any one liked it or not, but the point I am trying to make is that if we demand full and equal arms at this stage of the game, then we should present ourselves at least as clear in mind and in order as the government on all points, not just the 2nd Amendment. The spirit of the revolution was within the context of a complete vision of liberty, we need that again in order to be successful.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
So GMDSS, should Americans be able to legally obtain any weapons they want, including rockets & explosive devices? Personally I think this would lead to very strong anti-weapons public opinion, which would be followed by passing a consitutional amendment that essentially re-writes the 2nd amendment to be highly restricitive.

Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Doomsayer
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
"Other"

NO RESTRICTIONS.

Period.

If the government can have it, so can we.

Now, empty your piggy bank and rush out to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank ($4.35 million) or an A10 Thunderbolt ($11.7 million). And if you have REALLY been savings your loose change, get a Nimitz class aircraft carrier at only $4.5 billion!

Hurry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
I chose other.

I believe there must be a line. Defining that line is the whole point to our electoral process, just like all the other lines we elect our legislators to argue about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,221 Posts
So GMDSS, should Americans be able to legally obtain any weapons they want, including rockets & explosive devices? Personally I think this would lead to very strong anti-weapons public opinion, which would be followed by passing a consitutional amendment that essentially re-writes the 2nd amendment to be highly restricitive.

Just my 2 cents.
YES ANY WEAPON THEY WANT!

NOT WITHOUT ALOT OF BLOODSHED ON BOTH SIDES, MOST LIBERALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE ON THE THRESHHOLD OF CIVIL WAR,FOR PEOPLE WHO TRULY BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUITION THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR COMPROMISE, AND THE TAKEN WAY OUT OF CONTEXT! CHRISTIAN COMPROMISE,OF TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK INSTEAD OF KNOKING PEOPLES TEETH DOWN THEIR THROATS IS WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT, IN THE 1ST PLACE! BY MY PARENTS GENERATION:cool:
 

·
Inglourious Basterd
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
I think things are fine just like they are.(Here in Ohio) I can buy any semi auto AR,AK,tactical shotgun, .50cal revolver, etc. without any mag. cap. regs.and can take it home that day after a brief background check. Anyone who thinks that public citizens should be able to own grenades, RPGs and other explosive devices, is missing a few brain cells. I don't really care one way or the other about fully auto ,I don't need it, I aim when I shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Wikipedia)

To me says that “A well regulated Militia” (not the national guard that can be controlled by the federal government) is a necessity to a free State and we are the “United States of America” not the federation of America, which would imply more Federal governorship. And that the people of the state we to be able to keep and bear all arms needed to keep that freedom of their state.

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled on against sawed off shot gun because they could not find evidence of it use in normal military use, but they did write the following:

United States vs. Miller is often cited by gun-rights advocates, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".


So in my opion the 2nd admendment gives us the right to have any weapon that is used in normal military use. So that make a lot of things legal.
 

·
Here's Johnny!
Joined
·
306 Posts


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

For the sake of arguing/debating: What is the definition of Arms, as stated in the 2nd Amendment? Is keeping and bearing Arms the act of possessing them on your person? (This is actually an argument I read earlier.)

Fantastic post! (Normal Military use of what era?) I would say the 2nd allows us to have anything in the family of firearms/gun type weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
I'm comfortable with regulation and licencing. With a clean criminal record I can get a licence for most weapons, included full auto rifles. My rifles are not purchased to use against my government or its military/policeforce. Its for sporting and hunting.
 

·
Doomsayer
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
I'm comfortable with regulation and licencing. With a clean criminal record I can get a licence for most weapons, included full auto rifles. My rifles are not purchased to use against my government or its military/policeforce. Its for sporting and hunting.
Sure you are, you are from NORWAY. But this is AMERICA, and our 2nd Amendment we are talking about. We are a GUN CULTURE. Always have been, always will be...until the power cabal attempts to take them away.

Then? We will see what we will see...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Then elect someone sharing your views and willing to argue your point of view in the House and Senate. Or step up and run for office yourself and argue your point as a legislator. You won't get anywhere just posting on a forum. :)
I have sent plenty of letters to my senators and congressmen. Why bother, they are shills for the most part.. But I still send them..

As far as stepping up and running for office, after seeing the media stonewall Ron Paul hit, why bother? Ron Paul had all the aspects a true constitutionalist could ask for.. Yet America just snoozed. As if he was too boring for them. He was the only one speaking the truth about the government, the federal reserve and the constitution..The media is not fair and balanced and manipulates its viewers with 24 hours of propaganda about the candidates who both get the wink and the nod as well as shut out those who aren't playing along with the NWO agenda.

Also, if the goal of removing a tyrannical leader or administration was the true objective of the 2nd amendment, then by the very nature of the objective, it's common sense that the people would be able to upgrade their weaponry as necessary to follow suit and and actually have a chance at success.. Otherwise, those who originated the idea would have known that the objective would have been impossible if the tyrants were able to upgrade as new technology presented itself and the people would be so limited as they are today.. The very fact that the second amendment exists, proves that there should be NO infringement or restrictions..
 
1 - 20 of 95 Posts
Top