I am total support of the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms but I've been thinking and have some questions for other supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute? Or that the citizens right to bear arms is absolute? Should there be some restrictions? If you think that there should be some restrictions which ones do you believe do not violate a person's right to bear arms? Are the gun control laws that are already on the books enforced? If not, what makes you think that if an additional law is passed that it is going to be enforced? Should there be background checks when purchasing guns? What do you think of Senators Toomey and Manchin's compromise bipartisan plan? Do you think that a background check violates a person's 2nd Amendment rights? Do you think that passing an additional gun law will prevent a massacre like happened in Newtown or Aurora?
12 comments:
I know the Second Amendment is absolute.
There should never be any restrictions.
There are enough laws on the books now between 22,000-32,000 laws on the books now.
No the laws are not being enforced.
Just look at the number of cases actually prosecuted.
No additional background checks.
They have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
No they would not
Thanks for answering my questions, Rick.
I have mixed feelings on background checks. But I don't see how they would infringe on the 2nd Amendment. I tend to disagree about the Second Amendment being absolute, as far as being without a minimal number of restrictions.
I'm not going to fall on my sword over background checks, per se. Although I personally align more with Ricks ideal, and wholeheartedly agree with him on the ineffectual enforcement of existing law.....background checks do not pose a positional problem for me. The problem arises when there is so much more in the proposed legislation than merely background checks. The language inserted in at least the original bill was designed solely to erode the culture of firearm ownership by making any and every action involving a firearm so heinously onerous and costly, that ownership would simply whither and die.
That was their hope.
Passing any gun law would not have stopped the recent tragedies.
Any right thinking dictator loves gun control. Chicago (Obama's home) now has the strongest gun laws in the land, while at the same time the highest murder rate in the country. A government that wishes to control its people doesn't want guns in their hands. Thus, the Second Amendment was born. It's no accident it's number two.
Right now background check info is discarded in 24 hours. The ACLU indicates there is nothing in the new bill that mandates this. Thus we have registration by default. You can bet once anyone gets checked it will be stored forever. The ultimate Trojan. It sounds so benign.
I do think the 2nd amendment is absolute, but I also think anyone who owns a gun should be trained in using it responsibly.
Constitutional Insurgent,
"The language inserted in at least the original bill was designed solely to erode the culture of firearm ownership by making any and every action involving a firearm so heinously onerous and costly, that ownership would simply whither and die."
Are you talking about Feinstein's bill or the compromise bill by Manchin and Toomey? I am in full agreement with you if the bill's purpose is to make it nearly impossible to own a firearm. Plus, I am opposed to Feinstein's power grabbing anti 2nd Amendment bill.
Great points Odie! The 2nd Amendment is essential to liberty and us not having a tyrannical government.
Bunkerville,
From what I saw on the news the Toomey/Manchin bill wouldn't have a federal database or gun registry. I am sympathetic with your concern over the background checks turning into a national gun registry.
Cube,
I fully agree with you about the necessity for gun owners to be fully trained. But I'm not sure about the 2nd Amendment being absolute, as far as guns being permitted everywhere, or certain guns being allowed in various places.
Theresa - "Are you talking about Feinstein's bill or the compromise bill by Manchin and Toomey?"
Both really. Feinstein's bill is death by hatchet, while the current Senate proposal is death by papercuts.....but the endstate is the same.
Can I just say what a relief to find somebody who really knows what theyre speaking about on the internet. You positively know learn how to bring a difficulty to mild and make it important. More individuals need to read this and perceive this facet of the story. I cant believe youre no more in style since you undoubtedly have the gift. best online casinos
Post a Comment