Question for gun enthusiast.

[progressive hunter]

The 2nd A can be regulated but not removed.

no it cant,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves no room for restrictions,,

 

[WinterBorn]

no it cant,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves no room for restrictions,,

Well that will be your little secret.

They regulate how old you have to be to buy one.
A convicted felon can't buy or possess a gun without jumping through hoops.
You can't buy a fully automatic firearm without jumping through hoops.
Someone convicted of domestic abuse, a misdemeanor, cannot buy a gun from a dealer.
If a mental health therapist reports you want to harm other or yourself, your 2A rights can be removed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Several states require safety training.

This is no way means training requirements do not violate the constitution - never, ever will such a requirement pass the Bruen test.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well that will be your little secret.

They regulate how old you have to be to buy one.
A convicted felon can't buy or possess a gun without jumping through hoops.
You can't buy a fully automatic firearm without jumping through hoops.
Someone convicted of domestic abuse, a misdemeanor, cannot buy a gun from a dealer.
If a mental health therapist reports you want to harm other or yourself, your 2A rights can be removed.

those are restriction not regulations,,

to regulate in this case would be the state providing military grade weapons/arms to the people,,

but thats not how militias work does it,, the people provide their own weapons/arms..

all those things you stated used due process except the machine guns,,

 

[PredFan]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

No other reason needed. i could add that it's fun to shoot, and it is.

 

[WinterBorn]

no it cant,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves no room for restrictions,,

When was the National Firearms Act passed? 1934?

 

[progressive hunter]

When was the National Firearms Act passed? 1934?

you mean that unconstitutional gun control law that took away people right to own specific arms???

just because they got away with violating our rights doesnt mean its legal or right,,

 

[2aguy]

No. Several states require safety training.

And they are a violation of the Right to carry a gun.

For the longest time, slavery was legal too....and that was a violation of the Constitution.....but the democrat party did it anyway.

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't matter if you don't like it. That is the law.

And when the democrat party created Poll Taxes and Literacy tests, those were the law as well....and unConstitutional.....but it took time to get them into the courts.....

 

[Mack The Finger]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

I support the 2nd Amend but I am also all for sensible guns.

I think only LEO should have that stuff...it is not practical for target shooting and if you need that bullets; you need the police more.

 

[progressive hunter]

I support the 2nd Amend but I am also all for sensible guns.

I think only LEO should have that stuff...it is not practical for target shooting and if you need that bullets; you need the police more.

that means you dont support the 2nd A,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

I support the 2nd Amend but I am also all for sensible guns.
I think only LEO should have that stuff...it is not practical for target shooting and if you need that bullets; you need the police more.

 

[Mack The Finger]

View attachment 964995

I don't know what to say other than those items have become tools of nuts and thugs...way to much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know what to say other than those items have become tools of nuts and thugs...way to much.

Maybe so.
But the fact remains.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't know what to say other than those items have become tools of nuts and thugs...way to much.

yes the government has all of them,,
thats why the people also should have them as the 2nd A states,,

why would you say you support the 2nd A and then openly speak against it??

 

[Mack The Finger]

that means you dont support the 2nd A,,

IMHO...if the GOV says you can only have a one shot at a time...they have fulfilled their obligation to the 2nd Amen.

No where does it say you can have a extended MAG.

 

[Mack The Finger]

yes the government has all of them,,
thats why the people also should have them as the 2nd A states,,

why would you say you support the 2nd A and then openly speak against it??

That is a matter of opinion.

I worked at a gun shop and those NRA nuts drove me up a wall.

They are obsessed...as bad a the far left gun grabbers.

 

[progressive hunter]

IMHO...if the GOV says you can only have a one shot at a time...they have fulfilled their obligation to the 2nd Amen.

No where does it say you can have a extended MAG.

it clearly says no restrictions,,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

saying we cant have a standard 30 round mag is an infringement,,

what it says is the government cant dictate what we have

 

[progressive hunter]

That is a matter of opinion.

I worked at a gun shop and those NRA nuts drove me up a wall.

They are obsessed...as bad a the far left gun grabbers.

opinions dont count,,

it is specific that the government has no authority to dictate what we can or cant have,,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The fact of this matter is......

It is extremely rare that weapons are used in mass killings. Even more so with bump stocks.
Removing the ability for the masses of innocent people to protect themselves because of a few criminals is not appropriate.

That said with open borders as they are, no gun laws conceivable can stop criminals and evil does from finding weapons.
The Left is unwilling to take real steps towards stopping criminals. But instead advocates revoking the protections of innocents.

The notion of making guns less available is a fantasy. Taking guns from everyone to achieve more safety is another fantasy that just means only thew evil will have them.

The ONLY REAL SOLUTION is to have a secure border and properly remove those who choose to use weapons against the innocent from society and make meaningful efforts to find and stop them. Again, the Left overall shows it's unwillingness to do either of these common sense steps.