woodwork201
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2021
- 4,631
- 2,847
- 1,938
The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.
You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.
What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?
For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.
Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.
So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?
You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".
Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.
Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.
Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.
So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
You've all read it from me, that the 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed", and that if you don't support that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
For the first 149 years in this country, no attempt was made by the Federal Government to restrict anyone not in prison or jail or a mental hospital from keeping and bearing arms. For the next 30 years, only violent felons were banned. Then in 1968, it became felony litterers as well.
What changed? Was it always acceptable under the Constitution?
For the first 202 years, no background checks were required; it wasn't necessary to get the government's permission in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
In Miller, the Supreme Court said that only weapons suited for military use are protected. In Heller, the Court said that weapons suited for military use are not protected and only commonly used, non-military, weapons are protected.
Of course none of these restrictions meet the "shall not be infringed" clause.
So, if you support these restrictions then can you truly claim to support "shall not be infringed"? If you don't support "shall not be infringed" then do you really support the 2nd Amendment?
You might actually support a limited right (privilege) for some people to keep and bear some arms but that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment requires, "shall not be infringed".
Very many gun owners here, and across the nation, talk about reasonable infringements, calling them reasonable restrictions. Their hearts are in the right place; they're emotional about gun deaths and murdered children - more so than the gun grabbers on the left - so they ignore, or are otherwise willing to accept, reasonable infringements.
Gun owners and advocates of the right to keep and bear arms regularly talk about the emotionally-driven responses on the left while supporting gun control driven by their own emotions. Both are wrong. The Constitution must drive the law, not emotions.
Gun owners regularly point out that only the law-abiding obey the gun laws but then, out of emotion, support all sorts of gun control laws that have been proven to do nothing to reduce crime - but they just don't have the no-compromise commitment to their principles or to the 2nd Amendment to publicly call for the end of every infringement and to say that they're all unconstitutional.
So, I'll just say, as the title of this thread says, realizing this will be a hard pill for you to swallow and admit to yourselves, and other than perhaps one or two others on this site, perhaps one or two percent of other gun owners in the nation, no, you may be pro gun, you may like guns, but you do not support the 2nd Amendment.
