Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsGun Rights › Gun rights
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Gun rights (Read 5,636 times)
Juice300x3
CF Full Member
**
Offline

I Love the Conservative's
Forum!

Posts: 62
Location: Red State proud
Joined: 01/09/08
Gender: Male
Gun rights
10/26/09 at 10:27:32
Print Post  
Serious question, I think that basically all of us on here can agree that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own our own firearms.

Going purely by the Constitution, can one assume that only applies to pistols and rifles?  There was no mention of cannons, but do we assume that it was not intended to say that people could now have grenades, RPG's, mortars, military style bombs, or biochem or nukes?

What is the Constitutional cut off for the arms that a people can have?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tonto
Leading CF Member
***
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 157
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 03/31/09
Gender: Male
Re: Gun rights
Reply #1 - 10/27/09 at 11:23:33
Print Post  
  Evidently the "right" delineated by the Second Amendment is interpreted along political lines and by the leanings of the population or political leanings of the various states.  In Tennessee, the reps in the big cities where there is a majority of Democraps, they're anti gun....in the outlying area and the "country" having and using guns is commonplace.  Just recently, in Vermont, the governor proposed a law which would make not owning a gun as taxable.  His grounds for this tax is the Second Amendment.  He said that anyone who CHOSE NOT TO HAVE A FIREARM was clearly demonstrating their reluctance to be a part of a militia, were unconcerned with the security of the state, and were of a population that needed to be protected by others, and therefore should pay more for their defence then those who were willing to be armed and thereby a part and parcel of the state's defence.  Vermont is the only state that has no laws demanding a permit for a concealed weapon.  In other words, if you have a weapon and want to carry it, concealed or otherwise, one just does.  Of course in Vermont, people are held accountable for their own actions, unlike some states in which claims of "the devil made me do it" are acceptable.  Many people, many more than are known, are actually carrying guns because they believe the second amendment gives them that right.  Some people carry when they want to just because they feel the GOD GIVEN right to liberty, freedom, and right to life allows them to defend themselves at whatever means......or price.  After all, who cares what a dingbat on a county board, state legislature, of even the federal government has the right or power to tell the rest of us that we have no right of self defence?  And what makes more sense?  Arming ones self or waiting for the police to arrive?  The truth is, many people carry that you'd never think were, and you'll never know, and the number is rising.  The philosophy is: " Much better to have and never need, then to need and not have."
  

"Guns will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no guns"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Juice300x3
CF Full Member
**
Offline

I Love the Conservative's
Forum!

Posts: 62
Location: Red State proud
Joined: 01/09/08
Gender: Male
Re: Gun rights
Reply #2 - 10/27/09 at 11:34:42
Print Post  
I agree with all your points, but my question is where does it stop?

I don't think that anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment would argue that you should not be allowed to carry a 9mm, but should you be able to have a 50cal sniper rifle?  How about a full auto AR?

I personally believe that fully automatics and sniper rifles (how to define that?) should be outlawed, and that no one should be able to have RPG's or grenades (though not much different than dynamite)

I would like to know your opinion, not what is happening in different areas.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AmericanWoman
Ex Member


Re: Gun rights
Reply #3 - 10/28/09 at 21:36:45
Print Post  
I think arms is probably pistols and rifles. Just a guess though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Coredriller
CF Junior Member
**
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 11
Location: Kansas
Joined: 05/23/08
Gender: Male
Re: Gun rights
Reply #4 - 10/28/09 at 23:56:36
Print Post  
Is it ok for the military to have 50cal sniper rifles and fully auto weapons, this is exactly why we should too. Roll Eyes
  

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught, especially when young, how to use them." &&Richard Henry Lee
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mogambo
Ex Member


Re: Gun rights
Reply #5 - 11/01/09 at 15:18:32
Print Post  
I can't think of a better place to make my first post on this forum.

As a rule, ordnance is not considered as legitimate arms, so I'm not overly concerned with the average citizen having weapons such as RPGs, heavy cannons, etc, ( though many of the everyday early colonialists did own them. Full auto can be owned now by paying a heavy tax on such and jumping through hoops to meet the criteria as demanded by the government. ( who actually has no Constitutional say in the matter )

I would also suggest very strongly neither the Second Amendment and/or the Constitution gives anyone a right to own or possess any weapon. They are simply the codification into law of a right that existed long before either was written. When we as conservatives, speak of being given rights, we fall into the snares of the liberal gun control freaks. I'll take a pass, thank you.

You folks have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Astral
Ex Member


Re: Gun rights
Reply #6 - 11/19/09 at 00:15:23
Print Post  
Quote:
I think arms is probably pistols and rifles. Just a guess though.



The word 'Arms' in the constitution is used as a verb.  In that context 'arms' indicates weapons.  A sword, pistol, dagger, grenade, AK-47, Mini-Gun, Sniper Rifle, or Nuclear Bomb is a weapon.

However, despite the fact that every item in that list is technically a weapon, the Constitution does not have literature that speaks to new technology that are/would be classified as weapons of mass destruction.  The most powerful weapon on the field of battle was a cannon in those days.  And citizens owned cannons without challenge from the law.  Additionally, citizens owned military grade rifles and pistols without challenge from the law.  And even the American President of those times walked among the citizens all equipped to the teeth by today's standards bearing weapons without challenge from the law.

I would say that small and heavy weapons are essentially protected by the 2nd amendment because that amendment also speaks to a States rights to maintain a militia.  I even agree that people should be able to freely carry and "Bear" their arms in public and in private.

I will say that under no circumstances should a citizen freely obtain or bear a weapons platform of any kind.  This would be things like tanks, weapons batteries, armed aircraft, or highly destructive ordinance.  I don't think anyone would mistake the 2nd amendment as a right to own a nuclear bomb.

I think coredriller does have the right idea.  The expectation that a nation is to be defended by its military alone is not the expectation that the founders had.  The "Idea" of a sane and responsible "Citizenship" would be that everyone keeps and bears arms for the common defense of our nation from all enemies foreign AND domestic.

I believe the idea that we no longer need to carry around guns because we have the police to protect us, is to say that we do not have the right to protect ourselves and that we should also not have the responsibility of governing ourselves.  For if your population is not to be trusted to carry weapons for internal and external defense, then why trust them for anything at all?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Independent Conservatives
CF Full Member
**
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 82
Location: Kerrville, TX
Joined: 11/22/09
Re: Gun rights
Reply #7 - 11/24/09 at 12:59:50
Print Post  
If we are to ever usurp a tyrannical government, as is our God given right, we need access to the same weaponry used by that Government.

Now, I realize that getting ahold of F18's with full arament, or M1A1 Tanks is a bit out of my pricerange, there should be no laws barring US Citizens from owning them.

So with respect to full auto, explosives (cannons, RPGs, C4, grenades etc) etc. then yes, I believe it is Constitutional to possess those weapons.

A look at history will show this to be true. When the whites first came to North America, the Indians were WAY out gunned: Bows and arrows vs cannons and muskets. Then, during the Indian wars, they were able to get their hands on the same arms as the US Army, and they had a fighting chance.

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Astral
Ex Member


Re: Gun rights
Reply #8 - 11/24/09 at 21:50:26
Print Post  
I don't think you have thought this through.

You may not be able to own an f-18 because you cannot afford it, but it won't stop a large corporation from funding their own military.  Imagine if a bunch of rich Muslims got in and became citizens purchasing jets, tanks, and nuclear bombs for a juicy jihad!  9/11 would have been a foot note in comparison!

Citizens being able to freely own a tooth pick all the way up to grenades, rocket launchers, and heavy weapons is sufficient to guarantee our freedoms from a tyrannical government.  We will not require Air Craft, Tanks, or any other weapons platforms.

I am not stupid enough to believe things like "Posse Comitatus" and other similar laws would prevent the Government from activating the military against civilians.  However, it won't be so easy to just send the military against civilians.  There would be serious repercussions to mobilizing the military against citizens.  Not only would that cause more people to decent, it would also cause a large portion of the military to become a destructive adversary against its own leadership.  The full military would not even need to desert, many would stay behind and subvert and report military operations!

In fact we would have more to fear from a foreign military rather than our own.

I believe the rule should be modified.  Any weapons that can be carried on person no matter how strange or drastic it appears should be protected.  Any weapons that are capable of detonating an area greater than 20 feet in radius should be restricted to military use under officially appointed direction of one of the States or National government.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
chefplr
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 3,563
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Joined: 01/22/09
Gender: Male
Re: Gun rights
Reply #9 - 11/30/09 at 20:26:12
Print Post  
For those who believe there should be  limit on what, how many or what type of arms we as free citizens can own, you are wrong.  Now why do you desire to place any limit on anything like this?  Fully auto weapons or sniper rifles, why cannot I own one if I had the money and the desire?  I, as well as all other people are still bound by the laws we all live under.  WMD's all are very hard to produce and are exteremly regulated in their storage and handeling.  Even if you could buy them you would still be under those regulations.
  

IF CONSERVATIVES HAVE A WAR ON WOMEN THEN WHY ARE THERE "RAPE FREE ZONES" AT OWS EVENTS AND NOT NEEDED AT TEA PARTY RALLIES?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsGun Rights › Gun rights


ConservativesForum.com
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5


Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
TruthUSA
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Hotair
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules