Patriot Mobile

Who supports 2nd amendment the most?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    50   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages
    3,923
    Points
    113
    Location
    Pensacola, FL

    I agree as well. All of the infighting is evidenced over the past year, especially when it came to the bump stock issue. What many do not understand is that the 2nd Amendment is not as wide open as they think. Yes, our forefathers wrote it without any restrictions whatsoever. Unfortunately, our governments (federal, state, and local) have found it within themselves to impose whatever restrictions they deem fit with total disregard to the Constitution. Now, the 2nd Amendment states, "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". It clearly states "Arms". Arms, in this case, specifically refers to weapons, especially firearms. It does not relate to accessories. As many know, the market is flooded with numerous accessories. Where is there a constitutional right to own firearm accessories? Who regulates accessories? An unfortunately event in Las Vegas put bump stocks into focus as some nut-job decided to use one on an AR-15 to launch an attack on a crowd of innocent and unsuspecting revelers. The same sort of focus as been put on AR-15s since Sandy Hook. What is the difference in these two cases? One thing is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the other is not. Personally, I am not a fan of bump stocks, braces/supports, or binary trigger systems and I have made that well known in several venues. Have I caught flack? You bet. Will I relent? No. As we all know, many things were designed for good intentions and were used for the opposite. Some things are designed for specific purposes and used other ways. Some things make no sense whatsoever and have no logical purpose. 2nd Amendment proponents who support bump stocks, inappropriate use of braces/supports, and binary trigger systems, are a group all of their own. I would venture to say that most 2nd Amendment supporters do not support these things. Sometimes, logical minds have to prevail and take the high road. As we know, that is a road less traveled these days. It is an unpopular road to take and many, including the NRA, take a lot of flack for it. Many fail to see that the NRA, and other gun rights organizations, do a lot to support our 2nd Amendment rights as gun owners. They have the biggest voices and people need to recognize that. Until responsible, law-abiding, and mature gun owners come together on a united front, we will remain divided and we all know what happens when a house is divided.

    I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment as will remain such. I am also a very logical and reasonable person and know what makes sense. I also know what is good and bad. If people will come together with some common sense and logic, then we can be united, but until then, we will continue to remain apart on many issues.
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,559
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    For me it’s not so much the bump stocks, it’s how they made a decision and then made some stuff up to justify it. It’s a blue print for high capacity mags(an accessory), ammunition(also not arms).

    NVM the whole thing is reactionary to a single high profile incident. It’s feel good legislature, which I can’t stand.
    Oh wait that’s right, it’s not legislature. Our representatives had no say on this.
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,714
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    I agree as well. All of the infighting is evidenced over the past year, especially when it came to the bump stock issue. What many do not understand is that the 2nd Amendment is not as wide open as they think. Yes, our forefathers wrote it without any restrictions whatsoever. Unfortunately, our governments (federal, state, and local) have found it within themselves to impose whatever restrictions they deem fit with total disregard to the Constitution. Now, the 2nd Amendment states, "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". It clearly states "Arms". Arms, in this case, specifically refers to weapons, especially firearms. It does not relate to accessories. As many know, the market is flooded with numerous accessories. Where is there a constitutional right to own firearm accessories? Who regulates accessories? An unfortunately event in Las Vegas put bump stocks into focus as some nut-job decided to use one on an AR-15 to launch an attack on a crowd of innocent and unsuspecting revelers. The same sort of focus as been put on AR-15s since Sandy Hook. What is the difference in these two cases? One thing is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the other is not. Personally, I am not a fan of bump stocks, braces/supports, or binary trigger systems and I have made that well known in several venues. Have I caught flack? You bet. Will I relent? No. As we all know, many things were designed for good intentions and were used for the opposite. Some things are designed for specific purposes and used other ways. Some things make no sense whatsoever and have no logical purpose. 2nd Amendment proponents who support bump stocks, inappropriate use of braces/supports, and binary trigger systems, are a group all of their own. I would venture to say that most 2nd Amendment supporters do not support these things. Sometimes, logical minds have to prevail and take the high road. As we know, that is a road less traveled these days. It is an unpopular road to take and many, including the NRA, take a lot of flack for it. Many fail to see that the NRA, and other gun rights organizations, do a lot to support our 2nd Amendment rights as gun owners. They have the biggest voices and people need to recognize that. Until responsible, law-abiding, and mature gun owners come together on a united front, we will remain divided and we all know what happens when a house is divided.

    I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment as will remain such. I am also a very logical and reasonable person and know what makes sense. I also know what is good and bad. If people will come together with some common sense and logic, then we can be united, but until then, we will continue to remain apart on many issues.

    I politely ask that you research the meaning of the words "well regulated" at the time the Second Amendment was written and approved. I believe multiple infringements will become a bit more apparent. Thank you.
     
    Rating - 100%
    50   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages
    3,923
    Points
    113
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    I politely ask that you research the meaning of the words "well regulated" at the time the Second Amendment was written and approved. I believe multiple infringements will become a bit more apparent. Thank you.

    The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    Satisfied?
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,410
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    [video]https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ[/video]


    Arguing that firearm parts like stocks, triggers, magazines, etc, are considered "unprotected accessories" would imply they are unnecessary. It's like saying your steering wheel, tires, brakes, headlights, engine, etc are all "accessories" and therefore unnecessary to use the automobile.

    If you want to mentally justify these unconstitutional laws because it's "only an accessory" you don't like or use, and that somehow makes it "ok" in your mind for the legislators to inflict these restrictions on fellow gun-owners, then please, do us all a favor and go away. You aren't helping your Country anymore; you're helping those who would happily dismantle it, in a very specific order.

    ANY infringement is Unconstitutional.

    ANY infringement is an attempt to remove the safeguard.

    The proponents will give soundbite "save the children" reasons, but the reasons don't matter: it's the EFFECT that Matters.

    A child wants to run across a busy street to the candy store. The "reason" is innocent; the "effect" would most likely be tragic.

    I don't care about the gun-grabbers' reasons anymore. I only care about the effects. These unchallenged infringements will eventually cause the neutering/repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and that WILL cause American bloodshed.

    Ask yourself Who wants that? Then ask yourself Who would support those people, and which side are you on?
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    IMHO: A BFS was an accessory UNTIL DOJ "changed the specific language written by Congress as Law". First point being is not an Allowed Agency "interpetation", it iis changing the wording of the Law. Second Point is that DOJ changed the device category to a Machinegun (Arms) the same as sears and other Parts. Arms are covered by the 2A. ATF Made several Technical Judgements that BFS were merely an accessory and nothing more. "DOJs NEW LAW" changed defining text to specifically encompass the BFS as a machinegun and banned them with the same document and not a single word of it was approved by Congress.

    I'm not a fan of BFS, I hate tyranny.
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,714
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    Satisfied?

    You've got one definition, and have made your interpretation/decision. That's more than most will do. Thanks for taking the time to look.

    Satisfied? No. Was not looking for or expecting satisfaction.
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,116
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
    —Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,116
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    Sen.
    Elizabeth Warren
    (D-Mass.) wants to sharply increase taxes on guns and ammunition as part of a comprehensive new plan to reduce gun deaths in the United States by 80%.





     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    On Warren: Buy now, shoot later (should have been building stock all along). And the gun grabbers say: There is no reason for a person to buy or have 500 rounds of ammunition! Yeah, right.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    There's no doubt she wants to outlast Trump first Term, Second Term is probably a bridge too far. Her Clerks might try to pull a "Edith Bolling Galt Wilson" Scam as long as there's a heart beat.
     

    FLT

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    May 15, 2017
    Messages
    3,832
    Points
    113
    Location
    Havana
    There must be something in the food or water in the DC area that causes folks to lose prospective.
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,116
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    looks like the Mormon church might be the next gunfree zone that will be violated


    [FONT=var(--bodyFont)]SALT LAKE CITY — [/FONT]][FONT=var(--bodyFont)]Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints already knew they were discouraged from taking their guns to church on Sunday, but the church is making sure that message is crystal clear by tweaking the policy to prohibit all lethal weapons.
    The previous policy called it inappropriate to have weapons on church property. It still includes an exception for law enforcement office.

    https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...-all-weapons-in-church-against-guns-in-church
    [/FONT]

     

    Members online

    Top Bottom