General Discussion

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

104. I frankly don't think we are that far apart

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:50 PM

Dec 2015

I'm certainly not an absolutist on this issue. Open carry is a NRA-driven issue. Why in the world do you need to have open carry laws? At best, open carry intimidates others, at worst it causes confusion. I guess we disagree on the justification for concealed carry (though I don't have a CC license myself). I don't oppose letting folks who qualify for a concealed carry license follow that practice. Concealed carry really doesn't concern me, criminals with guns do. With respect to the 30 rounds/10 seconds issue, I imagine that applies only to rifles with really large capacity magazines -- there are handguns that have 18 round magazines, but you certainly can't fire 30 rounds in less than 10 seconds.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?? [View all] darkangel218 Dec 2015 OP

For reading it the way it is written then acting accordingly. randys1 Dec 2015 #1

We may not agree on who the nominee should be berni_mccoy Dec 2015 #13

Thanks.. randys1 Dec 2015 #15

Watch out! You will get in trouble for talking about the literal meaning! Rex Dec 2015 #25

I know...I have friends and family who are gun lovers, collectors, etc. randys1 Dec 2015 #27

Like McDonald v. City of Chicago? nt JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #29

...and if the technology advances past single-shot muskets... Electric Monk Dec 2015 #45

Excellent argument. hifiguy Dec 2015 #56

thanks! randys1 Dec 2015 #106

Some insight on the "way it is written", because etymology matters. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #98

That's great. But the Constitution is pretty specific about "Militia" jmg257 Dec 2015 #110

The word "militia" is what it is. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #113

True - it is. And so is the Constitution, which refers to very specific Militias. jmg257 Dec 2015 #114

This issue is how it is interpreted. potone Dec 2015 #2

i support them all, equally linuxman Dec 2015 #3

A dumb question I refuse to answer. Chan790 Dec 2015 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6

I sympathize with you for your experience... Chan790 Dec 2015 #9

SCOTUS begs to differ n/t SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #37

SCOTUS is not infallible. Chan790 Dec 2015 #63

I agree, they aren't infalliable SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #66

...and their word can change. Chan790 Dec 2015 #68

No amendment is needed. hifiguy Dec 2015 #76

We'll see n/t SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #80

Well good, because the bill of rights doesn't confer *any* rights. X_Digger Dec 2015 #94

What is depressing about this is how some ignore facts and history to fit their Rex Dec 2015 #26

i am against the current interpretation etherealtruth Dec 2015 #5

I don't get why we have an amendment upaloopa Dec 2015 #7

+1000 nt restorefreedom Dec 2015 #50

That's my view on it also. RichVRichV Dec 2015 #105

Laws were so much better in the 1700's. yallerdawg Dec 2015 #8

I support the amendment, but madamesilverspurs Dec 2015 #10

I am for it, as interpreted by SCOTUS for years until recently steve2470 Dec 2015 #11

Yep, the people can have arms, and form a militia if needed. aikoaiko Dec 2015 #12

I'm against it in it's present form. American's have proved that they can't handle guns. BlueJazz Dec 2015 #14

+1 elias49 Dec 2015 #41

It's not that simple. Agschmid Dec 2015 #16

Voted that I'm against. NCTraveler Dec 2015 #17

Repeal and replace... sanatanadharma Dec 2015 #18

It was an idea that had some merit when passed at the time this country was founded... Humanist_Activist Dec 2015 #19

If the 2A were removed, Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #20

I couldn't call myself a progressive, and be just the opposite on the 2A. ileus Dec 2015 #21

If a state or city chooses, via its elected representatives, to restrict firearm ownership, Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #22

Let me ask this question in response TeddyR Dec 2015 #58

I see the right to an abortion as more important than the right to own a gun. Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #83

So your principles only apply to rights that you judge important? X_Digger Dec 2015 #95

Yet the Constitution TeddyR Dec 2015 #100

I am opposed to the way the NRA, the gungeoneers, and the Gun Industrial Complex madinmaryland Dec 2015 #23

What about the non NRA,law abiding gun owners? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #24

If, as you say, and they are not NRA members and do oppose the NRA and GIC, madinmaryland Dec 2015 #32

You do realize that many Democrats, non NRA people support the second amendment, right? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #33

I think many here support the 2nd amendment, just not the madinmaryland Dec 2015 #36

I never said anything about pro NRA. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #40

Read my posts. madinmaryland Dec 2015 #49

I have read all your posts. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #52

As I tried to say above, but I had to type it a couple of times... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #54

I guess I'm curious about your views TeddyR Dec 2015 #64

Interesting points... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #72

I frankly don't think we are that far apart TeddyR Dec 2015 #104

I like to think I fall into that category. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #78

I am curious as to what you define as draconian gun control measures... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #86

Sure: Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #93

To answer.... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #97

Against. It's obsolete in the 21st century. backscatter712 Dec 2015 #28

Just wait until we have civilian laser guns... Shit is going to get real. Agschmid Dec 2015 #30

How are you going to take the weapons from the illegal owners , to start with? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #31

They did it in Australia. backscatter712 Dec 2015 #34

Australia is an island. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #35

Its a continent. milestogo Dec 2015 #43

It is still an island. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #46

Australia only removed 1/3 of the guns with the buyback. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #39

You seem to imply that this was a bad thing. hifiguy Dec 2015 #77

I point out the difference from what people think happened NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #81

It is time to update it. milestogo Dec 2015 #38

Where do you quantify the firearms in the possession of the criminals? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #42

Might as well repeal speeding laws since they're so hard to enforce... backscatter712 Dec 2015 #48

Yes. KamaAina Dec 2015 #44

Pretty sure CA banned standard 20 and 30 round magazines Chuuku Davis Dec 2015 #47

I think the way SCOTUS has interpreted the amendment is wrong. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #51

Yep, but if it disappeared from the Constitution hifiguy Dec 2015 #57

I see it as archaic concept intended to support a national defense via citizen militia. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #69

Exactly. There were no standing armies at the time hifiguy Dec 2015 #75

I believe this country would be better off without it. Crunchy Frog Dec 2015 #53

Without the illegal firearms too, you mean. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #55

I mean without the amendment. Crunchy Frog Dec 2015 #60

I'm saying "against" for two reasons. MH1 Dec 2015 #59

Regarding point one. white_wolf Dec 2015 #89

There isn't much we can do about the second A but we can do little things Jim Beard Dec 2015 #61

Ammo tracking was useless, per the Treasury X_Digger Dec 2015 #101

I'm out. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #62

If an invading force takes over our country Jim Beard Dec 2015 #71

Wait, does the right to arms depend upon an Amendment? AngryAmish Dec 2015 #65

Other, I'm for it AS WRITTEN, against it AS PRACTICED. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2015 #67

As long as I feel life is worth protecting and have people I want to keep safe ileus Dec 2015 #70

Please give me examples of how you would keep them safe Jim Beard Dec 2015 #79

you say potatoe I say potato. ileus Dec 2015 #82

Maybe you should change neighborhoods. Jim Beard Dec 2015 #88

It's obsolete. baldguy Dec 2015 #73

For (nt) bigwillq Dec 2015 #74

Repeal it. RandySF Dec 2015 #84

A right to arms but no rights to food and shelter?? Stargleamer Dec 2015 #85

To me that is defined in, yet often ignored right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Glassunion Dec 2015 #90

Which are not Constitutionally guaranteed. Recursion Dec 2015 #96

Only the Sith deal in absolutes. Glassunion Dec 2015 #87

Amend it to the 21st century. n/t RKP5637 Dec 2015 #91

for the whole 2nd amendment and not just an out of context clause rurallib Dec 2015 #92

I'm against the insane, baseless interpretation of the 2nd ammendment that prevails today. /nt Marr Dec 2015 #99

Whatever...I would pay to see what the founders think of what it led to BeyondGeography Dec 2015 #102

For it. Jester Messiah Dec 2015 #103

As long as they actually abide by the "well regulated militia" part. Initech Dec 2015 #107

i do not believe it applies to individual unrestricted gun ownership. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2015 #108

Nor do I. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #109

I think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; it's an archaic anachronism... Spider Jerusalem Dec 2015 #111

I'm for the 2nd. The militia purpose is fairly obsolete, but the founders jmg257 Dec 2015 #112

I am for the 2nd Amendment! GOLGO 13 Dec 2015 #115

+1 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #116

It's appears a semi-effective method of maintain an efficient militia. LanternWaste Dec 2015 #117

There is no reason why a civilian should own a semi-automatic weapon. Doc_Technical Dec 2015 #118