Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

Official TSP Center polls.

Moderator: Aitrus

Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

Yes
27
13%
No
180
87%
 
Total votes: 207

User avatar
TSPking
Site Admin
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:02 am

Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

Post by TSPking »

Not all discussions or polls at TSP Center are purely TSP based. What's your take on the 2nd Amendment and the current dispute over gun ownership?

I for one intend on exercising my right to gun ownership. I want to be prepared for Armageddon should the economy or society collapse and it's "every man for himself". It would be irresponsible for me not to be prepared to protect my family…

I think that the criminal element will always be in position of guns and any laws enacted will only hurt law abiding citizens.

Thoughts?
TSPking

It's a gift...and a curse ~ Adrian Monk

kipperdog
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:03 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by kipperdog »

In the current debate its really not about the Feds trying to take our guns away. Its mostly about expanding background checks to include gun shows and internet sales. Some wanted to ban so called "assault rifles" and limit magazine clips to no more than 10 rounds. Even that would not be taking the right to own a gun away, just limiting the types you can have. A lot of the gun rights groups always scream that the government wants to take our guns away whenever there is any talk about expanding background checks to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unfit. 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". Notice that the first part says a "well regulated militia". That seems to imply to me that some commonsense regulations on gun ownership is constitutional. I agree however that criminals will always be able to get guns anyway so background checks etc will have little effect in stopping the use of guns by criminals and a lot of the mass shootings were done by people with no previous criminal background. So I agree with the gun rights groups that say these proposed new regulations will have little or no effect in stopping future mass shootings but don't agree with their paranoia that the government is out to take our guns away.

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by skiehawk11 »

I don't normally post on politically charged matters, but I will on this. I'm an independent voter and I lean very heavily towards libertarian which pisses off my very conservative and my very liberal friends. :) Overall, I tend to be a moderate though.

Point blank, I think any law limiting law abiding citizens to possess and acquire firearms effects only law abiding citizens. The criminal element are criminals because they don't abide by the law.

However, with that being said, I'm all for limited regulation that actually works. I, for one, am in favor of mandatory firearm training before purchase or a purchase conditioned on mandatory fire arm training within one week of purchase or something like that.

I'm also in favor of some resource to help limit people with mental health history to purchase firearms. I would limit it to any issues within the past 10 years. Of course discretion should be left to the gun store if they don't feel comfortable with that.

Background checks seem to be pointless especially since mass shootings as kipper points out are not done with people who have had previous criminal history.

Of course, this is a personal opinion and I'm sure my logic is flawed somewhere and someone will point it out to me. :)

And if going by statistics, we should ban drunk driving and underage smoking to prevent deaths. Oh wait, we have and it still causes more deaths than guns. :)

crondanet5
Posts: 4324
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by crondanet5 »

I thought I was the only one suffering from the Armageddon phobia.

TSPKip
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:34 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by TSPKip »

Kipper: Good points.

Relative danger to a society should be considered in the debate.

Size of the gun: I would rather have a gun visible like an AR 15 over a concealed weapon.

Machine gun: I would rather have a semi-automatic over a full automatic weapon be available.

Background check: I would rather have the owner/user and seller of all dangerous items be found without criminality, insanity, substance abuse, and poor vision was we have for private airplane pilots. If 40% of sales of guns is without background checks, why have any?

Size of magazine: Is there a number of deaths at one time that will occur before magazine size is limited, such as a crazed gunman at a large sports event shooting with a 500 round magazine? 100 to 1000 deaths will not be enough for the NRA. Obviously, age of victims and congressional victims are not sufficient for the Senate to limit magazine size.

Straw man purchases: Should penalties be increased for those selling guns across state lines to known criminals?
Seek Wisdom where it can be found.

User avatar
MakeMe$$$$
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:12 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by MakeMe$$$$ »

I think the title of the poll is misleading/loaded. (Pardon the pun. :wink: ) The national debate is about limitations on what is allowed and background checks. Back ground checks, reasonable limitations on what is owned and registering weapons seems common sense to me. At what point does a person have the right to own any weapon system they choose to procure. How about a 105 MM Howitzer, an anti-tank weapon or a MANPAD? Do the rich have the right to have their own privately funded, well stocked militia to face armageddon?

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS...

1. Background checks no matter what. The check should include criminal, medical/mental clearance and such.
2. Registration and accountability. At one point Virginia had the highest rate of "stolen" weapons in the US with insurance claims to match...get the point? As an example, there is some guy out in the SW area that has an annual machine gun festival and for some huge amount of $$$ you can buy time to fire his mini-gun. I DON'T CARE. But, at the end of the day he better be able to account for his arsenal.
3. Limit high capacity clips except by permit. There are some valid reasons for them such as sport/competition and such but come on...does anyone think they will be able to stand the fire power of the real powers because they have these? If it takes you 7-10 rounds to kill a dear, maybe you don't deserve to own one?
4. Ballistic finger printing. (Related to accountability)

BTW...I am FOR concealed carry permits. HOWEVER...I think that should required REAL training before it is issued. At least a day of SERIOUS classroom and a day of firing range training with the weapon or weapons used to apply for CC. Training shouldn't be a day of BBQ and government bashing at the local Sportsman's Club and a day with your buddies trying to prove who is the best fast draw artist on the line.

OK...line up the firing squad and call me a socialist/pinko commie/Marxist. At least use your "totally necessary for personal protection", 50 cal. sniper guns and make it quick. Heck, even a well placed Hellfire Missile could be painless.

Ready on the left, ready on the right...
Don
Rolled over to Fidelity 2/24/18.
Fantasy still playing with Daily Strategy 12767.

TSPKip
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:34 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by TSPKip »

MakeMe: Well said.

I've got your back. Currently, however, I only have some fingernail clippers, though.

Wait. They were removed from me at the airport.
Seek Wisdom where it can be found.

benhem612
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:01 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by benhem612 »

I voted no on the poll due to the fact that the increased background checks are not the same thing as clamping down on rights to own a gun. Everyone has a right to own a gun as long as they don't prove a danger to society. Simlarly everyone has a right to live free unless they abuse that right and become a danger, at which point they are incarcerated.

VAmillion
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:40 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by VAmillion »

I vote no on the poll, period. Topic has too many nuances for such a simple (need I say loaded?) question.

User avatar
Robvegas
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Robvegas »

Call me crazy, but I would say more guns instead of less guns.

The cowards who walk into a school, movie theatre, church etc. are for the most part entering an unarmed place and unloading on those who are unprepared to defend themselves. My 2 girls went to high school here in Las Vegas which has an armed school police dept on campus.

Just my humble opinion.

Toadystyle
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Toadystyle »

I often see people stating that they do not want their Second Amendment rights violated by new regulations. However, I counter that regulations are not new. The Second Amendment makes no mention of felonious convictions. However, we have outlawed gun ownership of convicted felons. This is part of the regulation that the Second Amendment speaks of.

Regulation is needed. This country has an issue with guns. We act as though they are one of the rings from Lord of the Rings and they are our own personal "precious". The obsession is unhealthy.

With that being said I am a gun owner and beleive in my rights given to me by the Second Amendment. However, the action of me stockpiling weapons in my basement with no background checks cannot be considered regulated at all, let alone well regulated. Depending on your interpretation of the Second Amendment, the individual you as stockpiling weapons without regulation may indeed be the one that is in violation of the Second Amendment.

User avatar
Relevant
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:01 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Relevant »

Interesting discussion but I'm a little dissappointed that none of the GI's have pointed out the real reasons for the second amendment. The following quotes should help:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

•"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

•"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

•"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

•"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

•" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

•"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

Additional quotes can be found at: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by skiehawk11 »

Rep points Relevant!

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

crondanet5
Posts: 4324
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by crondanet5 »

Okay, so you have a gun and a permit to carry it concealed. And you face a confrontation with someone in which the level of agitation between you elevates. Would it be better to leave the gun home for the Armageddon thingie and use other means to reduce the threat level between the two of you?

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by skiehawk11 »

Cron, other means is always preferable. No one wins when a life is taken. In most cases, there is always an alternative.

Of course, I'm a bit of a pacifist. When I was in the Army, I was called the Fighting Mennonite which was meant to be an oxymoron. However, I think pacifist teachings and the use of force mesh well.

Post Reply

Fund Prices2022-08-10

FundPriceDayYTD
G $16.99 0.01% 1.49%
F $19.12 0.15% -8.47%
C $64.14 2.13% -10.85%
S $69.64 3.34% -16.54%
I $33.95 2.14% -13.91%
L2065 $13.02 2.29% -12.54%
L2060 $13.02 2.29% -12.53%
L2055 $13.02 2.29% -12.52%
L2050 $26.81 1.90% -10.69%
L2045 $12.31 1.78% -9.98%
L2040 $45.22 1.66% -9.20%
L2035 $12.03 1.53% -8.34%
L2030 $40.33 1.39% -7.43%
L2025 $11.63 0.94% -5.02%
Linc $22.96 0.56% -2.25%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".