Kung flu and the 2nd?

[steelhauler34]

The 2nd is NOT a confusing or even controversial concept. The 2nd doesn't "give us" our right to bear arms, all it does is forbid the government from "infringing on that right". That's a very simple concept even to a child. The problem we have is that there are people that absolutely hate that amendment.........and that's fine. They're entitled to hate whatever they want. But if they want it changed, there's already a process available to do that. Beyond that......."shall not be infringed".

I think the problem is that infringe is somewhat ambiguous. People can draw the line at different places. An outright ban of guns would be infringement for sure. Banning any type of gun is infringement. Many would say any law to deal with obtaining weapons is infringement. What about a laws that do not keep a person of sound mind, body and criminal free history from getting the weapons? Universal background checks. To me that’s a gray area of sorts ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[*zap*]

The internet will not stop the next collapse......

 

[welch01]

The internet will not stop the next collapse......

Correct. It could make it worse or speed it up.

 

[*zap*]

The internet itself may collapse when all schools go online and everyone works from home....

 

[longspeak74]

I stopped to grab a turkey tag the other day. The gun counter was packed with people looking at hand guns. Many of those folks, you could tell, were nervous even handling an unloaded weapon.

 

[welch01]

The internet itself may collapse when all schools go online and everyone works from home....

Not to mention the fact that everyone is ready to binge watch their Netflix. I've heard that Netflix and Youtube are already slowing down speeds so the internet doesn't break. If I find a credible news source on that, I will share.

 

[5MilesBack]

I think the problem is that infringe is somewhat ambiguous.

"Infringe or infringement" is NOT ambiguous in the least. Start with the definition.....as it pertains to the 2nd. Infringement - "the action of limiting or undermining something". OK......the government (federal, state, local) taking action that limits or undermines our right to bear arms......that could include magazine limits, ammo limits, types of guns limits, etc, etc. Every one of those is "limiting or undermining" the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Those are all infringements. Many may be OK with those infringements, but they are absolutely infringements, and that's not even debatable.

 

[robby denning]

It only strengthened it for me and the family. I told Cash and the girls, "if someone comes for that toilet paper, dump the whole clip!"

Seriously, in my circle of even non-hunters, they're glad for gun ownership in times of crisis.

 

[Newtosavage]

I think the problem is that infringe is somewhat ambiguous. People can draw the line at different places. An outright ban of guns would be infringement for sure. Banning any type of gun is infringement. Many would say any law to deal with obtaining weapons is infringement. What about a laws that do not keep a person of sound mind, body and criminal free history from getting the weapons? Universal background checks. To me that’s a gray area of sorts ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To reasonable, intelligent people, you are correct. But like I said, it's like abortion. You can't even have a real discussion about it for the nut jobs on either end.

 

[Newtosavage]

I told Cash and the girls, "if someone comes for that toilet paper, dump the whole clip!"

 

[Newtosavage]

The internet itself may collapse when all schools go online and everyone works from home....

That would be a blessing, actually.

 

[Newtosavage]

"Infringe or infringement" is NOT ambiguous in the least. Start with the definition.....as it pertains to the 2nd. Infringement - "the action of limiting or undermining something". OK......the government (federal, state, local) taking action that limits or undermines our right to bear arms......that could include magazine limits, ammo limits, types of guns limits, etc, etc. Every one of those is "limiting or undermining" the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Those are all infringements. Many may be OK with those infringements, but they are absolutely infringements, and that's not even debatable.

Right, so it's already been "infringed" and now the debate is about where the line is drawn.

 

[Azone]

I am all for firearm rights but having a bunch of non gun folks walking around armed makes me nervous. Stopped by my mechanic buddies shop yesterday, asked him if he had everything he needed for the upcoming events....some csr is standing there and says he has plenty of bullets....I asked him if he had cases and powder also and he just did not get it....

I'm always very aware of the surroundings when handling guns. When I'm around people who didn't grow up in a gun owning house and have safety pounded into their minds from the earliest days I do tend to be more edgy. Not wanting to take what I would consider normal for granted I guess.

 

[Azone]

Right, so it's already been "infringed" and now the debate is about where the line is drawn.

Exactly.

 

[*zap*]

I'm always very aware of the surroundings when handling guns.

I have never seen you at the cabelas gun counter....

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm always very aware of the surroundings when handling guns. When I'm around people who didn't grow up in a gun owning house and have safety pounded into their minds from the earliest days I do tend to be more edgy. Not wanting to take what I would consider normal for granted I guess.

Same. Some of the neo-2A's scare the crap out of me at our small local range. From zero firearms experience, straight to semi-auto handguns and AR's. sigh...

 

[Texasbuckeye]

What’s a CSR?

 

[*zap*]

customer.

 

[5MilesBack]

Right, so it's already been "infringed" and now the debate is about where the line is drawn.

We already know where the line is drawn........the line is at infringement. Just because they've already infringed doesn't mean we have to move the line. The line is already behind us. The ones that hate the 2nd are the ones that keep trying to move that line........infringe just a little at a time. Whether it's a little at a time, or all at once......makes no difference. The line is where it was, and will continue to be there. All the line does is determine who's now considered a criminal by their unconstitutional infringements. Lots of Constitutional law-abiding criminals in our nation today.

 

[Azone]

I have never seen you at the cabelas gun counter....

Nothing like sweeping the whole store with the muzzle.

Same. Some of the neo-2A's scare the crap out of me at our small local range. From zero firearms experience, straight to semi-auto handguns and AR's. sigh...

Yeah I know a few people that have gone full Rambo. Being overly excited with a 30 round magazine sticking out of a AR is a good recipe for a disaster.