Would You Support Gun Control at Large if You Were Personally Guaranteed Your Rights?

V

vitesse9

New member
Say for instance, members of the general public were prohibited from owning firearms, but anyone who had served in the military at any time was given the absolute right to keep and bear arms, and you'd served?

Or,

Say only people with some sort of national gun license could own guns, and you had one (or were eligible to get one)?

In other words, how willing are you to extend the right to keep and bear arms in our society? Broadly? Or, does the idea of armed riffraff send you begging for a spot on the Board of Directors of the Brady Campaign?
 
You know, only allowing certain people to have guns is not what the 2A says.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But, I think there are a lot of gun owners out there who have no objection to gun control, as long as it doesn't affect them (e.g. hunters who supported, or didn't oppose, the semi-auto ban and could even be quoted as saying "why do you need an [insert scary black gun here]"?).

Moreover, there are even gun owners who will agree with "sensible gun laws" that are sold as measures to make society safer. Look at all the people who unquestionably support the blanket ban on all felons from ever owning guns (absent a pardon). I'm just wondering where people stand on the scope of the RKBA.
 
Part of the point of general gun ownership is that it discourages crime and tyranny.

If you are the only one with a legal gun, you're going to be more likely to have to use it. That's bad news.
 
i have been a hunter all my life, however i have been guilty of saying "why would anyone need a ..." up untill a few years ago. 2 things changed my opinion. the first was an article in american riflemen about the guy in england who was found guilty of murder and weapons charges simpley bucause he used a repeating shotgun to defend his home.

the other one that changed my opinion was when i realised that there is absolutly no functional diffrence between an assult rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle

so to awnser your quesstion, a few years ago i was of the "just so long as i have mine, i don't really care." crowd. i have since changed my opinion.
 
To give in to declairing only a certain group of people can own guns is to invite your own disqualification from that group. The group will shrink and shrink untill all firearms are completely banned. More to the point of the origional question of how far to extend the right to keep and bear arms, I believe that any United States citizen should be able to own any weapon the military uses. This extends to unconventional weapons and WMDs. Call me crazy, but a nuke is just a reeeally big bomb. If you can safely keep and maintain it, you should be able to buy it.


Donning flame gear...
 
3 words:

Not a Prayer!

I differ from Twycross' opinion, however. My personal opinion (your may vary) is that any U.S. Citizen can own any firearm that he (or the mythical "average soldier") can personally carry into combat. This would exclude most crew-served weaponry, artillery and combat aircraft -- which are just reallllly expensive crew-served arms -- as well as WMD's.

If you want that M39/M203 40mm grenade launcher, fine, go ahead. However any explosive rounds you own will have to be stored in a munitions magazine of approved design (which may require more space than your home sits on).
But if you want to fire inert practice rounds you can keep those with your rifle ammo.

I included the 2nd paragraph only because a few years ago someone two blocks over uncovered two boxes of old dynamite in a deceased relative's garage. When the authorities inspected it (on a nice 95 degree day) it was "sweating"! :eek: They managed to get it out and fired it in a nearby field inside a blast containment trailer. It definitely would've leveled a house or two if it had gone off.
 
Donning flame gear...
Click to expand...

Nope, no flaming at all. You happen to believe the line is drawn at any weapons can be owned. I believe it is drawn at what would be issued to a single soldier. I'm sure many people believe it should be drawn at any weapon capable of being fired more than once in five seconds.

To me, the debats seems more of not should people be able to own guns, but more of what should bpeople be able to own.

Look at all the people who unquestionably support the blanket ban on all felons from ever owning guns (absent a pardon). I'm just wondering where people stand on the scope of the RKBA.
Click to expand...

The only reason that I support violent (take note of that, non-violent crime should not disallow you from owing a gun) felons from owning guns, is because of our judicial system. If we had a system in which when you were released when you could be trusted back into society, not when the prison gets crowded, or you were behaving in prison, then I would have no problem letting felons own guns. Right now, I would like to see a way for all felons to get their rights back, without having to be pardoned.
 
Lets see, I'm Chinese-American and I support the free speach rights of hate groups.

So no, I would not support gun control if I personally were guaranteed my right to own and carry guns.
This is aside from the fact that I could not trust or enforce such a deal.
 
No.

Gun control doesn't work. It wastes taxpayer money and diverts police from real crime.
Who on earth would support that?
 
thats the road to to total confiscation..one step at a time

trusting politicians with your rights is like making omlets and serving them to the fox in the henhouse.

so Hell No!

How about we punish criminals who use firearms in the commision of a crime?
 
What a joke, Gun control in itself is a joke. Gun control is absolutely use less. Guns are only deemed bad when they are used in crime. How is banning guns going to reduce crime. Reduce crime and "gun violence" will be a non issue. Gun control is a scam and to allow any more of it should be criminal. Gun control has no effect on crime and in no way reduces vilence. So no there is no way I would sell everyone out so maybe govt. house might let me have a politicaly correct gun.
 
Limited Control

No Way - No Day. No more than I would say they only need a search warrant if you own your home. Renters have no protection from search. Forget it. It's a Bill of Rights, NOT a Bill of Limited Rights.
 
NO!

When "policeman" become criminals, then outlaws have to become "policeman".
Paraphrased from John Galt.
 
The definition of riff-raff being highly mutable (I'm sure some of you would consider me riff-raff, while I may consider others ...)

Hell no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top