Mike Irwin
Staff
HELL no!
I know far too many high-end shotgunners who think exactly that way, though.
I know far too many high-end shotgunners who think exactly that way, though.
Would You Support Gun Control at Large if You Were Personally Guaranteed Your Rights?
- Thread starter vitesse9
- Start date
XavierBreath
New member
No. Never.
I am not protected only by my gun. Your gun protects me as well. The fact that a criminal is unsure of who is armed and who is not protects us all. Even the non-gun owners are protected by the RKBA.
I am not protected only by my gun. Your gun protects me as well. The fact that a criminal is unsure of who is armed and who is not protects us all. Even the non-gun owners are protected by the RKBA.
Frenchwrench
New member
No.Never.No.
LoneStranger
New member
Being one of the uneducated louts out here in flyover country I have never been able to figure out how to restrict the rights of others without putting my own in jepoardy.
While I would be willing to have someone with much more schooling than I tell me how to achieve this I don't expect it to happen.
So not NO but HELL NO!!!
While I would be willing to have someone with much more schooling than I tell me how to achieve this I don't expect it to happen.
So not NO but HELL NO!!!
MeekAndMild
New member
It is probably better to comply with original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to game the system with cute rhetoric.
IIRC Georgia governor Lester Maddox was an advocate of limited RKBA. (For those members who didn't live through the 50s and 60s Lester was the cafe owner who gained popularity by his stance of keeping black folks out by threatened beatings with an axe handle. He was so popular that he was elected governor and his axe handle became famous.)
Lester advocated limited RKBA...if you were white RKBA was OK and if you were black you'd better behave or else. Later on he backed down on a lot of his segregation rhetoric, but I don't recall he ever changed his RKBA beliefs.
IIRC Georgia governor Lester Maddox was an advocate of limited RKBA. (For those members who didn't live through the 50s and 60s Lester was the cafe owner who gained popularity by his stance of keeping black folks out by threatened beatings with an axe handle. He was so popular that he was elected governor and his axe handle became famous.)
Lester advocated limited RKBA...if you were white RKBA was OK and if you were black you'd better behave or else. Later on he backed down on a lot of his segregation rhetoric, but I don't recall he ever changed his RKBA beliefs.
No but it has been shown may. Look at the anti-gun pols and people who own guns but don't think that anyone else should.
The LEO's got their nationwide carry and I applaude those who have spoken out that we civilians should have the same but the noise isn't very loud from their side.
Federal agents have nationwide and worldwide carry and you don't see them speaking up for us civilians.
I wouldn't. But allot have and there are allot of gun owners out there that would
Wayne
The LEO's got their nationwide carry and I applaude those who have spoken out that we civilians should have the same but the noise isn't very loud from their side.
Federal agents have nationwide and worldwide carry and you don't see them speaking up for us civilians.
I wouldn't. But allot have and there are allot of gun owners out there that would
Wayne
Marko Kloos
Inactive
My rights are only safe if I support my neighbor's rights as well, and the ban I support may well be costing my my neighbor his rights. So, no.
Master Blaster
New member
NO rights are for everyone.
Tamara
But those who would have us believe that their elite status entitles them to be armed while people at large are denied their right to the same are not worthy of anything. In the context of the posted thread question; supporting gun control at large while having one's personal rights guaranteed is the rather dipicable form of elitism practiced by many or most of those currently in power and political influence in this country - many of whom would disarm us all in entirety were it possible.
Nothing necessary nor worthy in that.
Honoring the elite; honorable and just authority, leadership, those excelling - the pursuit of excellence - people of achievement, etc are all worthy and necessary in a civilized nation.
But those who would have us believe that their elite status entitles them to be armed while people at large are denied their right to the same are not worthy of anything. In the context of the posted thread question; supporting gun control at large while having one's personal rights guaranteed is the rather dipicable form of elitism practiced by many or most of those currently in power and political influence in this country - many of whom would disarm us all in entirety were it possible.
Nothing necessary nor worthy in that.
NO WAY!! I served in the military and there are alot of guys whom I would never trust with a concealed weapon. Many in the military don't touch a weapon after basic trainig and while in basic training, could barely qualify with a rifle. As a combat medic, I at least got some time to familiarize myself with my carry piece, a M1911A1. Usually all that I got time with at the range was a rifle. I also got some experience with an M60 MG, should I get to carry that? How about the hand grenade? I was fully qualified with that. I also know how to setup and use claymore mines. How about a LAW? I was awsome firing that beautiful weapon. What if you have a medical reason that disqualifies you from military service? I had to have my ankle rebuilt after blowing out all the ligaments, that injury would have prevented me from serving. What about the people with birth defects that disqualfy them from the armed services? I don't think that someone who is hard of hearing should lose their RTKBAs, or someone that has a bad back.
that goes against what our country is founded on.
I could not agree to let someone carry a firearms and not someone else based on military service. Aside from the things mentioned above. How many criminals, murderers, sex offenders, etc. have been in the military at one time or another. If we have another draft, then we would have to let all of those men and women carry firearms aswell. And we all know when they do a draft the quality of the recruit goes down.
Now I am not at all suggesting that all or even a huge amount of those in the military commit or will commit a violent crime. But tell me how many stories you have read that have been an ex-military officer or enlisted that did some horrible stuff. You don't have to be a good citizen to get into the military. thats why we throw out so many of them for bad conduct.
No offense but the idea is absurd, or maybe just not well thought out.
I could not agree to let someone carry a firearms and not someone else based on military service. Aside from the things mentioned above. How many criminals, murderers, sex offenders, etc. have been in the military at one time or another. If we have another draft, then we would have to let all of those men and women carry firearms aswell. And we all know when they do a draft the quality of the recruit goes down.
Now I am not at all suggesting that all or even a huge amount of those in the military commit or will commit a violent crime. But tell me how many stories you have read that have been an ex-military officer or enlisted that did some horrible stuff. You don't have to be a good citizen to get into the military. thats why we throw out so many of them for bad conduct.
No offense but the idea is absurd, or maybe just not well thought out.