I sincerely doubt that most gun owners own a gun simply because they’re allowed to. I would imagine hunting, protection, recreational shooting and hobby collecting rank far, far higher in the “why do you own a gun” standings.
To say nothing of the fact that, if the gun owner didn’t like the cut of your jib, or felt that the question was invasive, then “Because Second Amendment!” might even be a more polite response than they felt you were entitled to in the first place. Because, honestly, “None of your goddamned business!” would also be an acceptable answer.
Assuming the above is accurate do you think the average person who answers a question about exercising a fundamental right such as free speech or right to not have soldiers quartered will answer with dissertation on natural rights etc or use a short hand answer like “amendment x?” I prefer to always refer back to natural rights and how power is delegated from people to the government to serve as a feeble reminder of how things are suppose to be. But my purposes is not just to advocate a right but to remind the audience about the bigger picture and that is how the debate/manipulation is framed.
Just like in many posts I refer to the people who form the political class or the government class as such as opposed to the government. How concepts are framed matter in how reality is perceived. Thinking that all rights flow from the benevolence of a monolithic institution known as the “government” dangerously hides the fact that the government is just a group of power hungry people. Which are neither monolithic or innately entitled to dominion over others regardless of attempts to indoctrinate the masses otherwise.
-Thomas Paine
I don’t understand what you mean by this. Yes, you have given your answer. I wanted the opinion of ANOTHER poster. This IS the IMHO board, is it not? Wait, let me check…yep it is. NOT general questions and NOT great debates.
You have given your opinion, and I accept that it is your opinion. Are you going to chime in after everyone else answers and say “But, but, but, I already answered that!”?
Yes, most gun owners that I know have given that response. I have run out of gun owners whom I know to get additional responses. Therefore, I’ve used another place that I know gun owners hang out, just by reading the numerous gun threads on this board. I was hoping to get some opinions from other gun owners. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less. If some of you can’t get over the simple fact that people exist who simply would like to hear your opinion without judging it, then that is YOUR problem. I suggest you hang out with a higher class of people.
There is no gotcha, no slant, no bias, no anything. Additionally, I already gave my opinion on guns and gun ownership in the first couple posts (i think it was the first few anyway, i’m not checking).
I don’t own any guns. However, I am not anti-gun, or pro gun control or whatever you want to call it. Feel free to own however many guns you feel you need, want, deserve, whatever. I really don’t care about it that much. That is why I didn’t know the exact details of the Heller case, as mentioned above. I read about the result, agreed with the result, and that was that.
I don’t own any guns, because being in a situation where I might need a gun is so far down my list of things to worry about on a daily basis, that I usually don’t even think about it. If you (any of you) want to though, feel free, as is your right (inherent or otherwise) I don’t care.
This is the OPINION board. There is no “answer” that other posters can give. If I wanted an answer, I would have asked in the General Questions board. If I wanted a debate, I would have posted in the Great Debate board. Opinions - it’s right in the damn name of the board.
I wouldn’t just go to any random, strange gun owner and ask them. After all, they have a gun, and I don’t.
Thank you for your opinion. If you are expecting a “gotcha” then sorry to disappoint.
Prior to guns people would have used whatever tool leverages their ability to defend themselves against attack. Advancing to the current time frame it doesn’t help if you bring a knife to a gun fight.
Well 1 body guard per 8 hr shift plus weekend coverage is over 4 people.
But seriously, the humor here is in your discussion of the literal context of what I said. I would think it obvious you can’t put a price tag on the inalienable right of self defense.
Oh, and mi iternal opologies for mispelling a werd.
The term you are looking for is irreparable harm as applied to the loss of civil rights.
:rolleyes:
The fact that you seem to find people looking out for their own self interest so objectionable is mind boggling.
Duplicate post
To get back to this…
I express no value judgment as to the actions of others. In the cited case I agree with her actions, but I would be reluctant to do what she did were I in her position because that’s not my nature. But that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that I would turn my guns in if the laws of the United States, duly passed and enforced, demanded that I do. It would take a lot for me to actively engage the legal representatives of my country in active combat. Further, I don’t fancy a stay in prison over it. So I, me personally, would not disobey. What you choose to do is your affair.
Thank you for your response.
Agnostic liberal here.
The reason I think gun owners defer to the 2nd, is because those that don’t think the general population should own guns start arguing about the ‘need’ to own a gun. It gets very tiring. I have no ‘need’ to own a car either. I have no ‘need’ for an SUV. I could just pick up my entire life and move to a city with excellent public transportation.
Many anti-gun folks, and for that mater, folks that can and do use public transportation don’t seem to understand that there are folks that live in areas where a car/SUV big truck is necessary. Or that a gun/s are a part of living where you do. Hunting, target shooting, collecting. And, self defense. When seconds count, help is minutes away (if at all).
I smoke pot and it’s illegal, and I go faster than the speed limit says. Neither of those things approaches the importance of the right of self defense, so I see no reason to follow a law mandating serious civil rights violations when I don’t even obey the law in much more trivial circumstances.
The law and morality are orthogonal. Anybody who says they only exercise their rights because a piece of paper said it’s okay is a fool.
Oh really?
Yet you think, (or think it’s funny to pretend you think), that any gun owner is likely to shoot you for asking them a question.
“I have nothing against black people. I just avoid talking to them because if I do they might hurt me.” Does that sound non-racist?
For those who believe firearm ownership is a fundamental human right regardless of whether there were any text in the Constitution regarding a right to bear arms:
I have an honest question and I don’t intend to start a debate, though I don’t rule out asking some follow-up questions to better my understanding of your response.
Scalia wrote the decision in Heller which had significant impacts for the application of the Second Amendment. A few posts have alluded to this decision (frankly I’m not sure what part because it has been quite a while since I read it) as supporting the conclusion that the right to bear arms would exist even without the Second Amendment.
On the other hand, Scalia has also been very critical of other rulings that have either no textual basis, or very vague textual basis in the Constitution. For example, same sex marriage and abortion.
I’m rather confused as to how “we” know that firearm ownership is a fundamental human right, but that certain other things (among them same sex marriage and abortion) are expected to have a textual basis in the Consitution to be considered a right.
For those posters who have contributed thoughtful and earnest answers, what say you? Is Scalia correct in asserting that firearms are a basic human right regardless of the Constitution, but that SSM and abortion are not because the Constitution doesn’t mention them? Do you disagree with Scalia’s assertions? How do you personally determine what is a basic human right and what rights, if any, ought to be enumerated in the Constitution?
I’m not trying to throw fuel on the fire, but I do appreciate the chance to better understand your views.
Suppose there was an effective less-lethal weapon equivalent to a gun, able to stop “the stronger and the more numerous” about as well as a gun can, without killing the victims.
Whether this is some trank-dart pistol (I’m aware that actual syringe rounds loaded with anesthetic would be pretty lethal because you need a precise dose to not kill someone) or a taser-pistol or just a multishot taser, it’s at least possible that such a device can be engineered and built.
In fact, I’d argue that the current tasers are close to it. Basically, the only attacker a taser can’t stop is someone with a gun. And if guns are super-illegal (automatic 5 years if you are caught with one in your hands) you could at least imagine a world where this could work.
So the self defense argument wouldn’t hold water. “but I need to shoot government goons”. I guess, but the guns civilians can buy now are marginal at that. Only the biggest, loudest, hardest to use guns will reliably shoot through modern modern armor. (lapua, .50, that level of bullet). And nothing you can buy without a special license will reliably stop a military vehicle like a tank or APC.
A lot of people are pretty vehement about their rights here, and feel incredibly strongly about it. I wonder how the rest of the world survives without millions of civilian owned guns. Allegedly a lot of European countries both have very strict gun control and very few guns in the hands of civilians or criminals, and they are generally far more peaceful places. (the recent shootings in France don’t even budge the needle, france is still many times more peaceful than the USA)