Gun-rights advocates, how do you feel about...

Great Debates
21
  1. Parentally unsupervised kids (i.e., 0-17).

I don’t have a problem with older kids (say 16 and up) hunting or target shooting on their own. Younger probably should be supervised. There should be some real discression here, all kids the same age do not have the same maturity level.

  1. People with a prior conviction for a violent crime (let’s assume rape, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, attempted homicide, homicide in any degree).

They should definitely not have a gun (with the possibility of regaining gun rights after after say, 10 years of probation with no offenses and a review by a Court pursuant to a restoration of rights action.) I would add domestic violence to your list.

  1. Mental defectives, as they used to be charmingly called (people with an IQ below 85, let’s say).

Case by case basis, but probably not, and definitely not without supervision.

  1. People committed to violent overthrow of the U.S. (jihadists, Montana freemen, other extremists as may from time to time appear).

Shouldn’t have them, but that is a tough line to draw.

  1. The insane (the kind of people who if they committed a crime would escape conviction on the grounds of insanity).

Definitely not have a gun.

Question 2: in which of these situations do you think it’s permissible to forbid the carrying of guns by individual citizens?

  1. Preschool or elementary school.

I would forbid the guns except for law enforcement and well-trained security guards.

  1. Audience with the president.

Except secret service

  1. Airplane.

Yep, no guns there. I’m not a fan of explosive decompression.

  1. Major league sporting event.

Except skeet shooting and biathilons :wink:

  1. Church.

I wouldn’t want a gun in church, but I think individual congregatioins should be able to make their own rules.

And just to clarify: I’m not asking about the legality of any of the restrictions above, I’m asking about your view of the legitimacy of those restrictions. And by “guns” let’s keep this to handguns and various rifles, automatic or otherwise, and leave out RPGs, bazookas, and thermonuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]

22

Question 1: Yes to 1,2,4. No to 3 and 5 provided there is a fair process for determining who is actually mentally defective and/or insane.

Question 2: I would allow carry in all places except the audience w/ the President…

23

With regard to schools, do people really think that someone intent on such harm is going to obey such restrictions? One only has to recall VT to see how laughable that notion is. OTOH someone who was carrying a firearm and was present would have had the option of doing something. Again, recall the recent case of a couple of Palestinian terrorists who tried to kill students in an Israeli school.

My views on the OP:

> 1. Parentally unsupervised kids (i.e., 0-17).

Older kids (14+) with a low-power firearm are fine in the country.

> 2. People with a prior conviction for a violent crime (let’s assume rape, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, attempted homicide, homicide in any degree).

Once their conviction is spent (not just their sentence completed), let them get two people of good standing to vouch for them. People can reform and be responsible citizens.

> 3. Mental defectives, as they used to be charmingly called (people with an IQ below 85, let’s say).

Definitely a slippery slope there.

> 4. People committed to violent overthrow of the U.S. (jihadists, Montana freemen, other extremists as may from time to time appear).

They’re going to get firearms anyway but aren’t you presuming their guilt?

> 5. The insane (the kind of people who if they committed a crime would escape conviction on the grounds of insanity).

Again, a slippery slope, but I would suggest that such people would need two people of good standing to vouch for them.

> Question 2: in which of these situations do you think it’s permissible to forbid the carrying of guns by individual citizens?

> 1. Preschool or elementary school.

No - Dunblane might have been prevented had someone returned fire.

> 2. Audience with the president.

No problem. After all, he’s routinely around people who are armed. And people who get to see the President are carefully screened anyway. For the most part.

> 3. Airplane.

Definitely no guns. But only because people can be put through rigorous security controls.

> 4. Major league sporting event.

It’s nukes and dirigibles that are the danger there :slight_smile:

> 5. Church.

I wouldn’t forbid firearms there either.

24

Kids: Up to the parents. My 12 year old carries a .22 rifle on our property in the woods when we are out. He is under semi-supervision at best. Kids should not be allowed to own, but be allowed to use under certain parent approved circumstances (e.g. hunting, target shooting with the Boy Scouts, etc.)

People convicted of violent felonies should lose their right to possess firearms. There should be a legal path to regaining that right, however. Jihadists and Militiamen have the same rights, until such a time as they are convicted of a violent felony.

The insane should not have firearms rights either once “convicted”, and again there should be a defined path to restoration. I leave it to the mental health professionals to determine a clean way to determine insanity for this purpose (and a fair way to determine if the person is no longer insane). The same folks can let us know if our IQ tests are sufficient to test if someone should lose a fundemental civil right due to abnormally low intelligence. It is interesting that some studies show the average IQ in prison to be 85.

I think about firearms this way - if you lose your right to guns, you should also lose your right to vote (and vice versa).

Where you can carry. I think that any private organization has the right to prohibit firearms on their premises. This means my house, my church, an airline etc. When we get to public locations such as schools and government facilities, we get another situation. At this point I think that some controls are OK (don’t walk in with shotgun slung), but if someone has a concealed weapons permit they should be allowed to carry. You should be allowed to lock your firearms in your car, regardless of where you park.

25

That’s one of the many things I really like about the Minnesota CCW law. You may own the parking lot, but you cannot prohibit people from having weapons on their person or in their vehicles in your publicly accessable parking area. It is precisely because they may come onto the property legally carrying and need to be able to secure their weapon in their vehicle before entering any building.

26

Don’t worry. It won’t happen.

27

Ok, let’s see now…

1.1 Minors are held to not be competent to engage in all all sorts of social contracts, so I’d say no. In a perfect world it would be judged on an individual basis, but in practice they’d just go by an age limit.

1.2 Convicted felons forfeit all sorts of rights, so no problem with restricting guns here. I would add that there should be some mechanism for restoring the right, not a blanket disenfranchisment forever.

1.3 I wouldn’t ban any group of people as a class; make them pass the same rules as anyone else. If you’re not a legal dependent and can meet the responsibilites of citizenship, no problem.

1.4 People have the right to any viewpoint they want. Ban actions, not thoughts.

1.5 Legal insanity is very rare outside of someone who’s been judged a danger to themselves or others. Short of involuntary committment, almost impossible to say that someone is too “insane” to own a gun.

2.1 Short of passing all visitors and staff through a metal detector, how do you prevent someone who’s going to commit an outrage from getting in with a gun anyway? If schools were the sort of high-security zones that courthouses are, it would make sense. Otherwise, I see it mainly as an excuse after the fact to increase sentences.

2.2 If the President refuses to meet with people who don’t agree to be disarmed, that’s his perogative.

2.3 You’re on the airline’s private property. They can refuse service on almost any grounds whatsoever.

2.4 The private venues where sportiing events are held are also private property and have broad power to dictate terms to customers.

2.5 Solely up to the Church. I can see congregations splitting into gun-friendly and gun-phobic factions.

28

In general, many general rights are denied to this age group, so I wouldn’t have an explicity problem with this. However, I would be in favor of having some sort of program to make it legal for those under 18 to do this, like get some safety training and get a license and some, say 16+, can possess a gun without someone 18+ present.

Absolutely not. Part of the punishment for violent crime is loss of a right to own a firearm. In some limited cases, I suppose I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to reinstating after certain requirements are met like a long period along with getting some sorts of certifications and court approval, but it would have to be pretty stringent for me not to oppose it, and I’d exactly support, just wouldn’t oppose in that case.

I don’t have a problem with them owning firearms, to an extent. I think this is more of a case my case basis. That is, there are some less intelligent people who I’m perfectly find with having a weapon, and some that are WAY above that threshold that I wouldn’t ever want to see with a weapon. My solution would be to allow it, but have a provision for the courts to remove this right if they can demonstrate that their “mental defectiveness” makes their possession sufficiently unsafe, probably because they can’t pass safety courses or whatever.

Obviously, I wouldn’t want it, but there’s really no way to legislate this. Besides, it’s not a crime for them wanting to overthrow the government, it’s only a crime if they actually start making steps toward it. Further, they can simply lie about their intents. So, really, can’t do anything about it, so no problem with them owning firearms.

Very much like “mental defectiveness” to me. The courts should have to find a good reason to believe their sanity may put others in danger. Besides, many people who may fall in this category simply escape this sort of detection until it’s too late, since they’re not getting the help they need. So, I guess my answer is sort of, but not a blanket no since it should be on a case by case basis.

It’s a public area. As long as they can legally carry, no problem.

As long as they can legally carry, I don’t have a problem with it

I’ve been very much in favor of this for a long time. I think the same sort of theory applies here as applies to general self-defense and I do believe if the pilots or some other passengers on the planes on 9/11 had been armed, part or all of that disaster could have been averted.

No issue in general, but often these places aren’t publically owned, so they’d be able to limit if they want. I would also hold people account to not be in possession of a firearm if they’re drinking. Set laws similar to those with driving, like if you can blow under a 0.08% BAC, then it’s fine, but higher gets you arrested.

No problem, as long as they can legally possess it. However, since they’re probably not publically owned, I wouldn’t have an issue if they decided to limit it themselves.

29

  1. Generally against it; individual exception may apply.

  2. Against.

  3. Against

  4. Until they commit a felony (or misdemeanor domestic violence), no problem.

  5. Against.

  1. If a parent were just dropping in to chat with school admins. or teachers, no problem. J. Random Citizen just strolling onto school grounds heeled? Forbidden.

  2. Forbidden. Same goes for other high govt. officials, as well as foreign dignitaries.

  3. In the absence of Sky Marshals: Undecided. I see pros and cons, but more cons. With Sky Marshals: Forbidden.

  4. Allow.

  5. Allow the congregation to decide.

30

Thanks, all, for the illuminating replies. Some interesting nuances in there.

31

1. Parentally unsupervised kids (i.e., 0-17).
Too broad an age group, IMHO. We trust those little monsters with true death machines at age 16, so I wouldn’t have much trouble loosening the laws to allow possession by 16 year olds. I also wouldn’t complain about requiring them to be 18 to purchase. Around here you have to be 21 (IIRC) to buy a handgun, and I think it’s wrong to have this split-adulthood thing. Either let them drink at 18 or raise the voting age to 21.

2. People with a prior conviction for a violent crime (let’s assume rape, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, attempted homicide, homicide in any degree).
I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, once someone has repaid their debt to society they should have another chance, on the other they’re known to be the kind of people that we want to keep our eyes on. I don’t think I’d disagree with this.

3. Mental defectives, as they used to be charmingly called (people with an IQ below 85, let’s say).
Unless they’re shown to be a threat, sure. Stupid people are allowed all sorts of things in this country, why draw the line at 85?

4. People committed to violent overthrow of the U.S. (jihadists, Montana freemen, other extremists as may from time to time appear).
Of course. I’d like to take away 1st and 2nd Amendment rights from the KKK, but our Constitution exists to protect them as well.

5. The insane (the kind of people who if they committed a crime would escape conviction on the grounds of insanity).
Depends, I don’t know enough about it to make an informed decision. Violently insane folks would probably have a history of prior convictions, wouldn’t they? Random crazy people who have never hurt anyone? I’d like to protect them, I guess.

Question 2: in which of these situations do you think it’s permissible to forbid the carrying of guns by individual citizens?
None. Zero. Zilch. Why would it be?

32

Question 1: Assuming you would describe yourself as a gun-rights advocate, how do you feel about gun carrying and/or ownership by the following kinds of people:

  1. Parentally unsupervised kids (i.e., 0-17). Some kids I know are more responsible with guns then most adults that carry one.
    I raised my kids on the family ranch where I was raised and as young as 5 and 6 years old I would take my kids out with single shot 22 rifle and a BB gun we would target practice .

  2. People with a prior conviction for a violent crime (let’s assume rape, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, attempted homicide, homicide in any degree).No , why because these kinds of people wouldn’t be caught ‘dead’ with a legal firearm, and it’s these kind of folks that will have guns even IF they are banned in all fifty states,IMO this is a trick question sometimes used in debates and such to side track people ,

  3. Mental defectives, as they used to be charmingly called (people with an IQ below 85, let’s say). I would have to say this would need to be taken case by case or person by person.

  4. People committed to violent overthrow of the U.S. (jihadists, Montana freemen, other extremists as may from time to time appear).No , why because these kinds of people wouldn’t be caught ‘dead’ with a legal firearm, and it’s these kind of folks that will have guns even IF they are banned in all fifty states,

  5. The insane (the kind of people who if they committed a crime would escape conviction on the grounds of insanity).No but these people if inclined also already have a fire arm and no paper work for it.

Question 2: in which of these situations do you think it’s permissible to forbid the carrying of guns by individual citizens?

  1. Preschool or elementary school. NO,

  2. Audience with the president. No,

  3. Airplane. No,Americans have the right to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’

  4. Major league sporting event.No,

  5. Church. No,

And just to clarify: I’m not asking about the legality of any of the restrictions above, I’m asking about your view of the legitimacy of those restrictions. And by “guns” let’s keep this to handguns and various rifles, automatic or otherwise, and leave out RPGs, bazookas, and thermonuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]