You make a good point. That may also be a way to distinguish gun nuts from gun owners.
Poll assumes the basic worldview of the gun control side: the issue should be decided based on belief of the outcome of a gun restriction policy for society on average, and not considering any concept of an individual’s right to choose whether they have a gun or not based on their own interests.
IOW no poll answer ‘less freedom’. That’s just left to be put under the vague heading ‘would be catastrophic’ which again in the gun control people’s mindset would probably suggest, ‘crime rates skyrocket because people can’t defend themselves’. Which isn’t necessarily the point.
What would the actual good, to me, be to give up more of my freedom? That’s a generally valid basis I believe to decide to vote for more or less govt control over my life on all fronts. And would very much depend which restrictions. I live in NJ where guns are already plenty restricted compared to any number of other US states. I don’t have a big enough problem with it to move. But are we talking lots more restrictions on top of NJ level (no way would I vote for that), or on top of say AZ’s level (perhaps, depends)?
I dunno.
Are you a law-and-order type?
Do you plan to have “lost your gun in a boating accident” when Hillary comes for it?
Are you a nut or an owner?
“That board with a nail in it may have defeated us, but the humans won’t stop there. They’ll make bigger boards and bigger nails. Soon they will make a board with a nail in it so big, it will destroy them all.” -Kang
I think most would reply that laws passed by tyrants are no laws at all and that we have no duty to obey those laws. Or as Ben Franklin said “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”
I believe it was a boking accident.
A reason that an otherwise law-abiding citizen might disobey a gun control law is they believe it is a Constitutional infringement. The legislators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and yet they pass laws that infringe on it. Such legislators should not be in office IMO.
And it’s not just the Second Amendment being regularly infringed, the 4th and 5th Amendments are routinely being violated and IMO we should not accept that.
The government of the USA is of the people, by the people, and for the people and we people have been letting things slide for far too long.
Already asked and answered, your Honor.
NETA: And if the come-back is We’re only doing what A. Eichmann would have done if he had been Honorable … give us a break, OK?
I’d still like to hear your answer to my question. The hard-line Federalists in the late 18th century held that the people had no right whatsoever to protest or resist a properly passed law; that their only recourse was to vote differently the next election, and meanwhile to shut up and do what they were told. Which gave us the Alien & Sedition Acts. Do you apply that philosophy to anything other than firearms?
I have great admiration for people who refuse to obey unjust laws. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mahatma Gandhi; Schindler of Schindler’s List. Adolf Eichmann would have been a hero had he disobeyed Hitler’s orders.
And if possessing GUNZ has the same moral weight to you as protesting the subjugation of blacks, or of protesting the Holocaust, then for you disobeying gun control laws may give you the same sense of high moral stature as a Martin Luther King, Jr.
So, Fine. Are we in agreement so far?
But to me, protecting blacks’ right to vote or to use public restrooms is in a different league from ensuring that you can buy a 30-round clip for your AR-15 instead of just a 20-round clip. But that’s just me.
It depends on what the restriction is. If it’s gun confiscation without a repeal of the 2A, I think far more lives will be lost implementing that than would have been saved by the reduction. There will be outright civil war if that happens, without any guarantee that anything will change (you have politicians backing off on lesser restrictions when thousands of armed people show up to the capitol, obviously perfectly capable of massacring every pol in sight). And I don’t see the 2A getting repealed within the lifetime of anyone alive today.
You could probably chip away at it with some benefits though.
You’re on the right track. To me the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and was in fact included in the Bill of Rights for a good reason. Virginia recently tried to pass a law that restricts magazine size to 12. A truly strange number because not many firearms aside from some pistols would have a magazine that size. 30 round magazines are standard for many rifles, they aren’t “high capacity” in any way except in the words of gun control advocates and politicians.
If you’re trying to equate this to African Americans right to use public restrooms (which is like comparing apples and croquet balls but whatever) it would be like a law that African Americans could use public restrooms all they want, but only between 7PM and 7AM. Not outlawing African Americans using the restrooms, but just placing commonsense restrictions on it.
Thank you.
It really does as a matter of fact.
Your judgement call; fair enough.