# The War on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101 "2013-09-17T22:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/161 "2013-09-20T21:11:05Z")
Is it possible to be anti-NRA and still be pro-2nd Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/162 "2013-09-20T21:14:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is it possible to be anti-NRA and still be pro-2nd Amendment? Sure. You can be for the rights of the elderly but not for AARP, or a believer in minority rights and freedom of speech and not a fan of the NAACP. I’m not a member of the NRA, nor am I in lock step agreement with them on all issues concerning gun rights (which is why I’m not a member). ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/163 "2013-09-20T21:16:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is it possible to be anti-NRA and still be pro-2nd Amendment? Absolutely. Ask H.L. Richardson. As a matter of fact, he took special offense to the NRA supporting the NICS background check improvement legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/164 "2013-09-20T21:18:54Z")
Though I would donate to the NRA simply because they are the biggest lobbying group for the RKBA around - I am pro 2nd amendment and not a member of the NRA. They are too moderate for me. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/165 "2013-09-20T21:26:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Though I would donate to the NRA simply because they are the biggest lobbying group for the RKBA around - I am pro 2nd amendment and not a member of the NRA. They are too moderate for me. Seriously. I’m a member, but I feel the same way sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/166 "2013-09-20T21:36:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m a member, but I feel the same way sometimes. Is there another gun rights group you would support instead if they had the influence the NRA now has? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/167 "2013-09-20T21:43:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Though I would donate to the NRA simply because they are the biggest lobbying group for the RKBA around - I am pro 2nd amendment and not a member of the NRA. They are too moderate for me. Seriously. Same thoughts but I’m still a member. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/168 "2013-09-20T21:50:30Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Yes. But most…er…“anti-controllers” don’t mind additional regulation in terms of background checks and closing the person-to-person sales without a background check. > > Most hate regulation because if you look at a place like California, they keep tweaking their “assault weapon” definition to include more and more guns. That’s why most people are against that sort of ban. It’s not “We are banning handguns.” or “We are banning high powered rifles.” it’s “We are banning assault weapons.” That is just too vague for a lot of people. The concept of “prohibited persons” has also already been expanded to an unreasonable level, at least here in California, along with background checks to try to keep people from having guns who are deemed unsuitable. The idea of prohibiting violent convicted criminals from having guns doesn’t seem that unreasonable, at the surface. But we started by prohibiting all convicted felons, including those whose crimes had nothing to do with guns or violence. We’ve expanded the types of crimes that can be covered as felonies. It is at the point now, where I think it is fairly safe to say that most of us have, at least a few times in our lives, unknowingly committed acts that run afoul of felony-level laws. Have you ever improperly disposed of batteries or other “hazardous waste”? Who among us doesn’t routinely do so? Ever downloaded copyrighted music or media from a file-sharing network? We’ve also expanded “prohibited persons” to include certain non-felony drug offenses and domestic violence offenses; and “mental health issues”. “Mental health issues” is also a very troubling aspect. It’s easy to argue that there are some people who are so violently insane that they are truly dangerous, and need to be kept from dangerous objects. But thee vast majority of people who have diagnosed, identified mental health issues are no more inclined to dangerous, violent, or criminal behavior than those who have not been so diagnosed. And mental illness covers a lot of minor issues, such as OCD, phobias, and such. I doubt if there is any single individual alive anywhere who doesn’t have some pattern of thought or behavior that could be classified as a mental illness. Indeed, there is a long history of oppressive governments using “mental illness” as an excuse to suppress their opponents. Giving government the power to pick and choose who it will and who it will not allow to exercise an essential Constitutional right sets a very dangerous precedent. They’ve already abused this power to an unacceptable and unreasonable degree, and can only be expected to expand their abuse of it. It’d be no great leap from where things now stand for this power to be expanded to cover any of us. I say that the only legitimate solution is that anyone who, either through mental illness, or criminal behavior, is adequately proven to be an unacceptable danger to free society, needs to be removed from free society until such time as he can be satisfactorily demonstrated to be otherwise. This needs to be done by a vigorous due process of law where the proof of a need and a justification for such an action can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and depending in the nature of the danger, the subject of such an action, on being so proven a danger, should be confined to a prison or a mental hospital (or put to death if the issue involves a sufficient level of criminality to call for it). Anyone who is not in confinement as a result of this process is free, and ought to be allowed all of the same rights as every other free American, including the right to keep and bear arms. (I’d actually make an exception, here, for anyone who is on parole or probation; although such are “free” in the sense of not being confined in a prison, they are still under sentence for a crime, and their “freedom”, at that point is limited and subject to restrictions that would not apply to one who is genuinely free, and subject to revocation of they violate the terms of their probation or parole. I have no problem with a prohibition on possession of weapons being among these restrictions.) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/169 "2013-09-20T21:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Dissonance] Again, firearms are weapons, full stop. Find me one dictionary definition that does not define a firearm as a weapon. It is disingenuous to state that firearms are not weapons. Guess what? Target rifles and target pistols are weapons. [/quote] A starter’s pistol is a firearm, it is also a weapon in the sense that a letter opener is a weapon - that is, it could just conceivable do some damage to someone if special effort was taken, but is about as effective for any real combat situation as a wet noodle. Calling it a weapon may be technically accurate, in the sense that a fire_arm_ is an armament, which is another name for weapon, but that description is vastly misleading about the capabilities of the aforementioned device. > [@](#): > > Again, if you insist otherwise your problem isn’t with me, it’s with the English language. If you are so confidant that they are not weapons, try walking into a bank with a target rifle slung over your shoulder and a target pistol strapped to your hip and explaining to the security guard and the police that you aren’t armed when they tell you to drop your weapons. Try walking into a bank with a BB gun that looks like a semi-auto weapon, or a realistic looking Airsoft gun. Kids have been shot for having plastic, non-projectile firing toys. Mistaking a harmless device for a threat does not mean the device is actually a weapon, it just means it is misinterpreted. Someone trying to hold up a bank with a starter’s pistol is either ignorant or hoping to use that misinterpretation to their advantage, but that doesn’t make a starter’s pistol an effective weapon, it just means it looks like a similar tool that is actually dangerous. And again, from a legal perspective, if I try to hold up a bank by threatening with a rock, that is a weapon. That would count as armed robbery. > [@](#): > > No, what makes it wrong is that he declares firearms are not weapons. That is demonstrably and entirely incorrect, and a very bizarre position to hold to boot. As I said, that is a philosophical position regarding what a “weapon” is, and dictionaries are looking for concise explanations. They get caught in circular word usage all the time. I’m sorry I got caught up in this hijack. I was attempting to explain the basis for **smiling** **bandit** ’s comment, but at this point, I realize I’m not going to convince you of anything, and I’m done with this hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/170 "2013-09-20T22:07:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is there another gun rights group you would support instead if they had the influence the NRA now has? In recent times the SAF has done a lot of work to advance the cause of gun rights advocates. I support them. There are also certain state focused groups that have a narrower focus and can target state level laws that are unfavorable to the RKBA. I would like to see a more wide spread targeted litigation strategy to bankrupt municipalities that have overly restrictive gun laws on the books. If they keep hitting the Washington DC pinata and more money keeps falling out when they lose court cases, maybe eventually they will change their laws. Until then the pro RKBA lawyers will get rich, and deservedly so. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/171 "2013-09-20T22:42:57Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > We’ve also expanded “prohibited persons” to include certain non-felony drug offenses and domestic violence offenses; and “mental health issues”. > > “Mental health issues” is also a very troubling aspect. It’s easy to argue that there are some people who are so violently insane that they are truly dangerous, and need to be kept from dangerous objects. But thee vast majority of people who have diagnosed, identified mental health issues are no more inclined to dangerous, violent, or criminal behavior than those who have not been so diagnosed. And mental illness covers a lot of minor issues, such as OCD, phobias, and such. I doubt if there is any single individual alive anywhere who doesn’t have some pattern of thought or behavior that could be classified as a mental illness. Indeed, there is a long history of oppressive governments using “mental illness” as an excuse to suppress their opponents. Here is the federal law about prohibited persons related to mental health: > [@](#): > > 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) > It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Do you have any problem with that? Here is CA law: > [@](#): > > Cal. Welfare and Inst. Code §§ 8100 - 8108 > A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person: > > [ul] > [li]Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;[/li][li] Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;[/li][li] Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;[/li][li] Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent;[/li][li] Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism[/li][/ul] (I added bullets) What specific provision of these laws are you “troubled” by? Which of the above provisions do you believe to be too restrictive? Simply being diagnosed with mental illness is not sufficient to become a prohibited person. > [@](#): > > The idea of prohibiting violent convicted criminals from having guns doesn’t seem that unreasonable, at the surface. But we started by prohibiting all convicted felons, including those whose crimes had nothing to do with guns or violence. We’ve expanded the types of crimes that can be covered as felonies. It is at the point now, where I think it is fairly safe to say that most of us have, at least a few times in our lives, unknowingly committed acts that run afoul of felony-level laws. Have you ever improperly disposed of batteries or other “hazardous waste”? Who among us doesn’t routinely do so? Ever downloaded copyrighted music or media from a file-sharing network? Cite that illegally disposing of batteries is a felony that would make you a prohibited person as you have implied? What felonies do you believe currently cause a person to become prohibited that should not? I’m perfectly fine with felons losing their right to possess firearms. Non-violent felons should be able to have this prohibition lifted after some proscribed amount of time, but if one can not follow the law with sufficient rigor and judgment as to not be convicted of a felony, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for their right to possess firearms. I see prohibitions based on restraining orders as a wobbler. TROs are too easy to obtain and do not have enough rigor and due process to be the cause for one to lose their right to possess firearms, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/172 "2013-09-21T01:53:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think that once you get to the point that you think anyone with an opposing opinion is an enemy you must not give one inch to, once you lump everyone that doesn’t support you one hundred percent together and collectively demonize them, any chance for a reasonable debate is pretty much over. Enough inches have been given. I think we should take some back. > [@](#): > > Twenty five or so years ago I might have joined the NRA, but right now it has a nutcase for a spokesman who is quite effective in rallying the troops and I just can’t support it at this time. I’ll take that over a more reasoned fellow who can’t rally the troops. Besides, how do you know the guy isn’t reasoned, and is just doing what needs to be done to rally the troops? Anyway I didn’t have much love for the NRA, then the gun grabbers did their assault weapon ban push again and I became a life member. Problems or not the NRA fight for gun owners with more clout than anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/173 "2013-09-21T01:55:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is it possible to be anti-NRA and still be pro-2nd Amendment? I think it’s en vogue for anti-gunners to say they are pro-2nd Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/174 "2013-09-21T02:08:45Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Enough inches have been given. I think we should take some back. Starting with what? What are the “inches” you most regret giving up and which should be taken back? What \*serious \*limitation is there that confines your liberties unreasonably? :dubious: > [@](#): > > I’ll take that over a more reasoned fellow who can’t rally the troops. Does it matter to you \*what \*the, well, we can’t really call them “troops”, the membership then, is being rallied to do? Lately it’s been to oppose everything and cripple whatever credibility the gun-owning community used to have. Is that a good thing to you? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Anyway I didn’t have much love for the NRA, then the gun grabbers did their assault weapon ban push again and I became a life member. So you think you need an assault weapon, to do what exactly? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/175 "2013-09-21T02:23:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Starting with what? What are the “inches” you most regret giving up and which should be taken back? What \*serious \*limitation is there that confines your liberties unreasonably? Off the top of my head I don’t think I should be denied cheap surplus ammo imported from other countries. I’m currently building a SG-57 and don’t think I should have to locate a barrel and receiver to replace the ones destroyed to allow importation of the parts kit. I also don’t think I should have to pay a $200 tax stamp for every class 3 weapon or accessory that interests me. CCW on campus, yes I think I should be able. I can go on. > [@](#): > > Does it matter to you \*what \*the, well, we can’t really call them “troops”, the membership then, is being rallied to do? Lately it’s been to oppose everything and cripple whatever credibility the gun-owning community used to have. Is that a good thing to you? Sure I think they did a great job stopping Feinstein and Obama and ousting them senators in Colorado. I don’t expect a person like you to ever have thought the gun owner community had any credibility to lose. > [@](#): > > So you think you need an assault weapon, to do what exactly? I’d rather have one and not need one than need one and not have one. As of yet I can’t say I have ever needed one. Heck I don’t need a lot of things I own, but I like having them, and I don’t want anyone telling me I can’t. In fact people telling me I shouldn’t have them makes me buy more of them. See, I believe in this thing called “freedom” and I figure you probably don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/176 "2013-09-21T03:17:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is there another gun rights group you would support instead if they had the influence the NRA now has? Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation (I do currently support both). > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Starting with what? What are the “inches” you most regret giving up and which should be taken back? What \*serious \*limitation is there that confines your liberties unreasonably? I’d like to see the NFA registry reopened. No one, and I mean _no one_ has been able to explain to me why it’s ok for me to own a full-auto weapon made in 1985, but not one made in 1987. It’s non-sensical. Also, an area that’s near and dear to my heart, I’d like to see more colleges allow concealed carry on campus. More precisely, I’d like to see more public colleges _forced_ to allow concealed carry on campus like those in Utah have been. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/177 "2013-09-21T04:01:41Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > You seem to be contradicting yourself there. That second “Regulation” should have been “ban”. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > If most gun owners don’t mind additional background checks, why don’t they happen? The Manchin-Toomey bill couldn’t even get out of the Senate (so that it could be shot down in the House). Because one party says “NEVER!” and the other party says “ALWAYS!” and the NRA lobbys for things that help manufacturers more than it’s citizen membership. They don’t listen to an American that wants a mental health system, comprehensive background checks, and some other minor modifications to existing law. But we can’t have reasonableness in DC, can we? Europe would have nothing to point at us and laugh about, and we can’t have that. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > That makes me wonder about the title of this thread. If there is a War on Guns, it’s significantly lop-sided for the guns. The good-slash-bad thing about gun owners is that they are extremely vocal about their guns. People go to regulate them, and there’s an inherent mistrust to just letting the politicians do whatever. It only escalates from there. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > (Sorry about “anti-controllers”. I didn’t want to use “gun nuts”. Is there a proper term?) Honestly, i don’t care what term you use as long as it’s clear. I just thought that term was tremendously enjoyable. (I may be crazy. 😉 ) > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There are a number of national alternatives: Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, etc. No, they don’t have the pull in DC that the NRA does, but then again, _no one_ has the pull that the NRA does, so that’s not really a very enlightening point. It’s not all about the manufacturer funding. My point was more about pull. But I don’t think most of those even try to lobby in DC… > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If it were, the NRA wouldn’t be calling / mailing me every week or two looking for more money. No offense, but why wouldn’t they ask for money? I have BOTH the DNC and RNC leaving me messages asking for money. We all know they don’t need it, but they still ask. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/178 "2013-09-21T04:52:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, my side is winning the battle, for now. By about 10,000 to nothing every year. That also happens to be the number of deaths every year during the Iraq war. If there’s a war going on in the U.S., I’d say it’s a War on Americans. > [@Kable](#): > > You aren’t free to carry a handgun concealed or otherwise? That sucks. > > Pretty long list of firearms you aren’t free to own: > > [Firearms regulation in Canada - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Classification_of_firearms) If you have a need to carry a handgun, then it isn’t a freedom, it’s a necessity. I’m free from the need to carry one because people here don’t go around with guns. I gather that’s a freedom you and a lot of Americans don’t have. There must be a list of firearms you’re not “free” to own. Are you oppressed because you can own most kinds of firearms but not a few others? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The NRA found that the vast majority of its members didn’t support the bill: [Cite](http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/survey-finds-nra-members-united.aspx) What does the NRA have to do with a Senate vote? Did they influence it? ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/179 "2013-09-21T05:00:01Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > If you have a need to carry a handgun, then it isn’t a freedom, it’s a necessity. I’m free from the need to carry one because people here don’t go around with guns. I gather that’s a freedom you and a lot of Americans don’t have. That’s a very odd definition of “freedom”—not being allowed to do something, but thinking one doesn’t need to do so anyway. Most Americans think that freedom means being allowed to do something. I guess it’s an inevitable result of the difference between a nation that was founded in violent and forceful rebellion against a horrendous tyrant, and another nation that was founded in grovelling and cowering before that same tyrant. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/180 "2013-09-21T05:44:24Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > If you have a need to carry a handgun, then it isn’t a freedom, it’s a necessity. Who said anything about need. I’m free to choose to carry if I want to or not. That what freedom means “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” > [@](#): > > I’m free from the need to carry one because people here don’t go around with guns. You sound free to do as you’re told, which isn’t very free. > [@](#): > > There must be a list of firearms you’re not “free” to own. Are you oppressed because you can own most kinds of firearms but not a few others? To a degree yes. I was complaining about that earlier if you didn’t notice. The bright side is the guns I want but have trouble getting are luxuries with historical rather than practical value. Like that SG-57 I mentioned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=10)