I’d put this in GD, but the poll option isn’t available there. In any case this about Dopers’ fundamental axiomatic position on firearms, which ultimately isn’t logically debatable; either you think one way or the other. Note: this is about what you think is the actual reality of weapons, whether the Second Amendment matches your interpretation or not.
I need / want / like / use / guns.
No added government involvement, even some what less than there is now.
Are you asking people what the situation is or are you asking what we think the situation should be?
I think all rights are human constructs, and I don’t think owning a gun needs to be one of them. Maybe it made sense at some time in the past, but not now.
However, if you ask what the jurisprudence is TODAY in the US, it clearly is a right.
Depends if you are a card-carrying member of a local or state militia.
A right.
I guess I’d rather be behind one than in front of one. I’ve been both places, but one has a definite disadvantage.
I have no issue with people who want to own guns. I do have major issues with people who feel the need to strap a gun on their hip and swagger around trying to impress/intimidate/irritate others. It’s not so much about the gun as the attitude. Often the worst attitudes accompany lack of training and common sense.
I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be educated and licensed like drivers, pilots, and cosmetologists. I don’t think that’s an unfair burden.
Theres was no option for: “firearms are just another right falling under the general law-making power of the state, like freedom of speech, worship or assembly.”
So I reject your binary, yes.
I went with yes although I would/will debate both sides of the fence on “carry”. Some places are too damn easy about it and some are impossible and I personally think both are wrong. You should have at least some marginal training both in the use and the law if you are going to pack.
This. Yes, gun ownership is a right, to me. I’ve never been in front of one, nor do I want to be. Well, there were all those cap pistols back in the 50’s. I always had to be the Indian. In fact I’ve never pointed a weapon at a live being- but I can hit a target from quite a distance and more than half of the clays much of the time. Took classes. Used to go to the gun club regularly. I’m a liberal with a rifle rack…
Gun owning is a fundamental right because the constitution says so. But we should amend that. I can see citizens owning aircraft carriers and nuke equipped subs and spy satellites if we’re supposed to be able to resist a tyranical government though it seems unwieldy. However, the current system is just flat out dumb as toast.
100% agree with this. Thanks, John Mace, for saying it well enough to save me the trouble.
I think the framers were as wrong on firearms as they were on slavery.
Yes, I view gun ownership as a right, so that’s what I voted.
However, I also think binary logic is overrated.
But binary magazines are not.
Guns aren’t a right any more than antitank missiles are a right, and I say this as a conservative.
This.
I feel I have the right to protect my family and home. It may be unfortunate, but guns are really the best way to do this. They are not going to go away in the US, and it levels the playing field. A bit.
I have mixed feelings about carry though. I don’t. Seems to me that it would be a MAJOR pain in the ass. And I really do feel safe where ever I go.
Guns are also a major form of recreation. Be it target/sport shooting, hunting, or collecting.
I own ten guns. Didn’t buy any of them. They where handed down to me from family members. Each one does mean something to me. I really don’t NEED all of them, but what should I do? I suspect I will sell a few in the coming years (it will be hard), but what good does that do?
I have a brother in law that lives on 180 acres in Texas. He does shoot clay pigeons. And he has kids he could pass them down to (I do not). I think I may have to start to consider giving him a few of my guns (just getting the guns there is a major hassle).
Wait a minute – you don’t really want my opinion on this, do you? OK, here it is.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not well known, and is even hard to find. But here is a part of it:
*
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
*
And sure enough, for that reason, they added the Second Amendment. In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power. In order that a “second amendment remedy” is there, to be applied if and when power is abused or misconstrued. Even if by the government, which is the only thing subject to such “restrictive clauses”.
So, it follows that the purpose of the second amendment is to enable the citizenry to use firepower against a government that misconstrues or abuses its constitutional power.
Remember, the Second Amendment does not say a person has right to use arms whenever he feels like it, it means he has the right to possess arms, for use against lawful contingencies. The right to use those arms is then just like the right to use wheel barrows or handkerchiefs – a fundamental right for the pursuit of happiness, in a civilized social organization where behavior can be reasonably regulated to promote public safety and well-being.
And then, the founders took the trouble to put the term “well-regulated” in there. How in the hell is the militia well-regulated, when it has no chain of command, roster of members, or inventory of arms?
Yes, want a gun and I have a gun and I know how to use a gun. It is not ready at hand, but if my constitution is misconstrued or abused, it will be. It has no other useful purpose in the context of my lifestyle.