Poll: 2nd Amendment Supporter, But...

[Jimi Jah]

The founders intended no restrictions. Citizens owned cannons and ships full of cannons back then.

Criminal laws are made to take care of the abusers. Some seen to forget that.

[Sousuke]

I think there needs to be restrictions on who based on how laws are currently. If a violent felony means a person can't own a gun, I'm not sure why they are walking free in the first place.

If they would keep violent offenders in prison, then yes I would vote for option 1.

[Mayor McRifle]

Shall not be infringed. Period.

[Rivers]

There obviously need to be restrictions both for certain persons and certain arms. The Constitution assumes everyone's intention to be responsible and in a perfect world, there would be no need to have any limits. Sadly, when people are irresponsible or harbor bad intentions, legislated public safety has to become a consideration. Hence, rights will inevitably be restricted one way or another. Speech (no yelling "fire" in a theater). Religion (no sacrificing virgins even if you could find one). Arms (no nukes allowed in this establishment.)

Without restrictions, even a convict still incarcerated would have the right to any kind of weapon. And that is simply ridiculous. Outside of prisons, not restricting the mentally ill, especially those with violent tendencies, would lead to preventable disasters. Those who have been convicted of violent crimes or diagnosed with mental illness with violent tendencies should forfeit their 2A rights unless and until they can prove they are not dangers to society or themselves. No permanent or lifetime bans, but a high standard to lifting those bans.

Now imagine your crazy, drunk, PTSD-afflicted next door neighbor decides he wants to exercise his unrestricted 2A right by filling his garage and yard with live artillery shells, or maybe he wants to build a dirty bomb to protect himself from whatever. No restrictions against that?

I think a reasonable practical limit would be what the contemporary foot soldier might use as an individual, so should the civilian be able to "keep and bear". That would include machine guns, .50BMG, suppressors, night vision (although not a weapon), body armor, tear gas, etc. Artillery, armored vehicles (tanks, etc.) and fighter aircraft should require additional scrutiny but allowable.

Damn, I voted wrong! I didn't see the BACON choice!

[Usmc0844spare]

Man you guys are way more charitable than me. IMO once you use a gun in commission of a felony, you have beyond a shadow of a doubt demonstrated that you are a poor fit for society and that despite the obvious wrongness of committing felonies beaten into you since birth by parents/society, you just "don't get it" and probably never will "get it". Your right to have a gun is forever forfeit.

I am one who thinks along the lines of "I am sorry that XYZ in your past causes you to act like an a**hole, but at this point the main thing we need to worry about is that you are acting like an a**hole. Plenty of other folks who went through the same XYZ crap you did that are not a**holes, I see no reason to cut you any slack."

If it could be managed in a non-slippery slope way (in other words if we could be sure the left would not take advantage/abuse it - which is impossible) I'd advocate the even some non-felony stuff cause you to lose your 2a rights. In my area we have a dude who's been busted a couple times for misdemeanor assault, animal cruelty/neglect, possession of stun gun while on parole, etc. Cops at his house constantly for domestic crap, and non-stop screaming at SOMEONE in the street for whatever white-trash "YOU STOLE MY CIGARETTES" type of reason. But no felonies. No WAY should this guy be allowed to own a gun; he's demonstrated perfectly that he does not play well with others and is overall doing more harm than good to society. No way I want this guy armed. This is the type of guy where back in the wild west the town would band together, knock on his door and say "you have until sundown to collect your stuff and get the hell out of town". Now we have to wait until he hurts/kills someone.

[lordmorgul]

[Rivers]

If it could be managed in a non-slippery slope way (in other words if we could be sure the left would not take advantage/abuse it - which is impossible) I'd advocate the even some non-felony stuff cause you to lose your 2a rights. In my area we have a dude who's been busted a couple times for misdemeanor assault, animal cruelty/neglect, possession of stun gun while on parole, etc. Cops at his house constantly for domestic crap, and non-stop screaming at SOMEONE in the street for whatever white-trash "YOU STOLE MY CIGARETTES" type of reason. But no felonies. No WAY should this guy be allowed to own a gun; he's demonstrated perfectly that he does not play well with others and is overall doing more harm than good to society. No way I want this guy armed. This is the type of guy where back in the wild west the town would band together, knock on his door and say "you have until sundown to collect your stuff and get the hell out of town". Now we have to wait until he hurts/kills someone.

First, the key point is, as you mentioned, that "slippery slope" thing. No matter what happens, unless something is an absolute, all or nothing, there will be points of negotiation. That means some sort of compromise. Nobody gets everything.

For your example of a bad actor who manages to fly under the felony radar, you're running headfirst into the exact "discretionary" issues that the anti-gun crowd wants to use against even truly law-abiding citizens. What criteria is going to distinguish good guy from bad guy? Maybe some panel of judges but what's to keep that concept from getting corrupted?

You realize even that town committee was mob rule, right? If we want to avoid gun-controllers exercising mob rule, we would have to have boundaries that aren't so easily moved yet allow for the individuals who might be caught up in the rules to legitimately appeal their cases.

[boopiejones]

I was about to post this same thing but you beat me to it. Many calgunners own guns and have children in the house. Educating your kids and keeping guns out of their hands is part of being a responsible gun owner.

[Dutch3]

Exactly.

[njineermike]

There is nothing left to finish of that final sentence.

/Thread.

[DMotivate]

To anyone that would ask in public I would say "shall not be infringed" due to knowing the lefts true attitude and how slippy that slope can be. In reality though not everyone should be able to have firearms, i.e. violent felons and the mentally ill (not someone taking meds for anxiety, etc.). And while I would love to have a roof mounted 50 cal or a side door SAW, probably not a good idea either.

[Scratch705]

i believe there should be restrictions of who can own/use firearms.

but i also believe, there needs to be a reclassification of what crimes would ban you from owning/using guns though. not all crimes should strip you of your gun rights.

[Usmc0844spare]

Ridiculous. I think that adults should manage their responsibility as parents and not give frags to kindergarteners in the first place, and they should discipline their spoiled brats who don’t take any responsibility for their actions too.


Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / CRPA / FPC / USCCA member

Are we using hand grenades as a metaphor or are we REALLY advocating that the average citizen be able to posses an M67 frag?

And by "average citizen" I don't mean YOU, who are doubtless smart enough to not blow yourself up with one.

I mean the guy or gal who calls tech support for their TV because it won't turn on (because its not plugged in). I mean the person who needs AAA to change a tire not out of convenience but because changing a tire is to them the equivalent of replacing a head gasket, even with an owners manual in hand. I mean the person who burns down their house because they thought it would be a good idea to try to kill that spider egg sac with a bic lighter and a can of hair-spray. I mean the healthy % of the population that in general makes it through life w/o killing themselves on accident only by virtue of luck and the existence of Underwriters Laboratories.

Do you want those folks to have frags?

[kenl]

The only restrictions that are needed is to ban all anti 2a politicians, their minions and puppet masters from all firearms, and extend the ban to any of their body guards while they are on duty. Oh, and throw in violent felons, who should be locked up for life anyway.

[DaveInOroValley]

The best of both worlds: