Poll: 2nd Amendment Supporter, But...

[aklon]

Any time someone says: "I believe in free speech, but ..."

or "I believe in the right to bear arms, but ..."

they really don't.

[Deedle]

Well, if they're above the age of majority .... why are they still in kindergarten?

[Holden Caulfield]

I do not think that allowing mental cases to have guns is a good idea so some restriction in that area I'm OK with.

First time felons that used guns in a crime, once they have served their time, should be allowed to have a gun to protect themselves like the rest of us.
Repeat offenders using a gun fall into the idiot category and should be restricted for a period of time, not for life, provided that they have been lawful.

If you used a gun in the process of a crime you should be locked away for life. Problem solved

[TMB 1]

Realistically, I feel there needs to be some restrictions on who can own firearms, Violent felons (not an accountant or real estate agent who made a mistake,) those under a current restraining order for domestic violence and the mentally unstable, for example. Explosive devices and crew served weapons as well deserve some restrictions.

I do feel that "shall issue" should be the norm for carry permits, barring the above issues.

Depending who reads it. You just restricted yourself as mentally unstable.

[smittty]

There should be no restrictions on what I can...

The word "I" is key here. I'm responsible, and of sane mind.

If you are mentally unstable then my answer for you would No.

[TMB 1]

There should be no restrictions on what I can...

The word "I" is key here. I'm responsible, and of sane mind.

If you are mentally unstable then my answer for you would No.

That's what Diane Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome, Kevin De Leon and all of their buddies say. Can you guess who they will all say is mentally unstable?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Okay. This is absolutely the last 'bump.'

We picked up something like 22 - 23 votes yesterday; i.e., 105/106 grew to 128.

Again, I agree. You shouldn't have to post a comment in a poll, but that's the way the system appears to work. That's not a criticism. Just an observation of how the system is working. However, I don't want to be a 'troll' and simply keep bumping my own thread.

The results aren't exactly or should not be a 'surprise' to site regulars. They are... interesting... though.

As one or two attempted to 'parse' things, I did, seemingly, 'create' a difference between "I" in the first response, where it was taken as being "personal," and responses 2 - 4, which seemed to be addressing society at large. I don't see it that way and, my sense is, many others didn't either. In other words, I wouldn't make much out of it beyond the idea that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' poll question; i.e., one which absolutely everyone will 'interpret' or 'read' the same way.

I didn't specify "theoretically" or "realistically" as a context. That was deliberate. In theory, I suspect the results would be, overwhelmingly, #1 and #5. What 'theory?' The theory that "all other things being equal;" i.e., that violent felons are kept incarcerated, that violent felons are always caught/successfully prosecuted/incarcerated, that those appropriately using a firearm in self-defense are not then subjected to criminal/civil liabilities, that the population at large would not find objection to arming... ???... and the presumed 'threat' it might pose, etc. In reality, we know that such a theory does not exist in most places or circumstances; i.e., not 'all things are equal.'

Good poll. Interesting results.

Thanks for participating folks.

[Deedle]

Only about 60% of CalGuns believe in the 2nd. Anyone still wonder why CA is the way it is?

[Scratch705]

Only about 60% of CalGuns believe in the 2nd. Anyone still wonder why CA is the way it is?

so you support foreign nationals being able to buy and carry any gun they want while in the USA?

or the local gangs to buy/carry whatever they want?

felons recently let out of prison?

people with restraining orders or known spouse beaters?

there are lots of situations where there should be a restriction on who can own a gun. the only problem is, this question is assuming either that everyone is law abiding or assuming that the other side has common sense and won't try to restrict more people.

in a complete safety bubble that would never occur in the real world, i would be fine with everyone carrying and buying whatever they want. want that AT-4 rocket? sure go ahead. want to own some C4 or some detcord, sure, not my problem, you probably have some large boulders to take out on your property or whatever.

but we live in the real world, and in the real world, there are evil people, and they will use these arms for nefarious things.

[Rivers]

Only about 60% of CalGuns believe in the 2nd. Anyone still wonder why CA is the way it is?

That's not a fair conclusion. SCOTUS has said (Heller, if you forgot) that reasonable restrictions can be placed on the 2nd, just like the 1st. What we need to agree on is what to consider as "reasonable", not whether the 2nd is absolutely free from any limitations because it isn't. Bloomberg's concept of "reasonable" isn't anything close to what we'd tolerate, but unless we put a political machine together that will overwhelm the gun control movement, we're going to be on the losing end again and again.

That said, we (CG'ers) are best served by less in-fighting, better communication and coordination, and enlisting others outside of our circle who may have shared interests and opinions. For example, off-road enthusiasts, motorcyclists, automotive enthusiasts, fishermen, even hunters (who often don't stay alerted to legislative issues, and archers) - all these groups have large percentages of participants who are of similar mind to CG'ers interests. Does anyone talk with THEM? Do those interested in the Second Amendment coordinate with those groups to form a more cohesive front that can serve ALL these groups more effectively against governmental regulatory intrusions? I doubt it, and that's just a stupidly ineffective way to fight for our rights.

[RiskyBusiness]

People forget freedom of speech doesnt mean you can go out and call others the N word and threaten you'll hang em. Theres limitations on what comes out your mouth. Just as their should be limitations on most of you (60%) that think its your right to own grenades and RPGs. New poll, how many of you that voted anyone and everyone should be allowed grenades because you interpret it that way, also take the bible stories literal?

[rugershooter]

We have near continuous posts about how ardently members support the 2nd Amendment. Then we see near continuous posts about how the minimum age for gun purchases should be raised to 21 or 25 or... How guns should/must be stored in a certain manner as part of an inherent responsibility... How the NFA should be repealed, but how so-called assault weapons aren't assault rifles because they aren't fully automatic... How...

Let's take a poll.

Let's assume that everyone believes in the 2nd Amendment and feels it represents an individual right.

Now, finish the following statement.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment...

I voted for no restrictions.
Here's why:
I simply don't trust that anyone else who would be in a position to define the regulations is worthy of that responsibility. I understand the arguments about kinder-gardeners having hand grenades and other such arguments.
The 2nd Amendment is an all or nothing issue. If the founders designed it so that the population is armed as a check against governmental tyranny, it simply doesn't make sense that the very entity the 2A is supposed to keep in check is the same entity that controls every single aspect of guns.
In the end, we have to realize that freedom is dangerous. The ability to keep and bear arms is inherently dangerous because it inevitably means that "undesirables" will obtain guns and do bad things with them.
Accepting the idea that gun control is acceptable under the 2A means accepting the idea that people (often elected officials) are responsible enough to wield the power to determine who is an "undesirable", which is a problem because it totally negates the original purpose of the 2A. And some people are OK with certain people being defined as "undesirables"...until that ever-expanding list now encompasses them.

[phlebitis]

Sad to see so many people here support gun control.

[MrTokarev]

Only about 60% of CalGuns believe in the 2nd. Anyone still wonder why CA is the way it is?

Disgusting isn't it? But sadly I'm not surprised at all.

[WoodTurner]

Any free man or woman, who is able to take care of themselves, should be unrestricted in their second amendment rights.
If they are too dangerous to trust with a firearm, they are too dangerous to be free in public.