A Matter Of Perception?

Which choice best describes your feelings

  • I believe any weapons, including WMD's should be owned "by private citizens"

    Votes: 37 8.0%

  • I believe any military weapon (i.e. tanks), should be owned by "private citizens"

    Votes: 126 27.4%

  • I believe any hand held military weapon (i.e. SAM/LARS) should be owned " "

    Votes: 27 5.9%

  • I believe any conventional firearm including machine guns should be owned " "

    Votes: 223 48.5%

  • I believe any semi-auto firearm should be owned " "

    Votes: 39 8.5%

  • I believe only single shot firearms should be owned " "

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • I believe only single shot long rifles should be owned " "

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I believe no firearm should be owned " "

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I believe no lethal weapon (i.e. swords bow & arrows) should be owned " "

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • I believe only butter knives should be owned to prevent accidental injury

    Votes: 6 1.3%
  • Total voters
    460
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vector

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
683
Location
USA
I am fairly new to this forum and came here primarily to get some information from knowledgeable gun enthusiasts. I did not put too much thought into the level of enthusiasm the average poster would have, I just figured a forum about guns with so many forum sections and active members would contain enough fellow gun owners to give me sound advice. After being on the forum for a short time I became involved with the "Disney" thread about the grandmother arrested at Disney World for attempting to bring in a handgun. While that thread is still going on in regards to Disney's right to prohibit firearms, it has also prompted me to reassess my position within the gun rights movement. I have always thought of myself as a fairly strong supporter of the right to bear arms, without being on the fanatical fringe.
I believe the 2nd amendment guarantees that right to every legal, law abiding citizen within the 50 states. Furthermore, I believe in the right to carry firearms with moderate restrictions as long as the person passes a CCW course with appropriate background checks similar to what we have here in Florida.
To anti-gunners that probably makes me a mouth-breathing knuckle dragging gun nut, and to average Americans, it makes me just pro gun.

However, when I started to express my views in the aforementioned thread, some of the posters accused me of being an anti-gun troll, part of the "Brady bunch", etc., and it really astounded me.
Anyone who knows me personally feels I am strongly pro gun having owned and shot firearms, and being a member of the NRA. When it comes to gun ownership, I have several firearms including one that would be considered an "assault rifle" by the anti-gun crowd. I've owned it well before they even coined that phrase and the drive by media made it part of our everyday lexicon. Additionally I have a CCW and was probably among some of the first applicants once it became law.

I mention all this not to bolster my pro gun credentials, but rather to set the stage for the reason I started this thread. People tend to think of themselves in certain ways whether it be morally, politically spiritually, etc.
My own self image as it applies to gun ownership is strongly pro 2nd amendment, and probably right of center compared to the average American. However after having read others opinions/attacks/perspectives I am questioning what type of people frequent this forum and what their own self-perspective is as it relates to guns. So I am going to create a poll with extremes to get an idea of where everyone who participates perceives themselves to be. Obviously some of the choices would put you in the fanatic realm on either side of the spectrum, but please vote honestly.
I'd appreciate not only participation in the poll, but an honest dialog and discussion on this subject.

I also would like a rational discussion as to where people should and should not be allowed to carry firearms presuming they have a CCW. For that matter, do some here believe that anyone should be able to carry a firearm under any and all circumstances, and that CCW's set by the state amount to a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?

Lets keep the posts reasoned and civil to create an environment to find out what each other genuinely believe.
`
 
Anyone (no certified nut jobs or murderers) should be able to CCW without any type of permit or license. I don't think age is even an issue. Though parents should be responsible for making sure their children are well trained and respectful.

Where should we be allowed to carry. Everywhere. <That's a period. Well except places where the above mentioned nut jobs and murderers are incarcerated.

M60, SAW, LAW, why not? No crew served (M1A, Trident, F-22) weapons. Those are a little much.
 
In principal, I agree with the founding fathers that the government should not restrict our right to own anything we can afford. I do believe in restrictions on weapon access & ownership for criminals, minors, the mentally unstable, and illegal immigrants.

In practice, I also believe that there are weapons that no person or county has any business possessing.

Tench Coxe said:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wrote
No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.
Click to expand...
-
 
Half the point of the second amendment is for the violent overthrow of the United States government. And ugly truth, but there it is. I voted yes to RPGs etc.
 
The verdict's still out on WMDs in my opinion.
They're too expensive for individuals to own in reality.
 
Here's my rule of thumb, if the item is so potent even your first amendment rights to talk about it are infringed (some of it's workings are"classified" or "top secret" you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it to your chinese national cabbie), then okay...maybe civilians shouldn't be allowed to own it. However, I am always more in favor of coming up with creative ways to sidestep the whole ownership issue.

For instance, fissable material. Mineral rights wise, it is my understanding that all plutonium, uranium, etc etc in the USA is considered government stuff, or only they are authorized to extract it. Not 100% on the details, like I think if you found your land had plutonium deposits under it you'd be rich, but you couldn't just get a loan and start mining the stuff. Same way, no imporation/exportation of that stuff.

Without the right plutonium/uranium, no making hydrogen bombs, so no need to exclude them from coverage.


But on the flip side, what exactly is classified as a WMD? Some folks said that a jumbojet full of jetfuel is a WMD when crashed into a building, and I am all for personal ownership of aircraft including 747s
 
I believe that the OP has just discovered that there exist widely varying views of just what constitutes "the arms" we have a right to bear.

I am not really keen on the sarcasm evident in the poll's choices. (This is a gun forum, after all.) But, if I could afford -- and it were legal for me to own -- a 20mm Vulcan, yeah, I'd pick one up ... it'd be a chore to rig the mounting for it on the Tahoe, but ...
 
Vector I,

None of us develop opinions in a vacuum. The information we receive may shape those opinions in ways we don't understand.

Consider this - Those states that put no restrictions upon their citizens have no higher crime rates than those that put numerous restrictions upon them. They have no higher accidental firearms death rates, either.

This information is available from the DOJ crime statistics and from the CDC accidental death statistics. Most Americans don't know that this information is available. A lot of folks here at THR do. If you think about those statistics from the DOJ and CDC you begin to wonder if any "reasonable" law regulating possession or carry of firearms has any bearing upon crime or accidental injury or death involving firearms. If the states with restrictive laws are no safer than those with none, then what are the laws protecting us from?
 
I believe that part of ensuring the security of our nation is that all (or at least a vast majority of) private citizens be armed. At the very least something like a rifle. At the best... Light tanks, artillery, etc, etc. I'm not saying that ownership should be mandatory (though I think it shouldn't have to be), but I think that the armament of our civilians should be socially driven (just like other things I support, like welfare and medicare, just not the government doing them).
WMDs? I really don't know. Anyone with malice of intent enough to want to blow up a city would probably be able to get one anyway. They are too expensive for normal citizens to afford. Millionaires will be good and bad, and they are hard to control because of their wealth, anyway. Plus, I think we'll be coming up on portable nuclear power here soon (next 50 years), so, Hell, why ban it?
WMDs for everyone! ;)
 
I'm still waiting for the paperwork to get through on the Iowa-class 10 inch broadside I'm mounting on the starbord facing side of my roof. That'll teach the tree rats a lesson
 
I think it's likely that the arms referred to in the Second are any and all infantry weapons up to, say, grenade or rocket launchers. Possibly even small crew served weapons.

That said, I voted that any military weapons could be owned because A: there's no Constitutional grant of power for the Feds to restrict them, and B: the power to grant letters of marquee seems to imply that the ownership of private battleships was a given. How else would the government grant letters of marquee if nobody could own them?

I stopped short of voting for WMDs because their indiscriminate nature really kind of transcends the term "arms." Being that the point of an armed populace is to defend against foreign enemies and/or tyranny, a class of weapon which would destroy large swaths of land you're trying to defend would be counterproductive. But then again, there's almost no point in regulating them anyway, as anyone who could afford them would hardly be stopped by a mere law.

At the State level, there might be some room for regulation of non-infantry arms such as tanks or what have you. And should the Second be ruled as an "incorporated" right, concealed carry licensing might be Constitutional, given that in the old days most though such a practice was sneaky or something. That is, assuming we're to use a strict original intent view. Licensing or banning of open carry, however, should be out of the question.
 
I'm not crazy about the idea about the open trade of nukes, chemical, or bio weapons. but I'm not crazy about the idea of the governemnt telling me what to do either...

anything less than that I should be able to buy locally. it would be wicked cool to have a tank for a daily driver (except for fuel!) total chick magnet!
 
any non exploding(*) projectile weapons are fine with me. No problems with stuff like C4, stingers, WMD's, etc being regulated.

* = I define exploding as rounds that contain a decent amount of C4 or other explosive material inside it. So no arty, mortars, etc.

Explosives and WMD's are too indiscriminate in their effects. Rifles and MG's can be used with a greater degree of control.
 
Vector I said:
However, when I started to express my views in the aforementioned thread, some of the posters accused me of being an anti-gun troll, part of the "Brady bunch", etc., and it really astounded me.
Anyone who knows me personally feels I am strongly pro gun having owned and shot firearms, and being a member of the NRA. When it comes to gun ownership, I have several firearms including one that would be considered an "assault rifle" by the anti-gun crowd. I've owned it well before they even coined that phrase and the drive by media made it part of our everyday lexicon. Additionally I have a CCW and was probably among some of the first applicants once it became law.
Click to expand...

In the general aviation world, we have a saying and it is, "We have met the enemy and it is us."

Same often rings true in the gun world.

I'm a firm believer in that our opinions and attitudes are shaped by an ever changing combination of our past, our environment and our intellectual level and abilities.

When I was seventeen, over three decades ago, I wasn't even sure what gun control was. I grew up in a panhandle Texas household that had plenty of guns and where gun safety and responsibility was drilled into my head. The one time I screwed up and got careless while goofing around was costly. My dad took me to the cleaners. I deserved it because I knew better.

But after coming back home from several tours overseas in the military, I'd seen firsthand what developing nations and those with no second amendment were going through. I saw where those villagers that were armed didn't get a lot of grief from the ragtag soldiers/outfits that went pillaging. The villagers would damn sure shoot back. As a result, they were far safer than their city counterparts.

In college, I heard all the liberal BS about gun control. My response was, "Blow it out your ass." I carried a S&W Model 66 in my backpack the entire time I was in college. The parking lot was over two miles from the primary building I attended classes in, and often times, it was dark when I left and headed for my truck.

Now, I was plenty-well trained in unarmed combat beginning with when I was in elementary school and went to the judo dojo three times a week like clockwork. Then karate. Then the military. But I'd also seen firsthand overseas that no knifehand punch will ever beat a .357 shot.

After college, I went into government law enforcement taking on druggies. That's where I saw the real difference between unarmed and armed citizens. But what really did it for me was seeing the revolving door of so-called Justice. And what I saw getting churned out from our jails and prisons scared hell out of me.

It was at that point that I figured there should be damn near no restrictions whatsoever on the Second Amendment.

However, my position is that private citizens should not be allowed to own nor possess WMD or projectile explosive weapons such as RPGs, Laws rockets, Stingers, etc. If you want to own a Sherman tank, fine by me--especially at today's fuel prices.

But on the issue of basic arms, including sawed off weapons and fully automatic weapons and suppressed weapons, the only restrictions I favor are denying those rights to convicted felons who have not succesfully petitioned to have their record espunged, individuals who have been medically deemed as mentally unfit to own or possess a weapon, and for concealed carry, any citizen under the age of 18.

Vector, it's too bad some folks jumped on you the way they did. As I stated at the beginning, our opinions are formed on life experiences and knowledge. If we were all identical and had the same experiences, we'd all have the same opinions.

Thankfully that's not the case.

Jeff
 
I voted for conventional firearms. I am sure of that.

I am less sure of other man portable weapons or crew served weapons such as tanks, so I voted against them. There are a fair number of mostly obsolete but still very powerful tanks and military aircraft in private hands. Very few have active weapons systems in them.

I am pretty sure I am opposed to individuals having unrestricted access to WMD, but having said that a lot of people do have access to things considered WMD today and it is not that big of a deal. Chlorine gas is commonly used and is a WMD. Its not all that hard to come by. A lot of municipal water supplies use it for disinfection.
 
I don't have the time to respond to the posts tonight, but I do note a much more positive tone within this thread, and a genuine effort to discuss the issues. Even those who are articulating positions that most Americans would consider extreme are able to do so without ridicule or person attacks.

I guess it is only the suspected gun grabbing Brady's who are subjected to such behavior.:D
 
I stopped short of voting for WMDs because their indiscriminate nature really kind of transcends the term "arms." Being that the point of an armed populace is to defend against foreign enemies and/or tyranny, a class of weapon which would destroy large swaths of land you're trying to defend would be counterproductive.
Click to expand...

That's where I'm at. No person or government has ever proven to be able to use these responsibly. I would simply rather that they didn't exist at all.

Otherwise, I believe the law abiding citizenry should have access to any and all military weapons.

Furthermore, I believe in the right to carry firearms with moderate restrictions as long as the person passes a CCW course with appropriate background checks similar to what we have here in Florida.
Click to expand...

This is the ideolgy that's causing you to catch heat. Most of us here believe that all free men and women should have unrestricted access to arms. People who are incapable of thinking interpret this as us wanting to arm criminals. In reality, it is precisely the opposite. We believe that a criminal who cannot be trusted with weapons that he will inevitably acquire in society should not be free to roam amongst the population.
 
The same 2nd Amendment right that lets you stop a lethal threat is the same one that lets others stop you if you so threaten them.

At any moment,
...a firearm threatens roughly 1MOA of a 1km radius sphere.
...a grenade threatens roughly everything within a 10m radius sphere.
...a WMD threatens roughly everything within a 10km radius sphere.
The first two can be managed individually. The latter cannot.

That I did not vote for the first option (chose the second) was only because others are, generically speaking, justified in taking you out if you have one. If Cooper's First Rule is expanded accordingly - all weapons are in their most dangerous state - then the simple possession of a WMD is grounds for disarming one of it with extreme prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
My opinion on the NRA, GOA, etc issue.
Replies
10
Views
414
Taurus 66
T
Superlite27
  • Locked
  • Poll
gun polls
Replies
5
Views
468
kir_kenix
K
V
  • Locked
How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
Ru4real
  • Locked
Are you Pro Gun or Pro Gun Safety?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
GEM
G
T
  • Locked
91 % of Americans support gun background checks: Poll
Replies
23
Views
1K
gc70
gc70
Back
Top