New Poll - What describes your view on Firearms - Honesty.

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

What describes your view on Firearms?

I agree with Boxer, Feinstein et al, only us elites need our firearms and permits.
0
No votes
Only LEO and military needs firearms.
0
No votes
I do not care what is outlawed as long as I still have my hunting guns.
0
No votes
Reasonable restrictions are OK as long as I still have mine.
0
No votes
Any type of carry/posession should require a license.
1
1%
Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms.
41
47%
Come and take them, cold dead hands etc.
28
32%
I need a tank parked next to my arsenal and ammo dump. The 2A is about the civilian militia.
17
20%
 
Total votes: 87

User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

New Poll - What describes your view on Firearms - Honesty.

Post by anygunanywhere »

What best describes your view on firearms?

I lean towards #7 and #8.

Some of the last few "intense" posts here brought out some interesting comments. Some had me thinking some of the reasonable restriction crowd and license for anything bunch are out there.

Anygun
Last edited by anygunanywhere on Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

Post by txinvestigator »

none of those fit my beliefs. You jump from "Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms. "to "Come and take them, cold dead hands etc. "


There is a WHOLE lot of room between those two.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

I go for the law abiding, sane, non-felon types owning guns.

Though I must admit I struggle a bit with the last one. It would have been much easier if the choice was non-VIOLENT-felon. Just because I do not believe that various so-called "white collar" felonies should have anything at all to do with a person's gun rights.

FWIW, I am completely opposed to any form of registration (paves the way for confiscation), but I have no problem at all with requiring an LTC to carry a gun in public (whether open or concealed).
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Post by stevie_d_64 »

I'm actually liking the idea of having a tank in the arsenal...Perfectly good, gently used Russian tanks and BMP's are available for the price of a nice American SUV these days...

The poll sure is a roller coaster of a ride though...

The Second Amendment is what it is in my book...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Post by anygunanywhere »

txinvestigator wrote:none of those fit my beliefs. You jump from "Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms. "to "Come and take them, cold dead hands etc. "


There is a WHOLE lot of room between those two.
Txi, you are right, as usual.

Since once again the post is not up to your standards, your belief is.....What?

ETA - I see there is one in the "Any type of carry/posession..." column. I would like to discuss this reasoning.

Anygun
Last edited by anygunanywhere on Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
Venus Pax
Senior Member
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: SE Texas

Post by Venus Pax »

I voted on the one that said that law-abiding, non-felon, sane individuals should have them.

Actually, I have no problem with certain outlawed groups having them.
Ex: I've met people that are considered felons for theft or drugs while in the 18-22 age range, yet haven't lived that lifestyle for 10 or 20+ years.
"If a man breaks in your house, he ain't there for iced tea." Mom & Dad.

The NRA & TSRA are a bargain; they're much cheaper than the cold, dead hands experience.
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Post by Liberty »

I don't see why felons such as pot smokers and folks guilty of lying to Feds need to lose the right to protect themselves. I don't think Felons are the all the same as they used to be. Martha Stuart, and Scooter Libby aren't as dangerous to society as Bonnie and Clyde.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Liberty wrote:I don't see why felons such as pot smokers and folks guilty of lying to Feds need to lose the right to protect themselves. I don't think Felons are the all the same as they used to be. Martha Stuart, and Scooter Libby aren't as dangerous to society as Bonnie and Clyde.
I fully agree. But I voted for the "sane, non-felon" catagory because that came closest to my beliefs.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar
nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

Post by nitrogen »

I didn't see anything that closely matched my feelings.

I believe the 2nd amendment means what it says.
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The most important part being "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This means that people previously convicted of felonies that have served their debt to societyshould be allowed this fundamental right.

We as a society would scream bloody murder if we required priests, rabbis, or pasters to be licensed to preach. We'd be up in arms if we required authors or reporters to be licensed by the state; and have their licenses denied if "they didn't need to be reporting."

We'd be up in arms if we required background checks to buy books; and we denied people the right to buy more than one book a month. What kind of society would we be if we denied felons the right to write books, worship, or read?

Yet, many believe that these types of restrictions are just fine with our 2nd amendment rights.

I don't.
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

txinvestigator wrote:none of those fit my beliefs. You jump from "Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms. "to "Come and take them, cold dead hands etc. " There is a WHOLE lot of room between those two.
Same here.

I think any adult who is not under legal disability should be able to carry any gun anywhere. :smile:

Legal disability has to be defined by the legislature, but I think felons should be fully rehabilitated at some point. Especially when acts like possessing eagle feathers are felonies.

The problem with the "cold dead hands" point of view is illustrated by the tragic fate of Vicki Weaver. We have to win this fight by reason, numbers, and votes. Oh, and dollars.

- Jim
USMC-COL
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Helotes, Texas, USA

Poll

Post by USMC-COL »

I believe anyone not otherwise prohibited by reasonable laws that protect society (sane and no history of a propensity for violence) should be able to own anything he or she desires - PERIOD. I believe there should be a reasonably acceptable minimum standard of training and knowledge of the laws to carry in public - in any manner one chooses.
Respectfully and Semper Fi,
F. Phil Torres
Colonel of Marines, Retired
Independent Security Contractor
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
Unarmed Combat Instructor
NRA Life Member
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Post by anygunanywhere »

What is an acceptable definition of "reasonable". I think most of us here know what the anti's definition is.

To me, having to have a CHL to exercise a right is unreasonable.

I see the value of background checks, and my only problem with the background checks is the current status of the federal bureaucracy including the BATFE and the federal government's long history of infringing.

We have had many discussions regarding an individuals right to forbid firearms on their property. I agree with the private property rights argument except where businesses are open to the public. If you allow Tom, Jane, Richard, and Mary through your front door to shop, then Anygun can pack concealed. Public businesses are not private. My home is private, and by gum you can pack when you come to visit. If a business is insistent on banning firearms, then IMHO they are responsible for each individuals safety and security.

Prohibiting violent felons from legally obtaining firearms seems righteous, but does not work. When non-violent felons have done their time, let them pack. I have argued that even violent felons who have completed their probation and are bejhaving themselves have the right to self defense since God gave them that right, especially in their castle. Felons still have most of their other rights.

The 2A applies to military type firearms more than hunting firearms. The GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934 have done nothing to prevent crime and were laws passed as knee jerk reactions to crime. Preventing private ownership of fully automatic weapons through taxation, registration, regulation, and intimidation is unreasonable and infringement. Besides, nothing wrong with a smooth bourbon, cigar, and your favorite 1911 on the table next to you, and maybe a few grenades in the safe.

The Supreme Court's failure to follow the literal reading, not interpretation of the Constitution and BOR is probably the most abysmal example of how quickly the constitutional republic we call the United States has deteriorated from the institution that our founding fathers fought and died to establish.

The militia mentioned in the 2A is not the national guard. It is not the military. It is us, and has been defined by federal law and has been upheld by SCOTUS in a few of their proper rulings.

Anygun
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar
Crossfire
Moderator
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:27 am
Location: DFW
Contact:

Post by Crossfire »

stevie_d_64 wrote:...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...
And they can get past the kids who will be fighting over who gets what. :lol:

Personally, I'm good with the tank. Does that come in an automatic? Factory air? Leather seats?
Texas LTC Instructor, FFL, IdentoGO Fingerprinting Partner
http://www.Crossfire-Training.com
User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Post by jimlongley »

We should keep in mind that many of the people who wrote the Constitution were involved in one manner or another in the recent revolution against the government of the land, and many had been considered felons by that government.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Post by anygunanywhere »

llwatson wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...
And they can get past the kids who will be fighting over who gets what. :lol:

Personally, I'm good with the tank. Does that come in an automatic? Factory air? Leather seats?
Depleted uranium rounds.

Anygun
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
Locked

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”