TexasCHLforum.com

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

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.

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).

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...

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Depleted uranium rounds.

Anygun