Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is owning a gun a fundamental American right?

VOTE

If it ain't ... I'll STILL own one ... (or more).

Damn right!

Should be a requirement.

Just like owning a hammer or a pair of pliers.

Yep.

Owning anything is a fundamental human right.

To the extent that somebody else can tell you what you are or aren't allowed to own, you're a slave.

(Or a minor child, of course.)

That's like askin' if takin' a leak is a fundamental American right.

EXACTLY

Barak nailed it. Bob

What a stupid-assed poll. 2 yes answers and 2 no answers.

Yes, I like to think so................547.

Is owning a gun a fundamental American right?

You bet it is and the Bill of Rights confirms it.

Unfortunately, for most of the so-called liberals it does not fit their political agenda. Why? Because they want the state and the supposed "majority" to have control over the individuals.

Why again? Because the more control they have on individuals, the more they can impose their social agenda and their taxes.

But why, why?

I don't know, I guess they are screwed-up form the start and if not, they get screwed-up by their parents and/or the school system.

So, owning a few quarts of nerve gas, or maybe a couple metric tons of cocaine, or any of quite a few other things is a fundamental right?

I think owning a firearms is a fundamental American right. Some of the other stuff, I'm not so sure.

I suppose it goes w/o saying that the fundamental right to own something comes with an equally fundamental right to sell, trade of give that something to someone else (ANYONE else). No?

Well if it doesn't it certainly should. When I give or sell something to someone I do so without strings attached. "Sell it, trade it, trash it or eat it, it's yours". I don't care. I have no say over it because it's no longer mine to control. And the recipient is not mine to control, either.

Only the dictation of a tyrant could take away right. And that, of course, only creates the illusion that it was taken away bcause it's impossible to actually take away a right. You can proclaim it's not a right, and punish people for disobeying your proclamation, but the right still exists none the less. All you've done is prove beyond doubt that you're a tyrant whose willing to commit crimes aginst those you consider your subjects. (there's only 3 crimes. Infringe someone's rights. Injure their person. Damage their property. If it doesn't fit squarely in one of these it was not a crime. Period.)

Lysander Spooner covers it succinctly: "for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree."

If the second amendment doesn't apply to me then neither does the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Maybe the antigunners don't want us to have the other rights either but need to take away the guns first???????????????

Well, then if I can buy and sell anything then I should be able to by and sell something like Barak for instances.


The only way you can reasonably own anything is if you can buy it - not everything is makable, or findable, or takable by everyone so buying it must be at least part of the system.

There are other options that the dictation of a tyrant to take away a right. You are, like it or not, participating in such an option.

Afterall, it is obvious that I do not have a right to buy or sell or own Barak and it is not dictation of a tyrant that prevents me. A restraint upon my natural liberty prevents me from taking Barak's liberty doesn't it? So to, there are reasonable restraints that keep me from a lot of things and some of those might not be so bad. The problem is that simple-minded folks like you, but on the other side of the fence, extend one simplistic thought to everything (like firearms) and make ludicrous statements as though they are obviously correct.

Vote done here! Surprised me how many in 'favor'.

Since the Libtards consider guns a weapon, and since a weapon may be necessary for the "..........life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." thing, I guess Libtards lose the argument.

I also guess that makes Libtards pretty d*mn stupid!

No.
His liberty prevents it.
Your liberty does not include any liberties over and above his liberty. It cannot be a restraint, it doesn't exist to begin with.



Some might not be so bad but they're still of the nature of slavery.

The nature of.



Perhaps.
Or it could just be that you prefer to keep it in a more narrow view... for consience sake.

Yes - for all but felons and mentally deranged.