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.

Think with me a minute here friend. The right to own any of those things you mention is separate from the intent to use.

Do you really want to go into the field of prior restraint?

If you have no intent to harm any other person and are mentally competent enough to care for and maintain safely why should I care if you have nerve gas (your choice) or anything else?

BCR

Yep! Furthermore you oughta HAVE to prove you're proficient with it periodically. Something on the order of the Swiss model of "Don't mess with us, everyone here could shoot you."

The right to bear arms does not mean, nor do I believe it was intended to mean, to own and keep one in your house for self protectionm, which is teh way it seems to be legally intperpreted of late.

If you have a right to bear arms, I accept no other interpretation than it means to own, possess, carry , hold and use when threatened.

JW

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

I see no need to keep any citizen with intact rights from owning anything that does no harm to other people or that does not infringe on the rights of others.

It is not what I own but what I do with what I own that is important to other people.

Liberals seem not to understand this and want to keep people from owning anything that could be used for harm.


edit: If you have to prove you are proficient with a weapon then they can be taken from you based on someone's opinion of what proficient is. Gun ownership would, therefore, no longer be a right but a privilege.

This is the whole problem with all the gun control mess. The liberals would rather keep guns out of the hands of all citizens than punish those who use them for evil purposes.

Forcing someone, against their wishes, to own a gun is no different than taking one from someone who wishes to keep it. Either is an infringement on their right to decide for themselves.

That's the major problem with anti-gunners. They desire rights, for whatever reason it doesn't matter, over and above those of others.

It doesn't work that way.

And if they don't like the rights enjoyed by people here there are 6 other continents containing over 200 other countries from which they can choose.



The problem there is: who decides? And will their definitions remain the same? or be constantly changing at their own whim?

Many (most actually) in upper level US government desire too much in the area of control. That is a disease that plagues all goverenments. Give an inch, they take a mile. How long until spitting on the sidewalk is a felony? How long until belief that unborn infants have the right to life just like everyone else is considered ravings of the mentally deranged?

Because of your use of the word "If" and your inability to determine the validity of the first part of that sentence.

What's this "a gun" chitt. "a" is singular. I intend to own as many guns as my $s will allow. 2A doesn't limit me to one.

I suppose all males need to be neutered because of their ability to rape women if left intact. Just because you have something does not mean you will use it to harm other people.

No it isn't a right. Anything that can be taken away or infringed isn't a right to my way of thinking, it's a privilege.

Of course it should be a right.

That's very telling, Steelie.

Another 5 pages...

No...it's a right. Someone's physical ability to violate your right doesn't take the right away -- just violates it.

The fact that members of Congress want to violate your rights doesn't give them the right...just the ability.

Dennis

Looks like the 'yeas' have it in this poll thus far.

It's not a right, if folks have to wait 15 days for a gun or can't own certain weapons etc it isn't a right.

It might make you feel good thinking it's such but that's an illusion.

From my own reading of your second amendment - I would have said no (because of the phrasing about "a well-regulated militia" - and all that), but after reading some of your Supreme Court's decisions on "what they really meant" - I can see how it could be.

I think owning a gun should be a universal right - with one caveat.

Once a person uses a gun - to commit a crime - they would loose that right.

For life.

Steelhead, I suppose that there are no rights at all since anything we have or are can be taken away. Our property, our freedom, and our very lives can be taken from us by someone.

I have to say that everyone should have the right to have the means to protect themselves and loved ones period.
The constitution states that in the second amendment, but not everyone wants to have a firearm and that is also guaranteed in the constitution as it is up to each and every person to decide what level of protection they feel safe with from none to the most.
It is the responsibility of those who can deal with the fact that if they shoot someone there is a life that maybe stopped and also that they did the killing. If you can't deal with that then having a firearm is really of no value to you as you will not use it when it is needed to save your life, the life of a loved one or even some innocent person who just is to scared to have a firearm of their own.
I hope that I never have to take a life but if it either me or the baddie that dies I am not going to make it easy for them as long as I am able to have firearms to protect me, mine and the innocent. We are all part of the world family which doesn't recognize race, religion, creed, or nationality and we all should be able to live free and have a long and prosperous life without fear of being robbed, beaten, raped or killed by someone who feels we don't have the right to left alone.

Nope -- you're wrong. Someone's else's actions don't remove the existence of a legal, Cponstitutional right. They may destroy your ability, your possesions, or even your life -- but that doesn't change the Constitution -- just what happenened to you. The 15-day waiting period is a good example. It violates the Constitution and thus your rights, but your rights still exist. They're being violated, but they still exist.

It's a fine distinction in language, but it's a crucial one.

Dennis

This kind of helps....

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Uh... yea

It's as fundamentle as the right to life.

That sounds good to me, and I might believe it, but upon what sort of credibility do you rest that argument? It is because you said so? I think you will have to find something a bit more substantial if you are going to convince the public or SCOTUS.

The only things in my house is the wife and her toys and anyone who says they own their wife is grossly mistaken as in most cases they think they own your azz.

Funny thing in the pole both no votes total only 9% of the total vote which appears to be pretty close to the national average on all other firearm related polls I've seen over time.

Is there a hidden message somewhere in the above statement.

I voted.

Combine the two yes votes and that's 90% for gun ownership.

Absolutely. There are at least two ways to get there, one using natural law and the other using the Declaration of Independence.

Here's the first way.

If you own yourself, then you also own your labor and the things you make with that labor. If you own your labor and its products, then by definition you're the only one with the authority to determine the disposition of that labor and those products. (That's what ownership means.) You have the right to do anything with them that does not violate the rights of ownership someone else has in himself or his labor or the products of his labor.

Therefore, if you decide to consensually trade the products of your labor to someone else in exchange for the products of his labor, no person without an ownership stake in the situation has standing to prevent you.

If the money you wish to spend on nerve gas is yours, and you can find somebody who is willing to trade you nerve gas for it, then the only way a third party can prevent that transaction is by violating both your rights and those of the seller.

Here's the second way. It's a bit simpler, although possessed of significantly less logical rigor.

Does the US government have the right to possess a few quarts of nerve gas or a couple metric tons of cocaine? Yes? Then that right must have been delegated to it by the people. The people must have the right before it can be delegated. Therefore, if the government has the right to possess such things, then the people have that right as well.


See, the thing is, you don't get to decide who has what rights based on what your own personal preferences are. That's not the way rights work.

You can attempt to usurp and suppress rights you'd rather people didn't have, and you can enlist the government to bring its thugs and guns to bear on your behalf, but that doesn't mean those people don't have those rights: just that you're violating them.


Of course.

If you can find a way to do so without violating my ownership of myself, then sure.

(One point that libertarians argue over is whether a person has the right to sell himself into slavery or not.)

You own yourself, true; but every other person owns himself, too.

Basically, there is no such thing as an excessive exercise of liberty. The government's politicians and intellectuals, of course, argue that there is in order to justify taking it away. But whatever they bring up as an example of the excessive exercise of liberty will, upon closer examination, turn out to be not an exercise of liberty at all, but rather the violation of someone else's liberty.

Amen.

The right to something and the power to do it are two very different things.

I didn't say that I was able to convince everyone or even a majority of what I said. I merely stated a fact. Of course I can demonstrate that fact as true, but that's a different question.

It is demonstrated as true by first asking whether the right to life is an accepted premise. Most likely, this premise will be accepted, as there is no more fundamental right, and if life is not a fundamental right, then there is no such thing as a fundamental right. The syllogistic proof from there is a simple matter, and you likely don't need me to hold your hand while I walk you through it.

Exactly. This is an all too common point of confusion.

The big problem is the fact that the original Constitution has been corrupted almost beyond recognition to those that wrote it. The erosion has been slow and insidious akin to the "boiling a frog" example.

Too many people today have no comprehension of what FREEDOM means, It means being responsible for yourself and your actions. My freedom extends right up to yours and I can not FORCE my idea of it on you any more than you can yours on me.

OH THE HORROR! A person actually having to be responsible for what they do and actually paying the consequences of stupid action on their part instead of putting the onus on somebody else or restricting their rights because they "Might" screw up.

Not to mention vilifying and inanimate object for the actions of a stupid person.

It's true.

"Does a person have the right to do X?" is now understood by the general public as "Do you think it's a good idea for the government to allow a person to do X?"

Oh--or another...ah...what's the opposite of "favorite?"...of mine: "Should a person have the right to do X?"

"Should a person have the right?" Should? It's like asking, "Should water be wet?" "Should the sun rise in the east?" "Should the universe exist?" "Should politicians be corrupt?"

Stuff like that just is, should or no should, and the questioner should stop wasting his time on silly questions and go do something productive for a change.

Exactly, Barak. I had the same reaction to the question in the poll in the starting post. The language of "should people have the right to ....?" demonstrates a basic misunderstanding. You either have a right or you don't. There is no should.