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

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.