Gun poll

[Sue U]

I am taking the position that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing the right "to keep and bear arms," should be repealed. Imagine that the Second Amendment had never existed. Would you nevertheless believe that every person should have an unqualified right to own firearms? Why or why not? Non-US citizens are encouraged to participate as well.

[Lord Jim]

This is a false choice, (or a strawman, take your pick) since "every person should have an unqualified right to own firearms" is not what the Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment requires...

Hell, not even Wayne LaPierre is arguing that....

Personally I can't vote in a poll where the underlying assumption that the question is based on is incorrect.

[Crackpot]

ditto

[dales]

What LJ and C/P said.

[Miles]

I also agree.

[Sue U]

Tell me exactly what the supposed "false choice" is. This has nothing to do with any Supreme Court ruling. I specifically said you should assume the 2d Amendment did not exist, so there would be no 2d Amendment jurisprudence either. This has to do solely with whether or not you would support a "right" for people to own guns, whether you would restrict gun ownership, how and why.

Why are you dodging the straightforward question?

[Lord Jim]

Oh, okay...

Re:

"every person should have an unqualified right to own firearms"

I'm opposed to that. So is Wayne LaPierre. So is the Supreme Court. So presumably is any minimally sane person.

[Sue U]

Why?

[Andrew D]

Because "every person should have an unqualified right to own firearms" means:

People who have been convicted of armed robbery but have served their time should have an unqualified right to own firearms;

People who have been formally adjudicated to be incapable of telling the difference between extraterrestrial aliens and their nextdoor neighbors should have an unqualified right to own firearms;

Etc.

[Andrew D]

Perhaps a thread on the topic

whether you would restrict gun ownership, how and why

would yield more interesting and more meaningful results ....

[Joe Guy]

If there was no longer a 2nd amendment, I would still believe that people have the right to own firearms with certain restrictions. I don’t see the logic in keeping firearms from everyone because there are some people who use them to do bad things

You and Louie are arguing that the 2nd amendment is outdated but you are basing your opinion on the meaning in the context of the times in which it was written, which is no longer applicable.

The Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd amendment a few years as giving individuals the right to bear arms “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense….”

There will always be people who believe the government intends to take firearms away from everyone and turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany. There will also be those who believe nobody needs to own a firearm.

There are also people who believe that firearms are here and they aren’t going to disappear, so we need to deal with reality, not dream about how it would be if reality wasn’t an issue.

[Lord Jim]

Because "every person should have an unqualified right to own firearms" means:

People who have been convicted of armed robbery but have served their time should have an unqualified right to own firearms;

People who have been formally adjudicated to be incapable of telling the difference between extraterrestrial aliens and their next door neighbors should have an unqualified right to own firearms;

Etc.

I would add to that that in addition to the problem with "every person" there is also the problem with "unqualified"....

Which presumably would include machine guns, bazookas, shoulder held missiles....

Sue, to answer your earlier question, here's what makes the issue, as you've posed it, a false choice:

Here again is the poll question:

Assuming no 2d Amendment, should every individual have an unqualified right to own guns?

The clear implication of the way that is phrased is that The Second Amendment somehow provides that "every individual have an unqualified right to own guns" ; otherwise, why would it be necessary to "assume" the absence of the amendment in order to oppose the concept of every individual having an unqualified right to own guns?

To draw an analogy:

If I started a poll on the question:

"Absent the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, should every individual have an unqualified right to express their religion?"....

You would very likely ( and quite rightly) say that I was setting up a false choice or a strawman, since the Supreme Court has made clear that the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment does not require or guarantee that....

[Lord Jim]

Context is also important, so I think that it's worth pointing out that your inspiration for starting this thread clearly springs from a comment you made earlier in another thread:

... those who hold fringe views like Sue's regarding private gun ownership

I don't think it's a "fringe view" at all. Ask around the board -- and ask your friends. Ask whether if there were no Second Amendment, would they still think that everyone who wants to should have a right to have guns, and why or why not.

Laying this thread against that context, I strongly suspect that your objective in starting this thread was to at the end of the day total up all the "no" votes and declare them as supporters of repeal of the Second Amendment....

The problem with that of course, is that one could be as absolutist an interpreter of The Second Amendment as Wayne LaPierre, and still vote no in your poll...

[Sue U]

I strongly suspect that your objective in starting this thread was to at the end of the day total up all the "no" votes and declare them as supporters of repeal of the Second Amendment....

I started this thread and asked the question the way I did in order to elicit responses indicating whether people felt that owning guns is a "right" and describing what restrictions, if any, should be applied to gun ownership. It was for the purpose of discussing whether there is any justification for treating gun ownership as some sort of special right, what those justifications might be, and whether there are countervailing considerations. Obviously, the more restrictions and qualifications you put on a "right" the less of a "right" it is, and at some point becomes merely a license. There are plenty of (democratic) countries that do not treat guns the way we do in the US. I want to make this issue as basic and uncluttered as possible to understand what underlies the apparent obsession with guns in this country. Yes, I have an opinion on the issue: drastically reducing the types and availability of guns as a whole would be a very good idea, and it would also be a good idea to eliminate any impediments to that goal.

Perhaps a thread on the topic

whether you would restrict gun ownership, how and why

would yield more interesting and more meaningful results ....

If that works for you, then fine. However, I am also interested in why people think gun ownership should or shouldn't be a special "right."

[rubato]

I don't think there is a natural right to own a gun; which is what I think you're getting at. And I don't think there is a very strong argument that we ought to create such a right because of the benefits it would bring to society, like the 'right' to a patent. (There is no inherent reason that person 1 who filed a patent before person 2 should have exclusive right to practice something which both might have invented independently.)

In practical terms I think we should regulate gun ownership by registering guns and requiring people to pay an annual fee for a license.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I need a gun so I can shoot anyone who tries to take it away!

And the question is set up in similar ways to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?"

Anyone who believes that gun-ownership is acceptable BUT that there should be some restrictions (e.g. no Gatling guns) can not answer either Yes" or "No" to the poll question.

Only people who believe in either NO restriction whatever and those who believe guns should be absolutely banned can answer the question truthfully.

I voted "Yes" because I'll take a risk of my neighbour with the Stinger (practising my quick draw and pre-emptive strike readiness) rather than support a total ban. Of course gub'mints want guns banned except for the ones that they have.

Besides, I'm a general.

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

What others have said, it's pretty much unanswerable.

I do think it's funny that I can (and did) go and buy a rifle without much bother, but when I went to get a hunting license, I first had to take (and pass) a hunting safety course.

I do believe that any gun purchaser should have to pass a gun safety course and background check. As far as registering all guns, I don't think I want that.

[Guinevere]

I don't think anyone has an unqualified right to a gun without or without the Second Amendment. We limit and restrict fundamental rights every day, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that makes it immune from such limits or restrictions.

[Big RR]

I can't argue with that, Guin.

[Lord Jim]

Nor can I.