Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[YADA]

I voted pro-gun and gun owner …

But more accurately I am a defender of our constitution & all the Amendments including the Second. I have taken the Oath to defend & protect the Constitution several times- most importantly when I was sworn into the USMC and most recently when I accepted a federal position. I take that seriously …

And yes I also possess a conceal/carry permit

 

[migueltojose]

I voted pro-gun and gun owner …

But more accurately I am a defender of our constitution & all the Amendments including the Second. I have taken the Oath to defend & protect the Constitution several times- most importantly when I was sworn into the USMC and most recently when I accepted a federal position. I take that seriously …

And yes I also possess a conceal/carry permit

I suspect you are the type that would neither want nor expect any accolades… so I will keep it brief… especially during this Lenten season… God Bless you, yours and your compadres.

 

[YADA]

The only thing crazier than being Catholic,​

Turn On - to Jesus Christ…

is not being Catholic.​

Drop Out - of the culture of death. .

For me - I really admire this sentiment … May our Lord Jesus - our God Bless you abundantly …Pax Christi

 

[carpenter383]

I chose “other”. I am not a gun owner but I have been in the past and I hope to be again very soon. I am not sure I would call myself “pro-gun” but I am “pro 2nd amendment” and “pro gun ownership” and “pro concealed carry”.

Sounds like you are pro gun to me

 

[carpenter383]

Here in the US we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of the press. We have a Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I am more worried by having a next-door neighbor who subscribes to the New York Times than I am about having a next-door neighbor who owns a shotgun.

Now that was a good one!

 

[Kamaduck]

Let’s get us a poll and some data as to whether or not CAF members are pro-gun. I will not define “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” in my survey.

That’s about it. And, since the poll is anonymous, unless you want to specifically state in your posts, I think I’ll attach gun ownership in there as well.

I voted other, don’t own a gun (and can’t, since I’m a minor). I’m not for or against guns, I just want to see them used responsibly. Stricter laws would be a positive thing in many places.

I’ve been taught how to use a rifle as well as a handgun safely, but have no interest in owning a weapon (even if I were old enough to). Guns aren’t toys, they’re tools that should only be used for defense of self or others, plus hunting or certain sports. The whole point of them is that they’re dangerous. I’ve heard too many stories about children finding their father’s gun and accidentally injuring or killing themselves or a friend.

We use rifles in my JROTC unit, and even though we’re only given ammunition for the air rifles, plus blanks for the other ones, we still get periodic demonstrations of how much damage you can do with just that. We’re all given weeks of training in rifle safety, many of us years of training, and we still get chewed out for breaking procedures, because occasionally it happens. I feel safe enough as long as there are retired military personnel watching us, and people who break rules in dangerous ways can be kicked out of the program. But out there in the wide world? I fail to see how I, as a minor who can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, am made safer by the fact that any random adult can get one. If every adult had to own a gun, I still wouldn’t be particularly safe.

Danger to minors is very much a concern. There are people out there who can and will shoot teenaged males, especially black teenaged males, regardless of what they’ve done, simply because they feel threatened. If the boys are too young to legally own guns, then general gun ownership is NOT going to make them any safer. If people had to take safety courses and general self defense courses, maybe they would just call the police in these situations instead of hauling out their guns and shooting people. The police aren’t always responsible, either, but at least they’ve been trained not to shoot unarmed boys in the heat of the moment.

So… I guess I don’t think we should allow people to buy guns unless we know that, at a minimum, 1) they know how to use them safely, 2) they are going to store them safely, 3) they don’t have a history of misusing guns. If we need licenses to drive cars, the same should hold true for guns. Taking a safety course isn’t going to kill anybody. Basic self-defense courses, for those who wish to use guns for self-defense in urban areas, would also be a good thing.

We can talk about hypothetical political revolutions, but I honestly think that’s pretty ridiculous. Even if we did have “assault” weapons, we’re not going to be able to defeat a force that has access to tanks and drones and missiles. I’m afraid that ship has sailed. If we Americans wanted the civilians to be stronger than the military, we probably shouldn’t have created the most powerful military that has ever existed. We either quit pumping money into it, or have a little faith in the men who defend us.

So, yeah. Guns. I guess we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the issue were simple.

 

[meltzerboy]

I voted other, don’t own a gun (and can’t, since I’m a minor). I’m not for or against guns, I just want to see them used responsibly. Stricter laws would be a positive thing in many places.

I’ve been taught how to use a rifle as well as a handgun safely, but have no interest in owning a weapon (even if I were old enough to). Guns aren’t toys, they’re tools that should only be used for defense of self or others, plus hunting or certain sports. The whole point of them is that they’re dangerous. I’ve heard too many stories about children finding their father’s gun and accidentally injuring or killing themselves or a friend.

We use rifles in my JROTC unit, and even though we’re only given ammunition for the air rifles, plus blanks for the other ones, we still get periodic demonstrations of how much damage you can do with just that. We’re all given weeks of training in rifle safety, many of us years of training, and we still get chewed out for breaking procedures, because occasionally it happens. I feel safe enough as long as there are retired military personnel watching us, and people who break rules in dangerous ways can be kicked out of the program. But out there in the wide world? I fail to see how I, as a minor who can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, am made safer by the fact that any random adult can get one. If every adult had to own a gun, I still wouldn’t be particularly safe.

Danger to minors is very much a concern. There are people out there who can and will shoot teenaged males, especially black teenaged males, regardless of what they’ve done, simply because they feel threatened. If the boys are too young to legally own guns, then general gun ownership is NOT going to make them any safer. If people had to take safety courses and general self defense courses, maybe they would just call the police in these situations instead of hauling out their guns and shooting people. The police aren’t always responsible, either, but at least they’ve been trained not to shoot unarmed boys in the heat of the moment.

So… I guess I don’t think we should allow people to buy guns unless we know that, at a minimum, 1) they know how to use them safely, 2) they are going to store them safely, 3) they don’t have a history of misusing guns. If we need licenses to drive cars, the same should hold true for guns. Taking a safety course isn’t going to kill anybody. Basic self-defense courses, for those who wish to use guns for self-defense in urban areas, would also be a good thing.

We can talk about hypothetical political revolutions, but I honestly think that’s pretty ridiculous. Even if we did have “assault” weapons, we’re not going to be able to defeat a force that has access to tanks and drones and missiles. I’m afraid that ship has sailed. If we Americans wanted the civilians to be stronger than the military, we probably shouldn’t have created the most powerful military that has ever existed. We either quit pumping money into it, or have a little faith in the men who defend us.

So, yeah. Guns. I guess we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the issue were simple.

Great post both in content and style, particularly for a young person like yourself!

 

[Brendan]

I believe there are currently some ambiguous situations especially with regard to the Internet. That’s why the courts have to intervene, and sometimes new laws are enacted by Congress.

Can the government tell the New York Times what articles it can, and cannot, put on it’s webpage?

 

[Brendan]

I
We use rifles in my JROTC unit, and even though we’re only given ammunition for the air rifles, plus blanks for the other ones, we still get periodic demonstrations of how much damage you can do with just that. We’re all given weeks of training in rifle safety, many of us years of training, and we still get chewed out for breaking procedures, because occasionally it happens…

Interestingly enough, I was taught gun safety and how to shoot by the Catholic Church. A seminary in a nearby diocese was in a rural area, and served as a summer camp during the summer.

They had your standard summer camp activities, a lake, horseback riding, arts and crafts…and a rifle range on the seminary grounds.

The staff was the resident priests with seminarians serving as counselors. The Range Officer was a Msgr.

I still remember him teaching me how to clean a .22 bolt action.

 

[meltzerboy]

Can the government tell the New York Times what articles it can, and cannot, put on it’s webpage?

There are limits to free speech and a free press: for example, when the national defense might be put in jeopardy due to revelation of top-secret documents, an issue which has been in the news recently. Free speech carries with it a certain degree of responsibility, as does freedom in general and the freedom to bear arms in particular.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There are limits to free speech and a free press: for example, when the national defense might be put in jeopardy due to revelation of top-secret documents, an issue which has been in the news recently. Free speech carries with it a certain degree of responsibility, as does freedom in general and the freedom to bear arms in particular.

There are tens of thousands of laws and regulations that limit our freedom/right to keep and bear arms. And for what…?

"More Than 40 People Were Shot In Chicago Over Easter Weekend "

huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/federal-unit-chicago-crim_n_5187398.html

Chicago has some of the most strict and draconian gun laws in the Nation…And for what?

Yes, the right to bear arms carries a certain degree of responsibility…but limiting that freedom IN ANY WAY to reduce crime…does not work.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I voted pro-gun and gun owner …

But more accurately I am a defender of our constitution & all the Amendments including the Second. I have taken the Oath to defend & protect the Constitution several times- most importantly when I was sworn into the USMC and most recently when I accepted a federal position. I take that seriously …

And yes I also possess a conceal/carry permit

We have no guns. When my husband came back from Vietnam he said he was “done with guns.” Semper fi

 

[YADA]

We have no guns. When my husband came back from Vietnam he said he was “done with guns.” Semper fi

Easter Blessings to your family.

Semper Fi - I thank your husband for his service …

My family [2 uncles and eldest brother] served a total of 12 tours in Vietnam between them …

Your husband - as are all of us - free to own firearms or not … as I said - I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights … I am sure your family does as well …

Take care of each other … and stay safe …

 

[Dockpost]

Pro Gun.
I read the Constitution as requiring a well regulated militia, and a requirement for a militia is having a gun.
Let not forget that in the 1700’s “well regulated” meant well armed, with weapon, powder, and ball.
All law abiding citizens are required by the Constitution to own a gun, and be ready to use it.

I also believer the Constitution dictates that life begins at conception. But that is another issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pro Gun.
I read the Constitution as requiring a well regulated militia, and a requirement for a militia is having a gun.
Let not forget that in the 1700’s “well regulated” meant well armed, with weapon, powder, and ball.
All law abiding citizens are required by the Constitution to own a gun, and be ready to use it.

If you are justifying gun ownership for defense, by the threat from the conquistadorial King of England or imminent civil war… I support gun ownership for the purpose of a civil militia at the ready.

 

[dixieagle]

Well the gubmint is the people. I live in Australia so not a dictatorship. The pro gun voice is mainly young (and some older) redneck lads of the likes of Oscar Pistorius. Apart from that it is a dead issue and we sigh a collective sigh of relief that sense prevailed here.

I’ve got to say, I’m with you on this one. I live in a state where folks are armed to the teeth and some parents recently had fits because the school board upheld a ban on guns in schools.

I’m fine with folks owning weapons for hunting, but not with handguns and “assault” type weapons. I believe that the Founding Fathers had a specific thing in mind when they mentioned a “well regulated militia” and believe that the Supreme Court has often gotten it wrong on this issue (as they often do.)

I think we’ve gone around the bend with regard to guns in the US and lily-livered politicians are terrified of the NRA.

 

[YADA]

I’ve got to say, I’m with you on this one. I live in a state where folks are armed to the teeth and some parents recently had fits because the school board upheld a ban on guns in schools.

I’m fine with folks owning weapons for hunting, but not with handguns and “assault” type weapons. I believe that the Founding Fathers had a specific thing in mind when they mentioned a “well regulated militia” and believe that the Supreme Court has often gotten it wrong on this issue (as they often do.)

I think we’ve gone around the bend with regard to guns in the US and lily-livered politicians are terrified of the NRA.

And you have read the federalist papers or perform other studies of the intent of our founding father’s writings that you can quote to substantiate your 'belief that they had something specific in mind? … or is this another case where you are just sure that the founding father’s would agree with your narrow understanding of the right to bear arms?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ve got to say, I’m with you on this one. I live in a state where folks are armed to the teeth and some parents recently had fits because the school board upheld a ban on guns in schools.

I’m fine with folks owning weapons for hunting, but not with handguns and “assault” type weapons. I believe that the Founding Fathers had a specific thing in mind when they mentioned a “well regulated militia” and believe that the Supreme Court has often gotten it wrong on this issue (as they often do.)

I think we’ve gone around the bend with regard to guns in the US and lily-livered politicians are terrified of the NRA.

I agree with you that it is reasonable to have a place for guns in society since war is always a realistic possibility and things like hunting, sports and army reserves offer a healthy outlet for gun lovers. However guns for private neighbourhood war is obviously a poisonous policy.

There often seems to be two separate justifications that people rely on that remind me of those kids collector cards that use lenticular printing. One justification is that self defense/criminals with guns/defenseless little old ladies make them necessary. Then we are in the middle of that discussion and the next thing we shift and the justification is that it is a 2nd amendment right to own a gun equivilent to a divine right that can never be questioned because that would bring down all the constitutional rights and hand the country over to the tyrannical government, ‘the criminals’ and the King of England. Prince George is such a scary little scamp, I’ll grant you that.

There needs to be a consensus on why guns belong in neighbourhoods once and for all so that the debate isn’t sliding from one dimension into another without warning.

 

[Annie39]

I agree with you that it is reasonable to have a place for guns in society since war is always a realistic possibility and things like hunting, sports and army reserves offer a healthy outlet for gun lovers. However guns for private neighbourhood war is obviously a poisonous policy.

There often seems to be two separate justifications that people rely on that remind me of those kids collector cards that use lenticular printing. One justification is that self defense/criminals with guns/defenseless little old ladies make them necessary. Then we are in the middle of that discussion and the next thing we shift and the justification is that it is a 2nd amendment right to own a gun equivilent to a divine right that can never be questioned because that would bring down all the constitutional rights and hand the country over to the tyrannical government, ‘the criminals’ and the King of England. Prince George is such a scary little scamp, I’ll grant you that.

There needs to be a consensus on why guns belong in neighbourhoods once and for all so that the debate isn’t sliding from one dimension into another without warning.

I suppose the “little old ladies” comment was meant for me since I told you my age. I would like little young ladies to be able to have self protection. I was a little young lady when a man attempted to kidnap me. Your opinion that “there needs to be a consensus on why guns belong in neighborhoods is an interesting one. On what do you base it? Do you have any idea how many people in the good ole USA have guns and even conceal carry permits? We are not millions of people who possess the same brain. We are each individuals and reasons differ.

We have the militia nuts like a fella named Bundy who with others of like mind stood against the Bureau of Land Management guns aready, the BLM is an arm of the federal government. He claimed that he did not recognize the federal government and that he was a citizen of Nevada (Nevada thinks that it is a member of the USA). A member of his group said that if the BLM started firing they were going to put women and children on the front line. This “little old lady” is appalled. This incident may have been broadcast in Australia. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t.

Then there are the hunters. I don’t understand the mentality of killing animals for sport. It is my opinion that killing animals should be done only if one needs the animal for food or I understand that thinning a herd by killing a few animals is wise.

Next you have gun collectors. Something else I’m not a fan of.
And then there are folks like myself who believe that it is a good thing to have a means of protecting themselves.

There probably are more reasons to have guns and some of the reasons overlap. Like a gun collector is probably in favor of using them for self defense.

Sooo why I ask you again do you believe that there needs to be a consensus?

Annie

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There needs to be a consensus on why guns belong in neighbourhoods once and for all so that the debate isn’t sliding from one dimension into another without warning.

I think the results of the poll conducted by this thread would be a viable consensus…