Do you believe that mentally ill people should be allowed to have guns?
What about ex-cons who were in prison for violent crimes?
Should 8 year olds be allowed to buy and own their own guns?
The 2nd amendment isn't just about guns. It talks about "arms". Arms means weapons. Not just guns. So should people be allowed to have things like dirty bombs? Chemical weapons? Bus loads of TNT?
Should mentally ill people be allowed to have guns? What about ex-cons?
The answer to both of these is the same. If a person is too violently dangerous to own a firearm if they choose, then they are too dangerous to be roaming free.
That is: if we, as a society, determine that a person is mentally ill enough to be a danger to society if they obtain a firearm, then that person is too big of a danger to society period. They can obtain a firearm illegally, they can use a different weapon, etc. Likewise, if we trust a person to not be dangerous enough to be locked up, then we should be able to trust them with a firearm if they choose to buy one.
Should 8 year olds be allowed to buy and own their own guns?
Yes. This should be the parent's decision, of course. And, with that, it seems reasonable that any crime the kid commits the parent may be held responsible, depending on the circumstances, of course. It doesn't make sense for the government to be drawing that line.
Should people be allowed to have things like dirty bombs? Chemical weapons? Bus loads of TNT?
Yes.
Although, a reasonable interpretation of the second amendment and the actual spirit of the amendment could provide for the government to ban any weapons they themselves also will not have. That is: you could reasonably make a law that says the military and police may not have dirty bombs, and therefore the people may not, either. I'm not saying I would agree with this interpretation, but it is reasonable.
I think the biggest difference between people who support gun control, to any extent, and people who don't is how much they trust their fellow man. I recognize that it is not access to firearms and weapons that is keeping society civil. It is our own instincts to not want to violently harm others.
Liberals especially don't understand this. They imagine that having a firearm in your waistband makes you instantly prone to shooting someone if you get upset. They recognize that, if they had a weapon, they'd have to defy every instinct in their body to be able to pull that gun out and shoot someone, but, for some reason, don't believe everyone else has those same instincts.
Agreed. We need to remove all 2nd amendment infringing legislation
Do you believe that mentally ill people should be allowed to have guns?
What about ex-cons who were in prison for violent crimes?
Should 8 year olds be allowed to buy and own their own guns?
The 2nd amendment isn't just about guns. It talks about "arms". Arms means weapons. Not just guns. So should people be allowed to have things like dirty bombs? Chemical weapons? Bus loads of TNT?
Yes to all.
Ok
Murder is already a crime.
True.
The answer to both of these is the same. If a person is too violently dangerous to own a firearm if they choose, then they are too dangerous to be roaming free.
That is: if we, as a society, determine that a person is mentally ill enough to be a danger to society if they obtain a firearm, then that person is too big of a danger to society period. They can obtain a firearm illegally, they can use a different weapon, etc. Likewise, if we trust a person to not be dangerous enough to be locked up, then we should be able to trust them with a firearm if they choose to buy one.
Yes. This should be the parent's decision, of course. And, with that, it seems reasonable that any crime the kid commits the parent may be held responsible, depending on the circumstances, of course. It doesn't make sense for the government to be drawing that line.
Yes.
Although, a reasonable interpretation of the second amendment and the actual spirit of the amendment could provide for the government to ban any weapons they themselves also will not have. That is: you could reasonably make a law that says the military and police may not have dirty bombs, and therefore the people may not, either. I'm not saying I would agree with this interpretation, but it is reasonable.
I think the biggest difference between people who support gun control, to any extent, and people who don't is how much they trust their fellow man. I recognize that it is not access to firearms and weapons that is keeping society civil. It is our own instincts to not want to violently harm others.
Liberals especially don't understand this. They imagine that having a firearm in your waistband makes you instantly prone to shooting someone if you get upset. They recognize that, if they had a weapon, they'd have to defy every instinct in their body to be able to pull that gun out and shoot someone, but, for some reason, don't believe everyone else has those same instincts.
Good points.