What amount of "gun control" is proper?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • manwithnoname

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2012
    410
    16
    I came across this from a poster in another section of the forum re: the smoking ban in Indianapolis:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 88GT
    "I don't see that you do. Or rather, I don't see regulating others' behaviors as a direct means of providing you with something as a right. I see this argument as functionally equivalent to a "right" to an education, a "right" to adequate housing, a "right" to a job.

    Rights are a freedom to act. If it's a thing or a condition that you are claiming is a right, I don't think "right" is being used correctly. You have a right to breathe clean air, but only inasmuch as you should be unfettered by others and government to seek it out in a free market environment, whatever form that market takes. Just like you have a right to an education in that no one can forcefully prohibit you from taking action to getting one, but not to the point where we have to regulate their behaviors such that those regulated behaviors are what enables you to get an education."

    It got me to thinking about the natural rights documented in the Second Amendment:

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    It also got me to thinking about how a right is a right... or it is something else.

    I have long been a proponent of repealing all gun laws. After all, keeping and bearing arms is a right.

    What say you folks her, you "ever vigilant defenders of Liberty"?
     

    shibumiseeker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Nov 11, 2009
    10,708
    113
    near Bedford on a whole lot of land.
    I think that my right to defend myself is a natural right and it's great that the Constitution enumerates that right, but I don't derive my right to arm myself from that document. I do point out to the people whose jobs are ultimately controlled my that document that the words "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear.
     

    TaunTaun

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 21, 2011
    2,027
    48
    Gun Control = Using two hands

    an exception to this is when you only have one hand available to fire.
     

    manwithnoname

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2012
    410
    16
    I think that my right to defend myself is a natural right and it's great that the Constitution enumerates that right, but I don't derive my right to arm myself from that document. I do point out to the people whose jobs are ultimately controlled my that document that the words "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear.

    I agree.

    As I said, the natural right is simply documented by the Constitution. It is not granted by the Constitution. The right exists even if the Constitution does not. The Constitution is to restrict the state from infringing upon that right.

    Again, this is why I advocate for the repeal of gun laws..
     

    longbarrel

    Expert
    Rating - 91.7%
    22   2   0
    Nov 1, 2008
    1,360
    38
    Central Indiana
    No convicted "violent criminals" except for battery(domestic not included). Any private place/dwelling that does not prefer firearms. And Federal property. Don't believe in last one but????
     

    lester

    Sharpshooter
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 8, 2008
    393
    18
    Greencastle
    My right to defense ends at your right to property. Gun control is limited to that property which I may use guns to deprive of you. Since I have no intent to deprive you of property (your belongings or your life), it is against the principle of liberty for you to deprive me of arms.
     

    stockmaker

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 22, 2012
    48
    6
    It's scary to me that they want to control guns for the same reasons our forefathers added the 2nd amendment in the first place. The whole reason was to keep the gov in check. Now they argue that the citizens our better armed then police. I don't remember reading anywhere that the right to bare arms exists unless weapons advance .
     

    Project972

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 18, 2010
    207
    16
    I'll make your day. have you heard that berry has been buying tanks and artilery for resvs and leos for the last two years. you can get hurt both way s with artillary. i'm beginning to think he dose'nt like us.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    None whatsoever. As for felons, violent or otherwise, if they are too dangerous to live as free citizens, then they need to be in prison or executed. Second-class status is not acceptable. If we tolerate this, we will find that the .gov will invent a way to reclassify everyone as a second-class citizen deprived of constitutional rights.
     
    Top Bottom