This is inspired by a conversation I’m having with Dave in FL.
He accuses me of being a leftist with regard to gun policy and dug up an old post of mine showing where I intend to limit the rights of gun ownership, this labeling me as a leftist on gun policy. The position is defined as follows:
I believe that guns should be allowed up to the point of reasonable self defense.
This position says nothing about locks, safes, conceled carry, 5 day waiting periods, or registration. It also doesn’t say anything about the how the 2nd amendment should be interpereted. In addition, just in case there is any confusion, it doesn’t say that they should be banned anywhere.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Michael Moore Liberal and 10 being Ted Nugent Conservative, where do YOU think this position fits on that scale.
Feel free to offer your own once sentence belief and where you think your own beliefs fit on the scale (Dave, you first).
This thread has less to do with what the gun laws should be and more to do with where people interperate their own beliefs to fit in relative to society.
I guess I should start: ** I believe my position to be a 4;** just left of center.
I agree with your statement and place you at about 5 (middle of the road, common sense). Why so many people use guns as a penile substitute is beyond me. And I’m not just talking about rednecks. There are plenty of dazzling urbanites who fit that description as well.
I believe that guns should be allowed up to the point of reasonable self defense.
I can’t make a judgment because I’m not sure what that means. Does this mean the only reason a person should “be allowed” is for self defense or any reason that you would determine “Less important” than self defense. What are these “Points leading up to” a reasonable self defense.
In short color me confused as I have no idea what that means and anything I try to pull from it would merely be my interpretation of what it means.
If I interpreted as I read it it would mean a person should be allowed to have a gun for self defense purposes and any conditions leading up to a “Reasonable self defense” in your opinion. I’m guessing this would call into play such conditions as “Conceal and carry” and “Type of gun” etc.
I have no idea how self defense deals with other issues such as hunters, hobbiest, etc nor do I know how it deals with “Type of guns” in those conditions.
I think that you said this on a thread that I started.
*** An individual’s right to own and keep knives, swords, bows, axes, and muskets on private property***
The tough part about your statement below is the definition of reasonable. I work with guys that fully believe (no joke) that not allowing them access to WMD is an infringement on their liberty…and that until they use said WMD they should be allowed them. Of course they need them in order to rise against the government, if they believe that a “case could be made”.
I believe that guns should be allowed up to the point of reasonable self defense.
I think a big divide in the gun-rights debate is caught up in the rural vs. urban environment. There is a very different perception of firearms in rural areas then there is in urban areas.
I can’t make a judgment because I’m not sure what that means. Does this mean the only reason a person should “be allowed” is for self defense or any reason that you would determine “Less important” than self defense. What are these “Points leading up to” a reasonable self defense.
In short color me confused as I have no idea what that means and anything I try to pull from it would merely be my interpretation of what it means.
If I interpreted as I read it it would mean a person should be allowed to have a gun for self defense purposes and any conditions leading up to a “Reasonable self defense” in your opinion. I’m guessing this would call into play such conditions as “Conceal and carry” and “Type of gun” etc.
I have no idea how self defense deals with other issues such as hunters, hobbiest, etc nor do I know how it deals with “Type of guns” in those conditions.
Self defense and anything leading up to self defense. This would include, but not limited to hunting, target shooting, antique collecting, etc.
What it would limit would be automatics and, potentially high capacity semi-autos (which could be limited via magazine size).
I have no problem with conceled carry as most current laws stand on the issue.
I also don’t have a problem with special permits for the guns I mentioned above, which isn’t much different than today’s standards.
I also don’t have a problem with having the laws pertain differently to differetnt locations. I’ve always said that there is more need guns as a means of personal safety in a rural setting than in a suburban one. What does that mean? It would depend, but for example, a shotgun and/or a short barreled pistol is more than sufficient in my town home community yet a riffle would be necessary on a large farm.
I believe that guns should be allowed up to the point of reasonable self defense.
Barry,
That’s all fine and dandy, but said gun in the house for use in self defense, has a greater percentage of being used on you than on anyone breaking into your house. Then their is the whole issue of actually using a gun if you are ever in that situation - I mean how many people other than police officers and armed forces personnel, have the training and experience of actually using a firearm in a defensive situation - even if they could get to it in time.
My Mother and Step-father were burgled by armed robbers a few years ago - it all happened so quickly that their really was no time to react - and my Step-Father is a former British Army Officer and knows his way around a gun!
I said that you own guns and yet want to limit gun ownership by others. You got all bowed up and challenged me to find “one single example” where you stated that.
I did a 30 second search and found this post…among a host of others.
You clearly *do *support limiting the rights of others to own guns, including an entire class of guns based solely on the manner in which the round is fed into the chamber.
Now, as for me, I’ll put myself at a 7 or 8 on your 10 point scale. But I’d also offer that there are some real nut jobs out there waaaaayyyy to the right of Ted Nugent when it comes to guns!
I also don’t have a problem with special permits for the guns I mentioned above, which isn’t much different than today’s standards.
Guns you mentioned above as in you would allow assault rifles with special permits?
If you’re claiming an all out ban on assault rifles etc etc I would put you at a 4 or 5. If you’re allowing assault rifles etc with special permits then probably 6-7, to the right, not left.
I’m probably a 7-8. I think anyone should be allowed to own anything. But should also be forced to get permits and show competency with whatever weapon they chose to buy as well as show provisions for the safety of that weapon.
A BB gun needs to be “Kept away from children”. A nuclear bomb needs to be kept away from anyone who would come after it.
You clearly *do *support limiting the rights of others to own guns, including an entire class of guns based solely on the manner in which the round is fed into the chamber.
That is NOT remotely true. You need to learn how to read!!! I told you that if I was capable of waving a hand…get it…magic…if I was capable of performing magic and makign semi-autos disappear including including any memory of the existence of them that I would because I believe that the world would be a safer place. I’d do a lot of radical things if I could perform magic. I’d make us all be the same race and speak the same langauge. I’d eliminate the desire to have unprotected sex or the desire to have abortions. I’d fill people with charitable tendencies and work ethics. I’d eliminate aids and down syndrome.
But since I am incapable of magicaly changing the history of the universe I will do none of that, including removing your legal right to own a semi-auto gun.
You identinfied yourself as a 7 or 8. Where is my position as stated above, in your opinion? 1? 2?
That’s all fine and dandy, but said gun in the house for use in self defense, has a greater percentage of being used on you than on anyone breaking into your house. Then their is the whole issue of actually using a gun if you are ever in that situation - I mean how many people other than police officers and armed forces personnel, have the training and experience of actually using a firearm in a defensive situation - even if they could get to it in time.
My Mother and Step-father were burgled by armed robbers a few years ago - it all happened so quickly that their really was no time to react - and my Step-Father is a former British Army Officer and knows his way around a gun!
Fleck, that’s all fine and dandy and I respect your opinion. However, I asked how you would rank my position on a scale of 1 to 10 and how you would rank your own. Can you please answer so that we can get some data points? Thanks.
