Personally, I'm in the Constitutional Carry crowd, and I've always maintained that firearms should be as  common a sight as cell  phones, and ammunition should be available in vending machines or as a side with my large Whopper meal.  On a conceptual level, I think that any gun control at all is an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional.  Of course, I'm a bit of a lunatic about this stuff, based on the fact that I think the term "arms" in the 2A protects my right to keep and bear Stinger missile launchers, mortars, and flamethrowers; and that I should be able, per the US Constitution, to commute to work in a Bradley, Apache, or F-22, if I can afford one. 

Hence, this poll.  Just wanting to see how far out on the fringe of  the 2ahawaii crowd!   

You can own a flamethrower now...they're considered farm implements, not arms.....

You can own a flamethrower now...they're considered farm implements, not arms.....

  Seriously?  Mama's not going to be happy when I price them out and bring one home!

I'm middle of the road.  I think you should be allowed to carry, but have some education on the subject and a minimal qualification (because seeing the guys at Kokohead I think they'd have a hard time shooting a badguy).

It's pretty straightforward, actually.  I am allowed to have whatever I want.  No one else is.  9 billion of you will all have equal rights, and I'll just be the exception that proves the rules.  Whatever that means

I'm middle of the road.  I think you should be allowed to carry, but have some education on the subject and a minimal qualification (because seeing the guys at Kokohead I think they'd have a hard time shooting a badguy).

Since I don't believe we will get 'constitutional carry' as a national standard, I think that permit free carry will become common outside of 'sensitive areas' and training requirements will become required for those sensitive places (schools etc.).

However, there should never be a training requirement for those people with a known threat or need requiring immediate purchase of a handgun or long gun.  In fact, I think the long guns would be harder to use.

Aren't moderate and lax the same thing

Quote from: GZire on August 05, 2011, 08:34:51 PM

I'm middle of the road.  I think you should be allowed to carry, but have some education on the subject and a minimal qualification (because seeing the guys at Kokohead I think they'd have a hard time shooting a badguy).

Since I don't believe we will get 'constitutional carry' as a national standard, I think that permit free carry will become common outside of 'sensitive areas' and training requirements will become required for those sensitive places (schools etc.).

However, there should never be a training requirement for those people with a known threat or need requiring immediate purchase of a handgun or long gun.  In fact, I think the long guns would be harder to use.

In principal I do agree that those in immediate need should not be held up, but it's just so damned scary at times at Kokohead. 

If everyone had a firearm, it would be the same way it is now.. Criminals would still consider every possible venue before engaging in thier profession with the extra added thought of going up against someone thats most likely armed... I chose "NONE"... Some people fantasize about Unicorn's, I fantasize about feeling safe while walking down any street at anytime...peace 

PS: I think we need a "PEACE" icon.. Sometimes it just feels right..

"Bear arms" does not preclude any manner, method, or mode of carry.

If you cn carry it.

I think everyone who wants to vote should be required to own a rifle in a military caliber and demonstrate that they know how to use it.

None.
It is our right.

Honestly, I'm somewhere between lax and none. I believe the constitution says we can keep and bear arms unconditionally, but I understand that we should try to prevent the proven mentally deranged from purchasing a weapon in that condition.

However, if military and law enforcement can use it, we are constitutionally allowed to have it also; that's the "We the people of the United States" part.

The following is from Patrick-2 on Calguns.net.  I felt this was a great look at what we can really expect:

    * RKBA is not limited to the home, but some compelling interest exists outside the home in limited circumstances
    * Sensitive places are those where the gubbermint takes more than token responsibility for your security: if they take your authority to defend yourself, they must accept some responsibility for the outcome. This limits the places they can call 'sensitive' if only because they cannot take responsibility for all government places.
    * Civilian firearm carry can be restricted from private property, including merchants.
    * There will be no massive backlash against those who put up "no carry" signs in coastal urban areas.
    * Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.
    * Anti-gun politicians will still be anti-gun but will move on to other issues because the big fights were won in our favor. Mostly.
    * The federal legislature will step in and set some new national rules on carry, sales and transport of firearms that supposedly comport with the big decisions. Why? Because Congress abhors a vacuum and right now there is no national carry standard.
    * People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.

However, there should never be a training requirement for those people with a known threat or need requiring immediate purchase of a handgun or long gun.  In fact, I think the long guns would be harder to use.

I understand what you mean about those under a direct threat, but still support having a training/qualification requirement in general. People who are in danger are already stressed and putting a gun in their hands is a recipe for getting someone shot just for knocking on a door or pulling over to help. At the very least, they should get some expedited fundamental training.

Quote from: Funtimes on August 05, 2011, 11:28:38 PM

However, there should never be a training requirement for those people with a known threat or need requiring immediate purchase of a handgun or long gun.  In fact, I think the long guns would be harder to use.

I understand what you mean about those under a direct threat, but still support having a training/qualification requirement in general. People who are in danger are already stressed and putting a gun in their hands is a recipe for getting someone shot just for knocking on a door or pulling over to help. At the very least, they should get some expedited fundamental training.

In the end, this will probably be completely unconstitutional.  Sally's boyfriend is going to kill her -- sally needs a gun, next training class is three weeks from now.  Or, Sally can't afford training, but her family will give her the gun.

The answer to both your concerns about not letting idiots have guns contrasted with the constitutionality of requiring training for the exercise of a right is to start including gun safety in the curriculum at grade school.  That way, everyone knows how to handle a gun, so even if by some twist of fate, an immigrant or someone like that manages to attain adulthood without being well-versed in firearms safety, he or she is surrounded by a population who DO know about gun safety, and can show them the way.  You don't *need* to be able to read or write to practice free speech, but it sure helps.  Same should go for guns, IMHO.

gun safety in the curriculum at grade school

+1 
 
Only problem is the intitution would teach all the wrong things about firearms.  Like how they magically possess persons to go and kill innocent people, cause mayhem, and are generally used for nothing but evil purposes.